'I like being able to fire people'

Even if he's talking about George W. Bush, he wasn't a businessman. He was a business insider who needed a bunch of government welfare to make his business viable. That's not a real businessman.

A real businessman takes risks with his own money or time (not the taxpayers') and manages it into a successful enterprise. Bush never did anything like that.
 
George Bush isn't running, because he already won the maximum amount of terms. Sorry about that.

Barack Obama has no business experience and is running. Hope that helps.
 
Question for all you "the president needs to have a business background" fetishist. Who was the last president who had such a background? Bush? Hoover?
 
I think they should have experience in business and in the military. I know I'm rather picky but it is kind of an important gig.
 
We need someone who can lead and build consensus. If that's a business person, so be it.

Obama is not that guy and I'm not sure I see any Rs running right now who would be either. No matter who wins in 2012, there will be grid lock on the biggest issues facing this nation.

So yeah, let's get our titties in a wad about fictitious state bans on contraception, comments willfully taken out of context and whether Michelle Obama is mean to the WH staff.
 
People seem to be quoting him out of context. I'm pretty sure he means he likes to get rid of the services he feels are under performing services ... not that he just likes to fire people for the fun of it.
 
"With regards to their ads, I haven't seen them."
— Mitt Romney on super PAC anti-Gingrich ads


"The ad I saw said that you'd been forced out of the speakership. That was correct."
— Romney, moments later
 
At this point I would settle with someone that could sit down and have a meeting with someone and work together to come up with an agreement. I don't think we need a Tweeter in Chief.
 
Romney at a cut-throat bottom line business guys laying off Americans is fair game. That might speak to how he thinks a resident of the White House might create jobs, or allow them to lie fallow, etc.

I suppose that it is interesting that political chicanery will so obviously remove the statements of its players from proper context for the express purpose of smearing the speaker, but then again we already knew that.

The statement about firing people should not be roughly abducted from its context and then, in that adducted form, used as the backbone for conversations about his position for creating jobs.

Too much to ask for.
 
Insurance companies like to fire customers who begin to cost more than they bring in. The only purpose of insurance companies is to milk money out of the healthy.
 
there should probably have been a law stating insurance companies can't go public. the bottom line becomes share value, not servicing your policy holders. maybe that idea leans to the left, but it would be more policy holder friendly better Obamacare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top