Lenny_da_Hog: It's not like the Republican who owned the drug-testing companies passing laws for mandatory drug surveillance.

It's not like the Republican who's had five wives and a bit on the side going on record saying divorce should be illegal.

Hey, it's a blind trust, so it's not like he said, "Hey, I'mma invest in the sum total of human misery!"

After all, who doesn't have some money tied up in blind trusts that you have no control over? He's just a regular Joe, slogging away in the trenches, grinding his dollars one investment at a time, just like Kate, mother of four, who puts in her time at the Dollar Tree--her bank invests in some odd things, and her money is IN the bank, so it's practically the same thing...

No big whoop. You wanna fight about it?

So what you're telling me is that Romney holds interests in a company designed to monitor the whereabouts of socialists and communists, and this is a bad thing? Lol.

Mike_LowELL: So what you're telling me is that Romney holds interests in a company designed to monitor the whereabouts of socialists and communists, and this is a bad thing? Lol.

Eh, not your best work, Mike. Succinct, though, I like that.

More_Like_A_Stain: Ellen DeGeneris

Is that part of the 2.0 production release?

jjorsett: ) It's a blind trust, meaning Romney presumably had no idea what was in it, nor does he have any control over what Bain Capital does.

You might be on to something.

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, seized the opportunity to hit back at Romney, who has sharply assailed the president's policy towards China: "Mitt Romney has criticized President Obama on the campaign trail for putting economic interests ahead of human rights in China. But this new revelation about Romney's financial interest in a Chinese surveillance company suggests that Romney is not living up to his own publicly-stated values."

"Mitt Romney seems to play by one set of rules on the campaign trail but has another set of rules for his own finances," she said in a statement the campaign emailed to Yahoo News.

"Now we know why Mitt Romney has been less than forthcoming about the details of his finances. This revelation not only highlights Romney's utter hypocrisy on China, but it also raises more questions about what his investments are and why he won't reveal all of them," Cutter said.

You claim to want to raise the level of the debate, then you pull this shiat. You jump on him over a minor stake in a blind trust and then wonder why he's reluctant to provide MORE ammunition for you to make tenuous links? I'm no Romney fan, but this is pretty farking stupid. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find something substantive to point out his hypocrisy; this is flat-out laziness.

To burst the attempts of Romney to play the Everyman?

Nah, this is pretty much exactly the time to seize on it...

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Seriously, though, how does this even play into the "everyman" thing? I'm not seeing the connection. Moralist, yes... everyman, no.

So he's being completely wrong in a vain attempt to paint himself as a complete and utter calculating sh*tstain of an asshole, as opposed to a vaguely pandering asshole?

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: hubiestubert: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, seized the opportunity to hit back at Romney, who has sharply assailed the president's policy towards China: "Mitt Romney has criticized President Obama on the campaign trail for putting economic interests ahead of human rights in China. But this new revelation about Romney's financial interest in a Chinese surveillance company suggests that Romney is not living up to his own publicly-stated values."

"Mitt Romney seems to play by one set of rules on the campaign trail but has another set of rules for his own finances," she said in a statement the campaign emailed to Yahoo News.

"Now we know why Mitt Romney has been less than forthcoming about the details of his finances. This revelation not only highlights Romney's utter hypocrisy on China, but it also raises more questions about what his investments are and why he won't reveal all of them," Cutter said.

You claim to want to raise the level of the debate, then you pull this shiat. You jump on him over a minor stake in a blind trust and then wonder why he's reluctant to provide MORE ammunition for you to make tenuous links? I'm no Romney fan, but this is pretty farking stupid. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find something substantive to point out his hypocrisy; this is flat-out laziness.

To burst the attempts of Romney to play the Everyman?

Nah, this is pretty much exactly the time to seize on it...

Yeah, because he's done such a bang-up job so far of convincing everyone, and no one else has called him on it. This is precisely the thing wherein they'll catch the conscience of the king.

Seriously, though, how does this even play into the "everyman" thing? I'm not seeing the connection. Moralist, yes... everyman, no.

Keeping up the pressure on the perception that Romney is out of touch is the point.

His own attempts to moralize, while tacitly or even overtly supporting such things in the past, that's the point. The man talks out of both sides of his mouth, and folks are supposed to only notice just the one?

