dr_blasto: El_Frijole_Blanco: The ad does not say Romney killed the guys wife it says he does not give a flying Fark what his profit margin means to your family

And the ad is absolutely correct.

Which is why the GOP turned the derp up to 12 to try to discredit it.

Sending people to their death to bump your quarterly statement is a pretty routine event in business, whether it's direct like Don Blankenship rigging a coal mine to explode and burning people to death, or indirect like Mitt Romney's hand in killing this woman. Shareholders uber alles.

This is one of those things where the thrust of the ad is correct, that not having some kind of universal health care will lead to more deaths. But that's abstract and research shows that the abstract needs a stand-in personal story to be effective. So you wind up with this ad, which frankly goes to far when you are pointing the finger at Romney, when the real fault is systemic. A CEO cannot think of the people he "kills" when deciding to lay people off. Otherwise, there would never be layoffs, and that's clearly not desirable (see Japan), as the economic stagnation would cause deaths that probably exceed the ones from layoffs. However, Romney has now supported a position that leads to layoffs helping to cause deaths in a small number of cases (no universal health care), so you can tie that to him, I guess.

Dunno, seems a little tone-deaf to me.

BojanglesPaladin: whidbey: Every post appears to look at everything from the center, butyou'll notice never any actual condemnation of Republicans.

Then you don't know how to read. Or (as I know to be the problem in your particular case) you just choose not to see).

But as you were. Neither of you are correcting a simple question of fact as to who exactly was running Bain at the time of the layoffs.

I didn;t believe the Farker who said it wasn't Romeny, and I didn't believe the Farker who said he was full of shiat. But only one provided a cite.

I'll go look into it, since you are too busy wasting pixels with name calling slap-fight silliness.

You do the same shiat every election season. You are a concern troll. Change your login if you don't want to be called out.

Otto_E_Rodika: Headso: Otto_E_Rodika: Which of these facts would you care to dispute?

Looks like you really spent some time, or someone did, to get to the bottom of this campaign ad. The superPACs willl just move onto another ad and nobody will care about all the effort debunking and you'll have to put it all sorts of effort to debunk the next ad. Lying/using extremist rhetoric and then not responding to correct information has been a winning strategy for "conservatives" and now it is being co-opted by the democrats.

Ah, so you are admitting to lying now, but rationalizing it as "they did it first". So the new liberal "winning strategy" is to use this woman's rotting corpse to further the cause, regardless of the truth. Well done. You make liberals everywhere proud.

I wish I had the bucks to be funding a superPAC but it wasn't me that made the ad. The new democratic party winning strategy is the old republican winning strategy. Which is why people like you are suddenly concerned about this kind of rhetoric in politics, you know from experience that it works.

That's nothing, the last Republican in the White House killed thousands of Americans...

ManRay: Dusk-You-n-Me: ROMNEY 2012 - REARRANGE YOUR FINANCES

It's called being responsible for my own health and placing an importance on it above other things.

RMONEY 2012: THE ACCIDENT OF BIRTH HEALTH CARE PLAN

If you're accidentally born without certain opportunities then you may not be eligible for health care

LRA61380: Bontesla: LRA61380: If this ad were a defense of Obamacare, then okay, it makes sense. Obamacare would have helped this woman get and keep insurance despite her condition, and she likely would have chosen to get insurance despite not having any through her employer. The part that is distasteful is that it tries to relate the Bain lay-offs to her cancer, which is a bit of a "Butterfly Effect" as someone put it earlier.

Why is it distasteful?

Because the connection between the layoffs and her death is so far removed. I say this as a liberal/Democrat/Obama-supporter. The Republicans have done far worse, but it still troubles me to see this kind of attack by the Dems, which is just silly.

I disagree entirely.

Bain wasn't saving companies on the brink of failure. Bain invested in companies that still had good credit. Bain took control and, through the acquired companies, crushed them with debt intentionally. The financed money was first used to pay off the Bain investment, then to reward Bain employees, and then whatever was left was passed to the company they invested in.

There was insufficient money for the company and so lay-offs happened.

This wasn't a struggling company that had to lay-off to stay afloat. This was starving the company so Rmoney could become fatter.

That's why the ad is appropriate. He could have taken $1,000,000 less for himself and left it for the company. Rmoney would still have been insanely rich. This wasn't a need based lay-off. It was a greed based lay-off. He holds a very real responsibility for the consequences.

ManRay: what_now: When I was 23 and I lost my job I couldn't get COBRA because 1) I couldn't afford it and 2) I was denied due to per-existing conditions.