This isn't damning by itself. It only helps to confirm pattern.

randomjsa: Oh I just love when liberals play selective moral equivalence.

So basically, Limbaugh making sexist and derogatory comments about Sandra Fluke prompts a call from the White House while taking money from Bill Maher, and that's all fine, because... Well um... It's just different when a liber.. er I mean a 'comedian' does it.

When Romney is critical of Obama's track record on promoting human rights in China, which is something worth being critical of, liberals run around playing 'gotcha!' over the fact that as part of a wide array of holdings Romney has some holdings in a Chinese surveillance company?

Whose not doing their job as leader of a free world here?

God knows you're a worthless troll and probably not worth this effort, but can you tell me any difference between Sandra Fluke and Sarah Palin? Ever read NY Times v. Sullivan? The rationale they use for making it harder for a public figure to win a libel suit is based partly on the chilling effect such suits could have on First Amendment Freedoms of the press and partly because they figure that public figures have more ready access than private citizens to public forums such as the broadcast airwaves to rebut the libelous statement.

Now lets contrast a 30-something law student with an ex-governor with HER OWN TV SHOW. Which one needs greater libel protection?

and then while we're deconstructing the false equivalency you all have created , let's examine the content of Limbaugh and Maher's statements

LImbaugh falsely asserted that Sandra Fluke DOES something (has large amounts of sex), and is a criminal (prostitute)

Maher called Palin several unpleasant NAMES that say more about Maher's filthy mouth than they imply behavior on Palin's part

Mike_LowELL: So what you're telling me is that Romney holds interests in a company designed to monitor the whereabouts of socialists and communists, and this is a bad thing? Lol.

Well, when you put it that way....

Wait, what?

randomjsa: liberals run around playing 'gotcha!' over the fact that as part of a wide array of holdings Romney has some holdings in a Chinese surveillance company?

Bain BOUGHT the division. It's not just one of dozens of stocks. They bought the thing because it's profitable to be a supplier of surveillance gear to a one-party state. Just ask whoever supplies Joe Arpaio's department with riot gear.

Mike_LowELL: So what you're telling me is that Romney holds interests in a company designed to monitor the whereabouts of socialists and communists, and this is a bad thing? Lol.

You are getting much, much better.

bestie1: The article is complete bs:
1) When did Romney criticize O'Bama about China and what did he say?
2) Romney left Bain in 1999 to chair the Olympics. He never went back. Whether or not he Bain did anything wrong, Romney hasn't been anything more than an investor since then.

The whole point is to introduce the smear that Romney supports totalitarian govts and it makes it points with some weak ass connections. "Well you know Romney and Bain and Bain and Romney ... China and Hitler ... the Greater Good.... hoo hoo hah we can all agree on that! Hooora!".

Isn't it awesome? The GOP is getting their asses handed to them, and it is fantastic!

randomjsa: Oh I just love when liberals play selective moral equivalence.

So basically, Limbaugh making sexist and derogatory comments about Sandra Fluke prompts a call from the White House while taking money from Bill Maher, and that's all fine, because... Well um... It's just different when a liber.. er I mean a 'comedian' does it.

When Romney is critical of Obama's track record on promoting human rights in China, which is something worth being critical of, liberals run around playing 'gotcha!' over the fact that as part of a wide array of holdings Romney has some holdings in a Chinese surveillance company?

Whose not doing their job as leader of a free world here?

Well, Karl Rove and company set the new rules. It does suck for the GOP that Obama is able to play the game better, but that is whay you get for letting asshats set the political climate.

jpo2269: I will make my left leaning friends a deal. I will get outraged over this when China has improved its human rights record to such a level that surveillance cameras in their major cities makes it into the top-5 crimes against humanity the Chinese Government commits.

Of course, if setting up surveillance cameras in your cities is the sign of a major human rights violation and given that there are very few areas in London and other major UK cities. Did our "Dear Leader" push PM Cameron to stop oppressing his people?

/I hate surveillance cameras that are not protecting private property

Deal. In fact, London was one of my first thoughts when this header came up. Most of Europe, in fact, is so heavily scrutinized that singling out China for watching its citizens (compared to all the other things China does) is like a bad SNL joke gone wrong.

that's the problem with 401k's and such 'blind' investments. maximum profits equal poorly paid third-world children. that's no way to run an economy, man.