A few months later I got hit by a drunk driver who took off. Luckily, the police caught him, or I would have had to claim bankruptcy before my 24th birthday.


I should have done....what? differently?


So your COBRA extension of your existing plan was denied because of pre-existing conditions?

When I was laid off, I paid that $500 a month bill until I got a new job precisely because I did not want to lose my coverage due to pre-existing conditions. It sucked, but I could not afford not to. I rearranged my finances and made it work.

And if I had not paid into COBRA and gotten sick, I sure as hell would not have blamed my former boss. Because that is stupid.

And that is the difference between your situation, and many others less fortunate. The very fact that you had the capability to "rearrange" things during a period of no income is an advantage that people living paycheck to paycheck do not have. To a single mother, or an unemployed vet that $500 might just be the difference between having electricity for the month. Or losing her apartment. Or a needed car repair in order to make it to work everyday.

what_now: When I was 23 and I lost my job I couldn't get COBRA because 1) I couldn't afford it and 2) I was denied due to per-existing conditions.

A few months later I got hit by a drunk driver who took off. Luckily, the police caught him, or I would have had to claim bankruptcy before my 24th birthday.


I should have done....what? differently?


So your COBRA extension of your existing plan was denied because of pre-existing conditions?

When I was laid off, I paid that $500 a month bill until I got a new job precisely because I did not want to lose my coverage due to pre-existing conditions. It sucked, but I could not afford not to. I rearranged my finances and made it work.

And if I had not paid into COBRA and gotten sick, I sure as hell would not have blamed my former boss. Because that is stupid.

Obama's preferred murder weapon.

MFK: a Democrat group puts out *ONE* ad that is beyond the pale

A) Surely you are aware that both campaigns have been overwhelmingly negative this season, and Democrats have done misleading negative ads as well? I vaguely recall something about Romeny pushing an old lady off a cliff too?
B) Remind me again about the Republican ads equating Obama's policies with the death of loved ones? Link?

Not defending Republicnas ads here. they have been reprehensible too. Just sayin gthat your charicterization that thi sis a ONE time thing from the democrats is woefully innacurate.

tenpoundsofcheese: When the woman first went to the hospital she was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer. What insurance would have saved her?

Depends on the cancer.

Today I will teach you something. All cancers are the same - they are simply your own cells inappropriately dividing and growing when they should not be. Stage 4 means not only are they growing out of control but they are also spreading. You probably knew all of this. What I want you to learn today is that there is more than one way to get your own cells growing out of control. Let's call them signals X, Y and Z. If this lady had signal X driving her cancer, and you treated her with a drug that stops signal X, she would be instantly cured. If this lady had signal Y driving her cancer and you treated her with a drug that stops signal X, it would be worthless.

Now that you have learned that interesting fact, I will finish answering your question. It depends on the cancer, yes there are cures for stage IV cancers. However at stage IV, the cure is never surgical removal. It's far too late for that.

No political argument, just an interesting cancer discussion. I happen to find the topic quite interesting and close to my heart.

BojanglesPaladin: What good can come out of this? Am I the only one who thinks that Obama and Obama proxies going retardedly negative is undermining Obama's primary selling point: That he is a positive and inspirational figure?

Obama has always been the bright, positive light with a club behind his back. Hell, its why I voted for him, in a sense. I realized that he could play tough and take no prisoners in a calculated way. It showed me he was far from the wide-eyed idealist that some of his rhetoric might hint at. He was very negative against Clinton and somewhat less against McCain, probably because he had a solid lead against McCain and McCain frankly didn't go that negative against him (no Rev. Wright, for instance).

So this doesn't surprise me and I'm not sure its a bad idea. People blame the president for the economy, right or wrong. And he needs to blame Romney's supply-side ideas for it and make him out to be a shiathead. It helps that both of those are probably true.

The woman had health insurance from her employer for several years after the husband lost his job.

When the woman first went to the hospital she was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer. What insurance would have saved her?

What good can come out of this? Am I the only one who thinks that Obama and Obama proxies going retardedly negative is undermining Obama's primary selling point: That he is a positive and inspirational figure?

El_Frijole_Blanco: The ad does not say Romney killed the guys wife it says he does not give a flying Fark what his profit margin means to your family

You are correct, as is the ad.

Fake GOP outrage is fake.

Yes, there certainly haven't been any people calling President Obama a murderer. Nope.

/over Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, of all people.

The sad thing is, this probably isn't even close to how low this campaign is going to go.

serial_crusher: GAT_00: serial_crusher: GAT_00: dr_blasto: El_Frijole_Blanco: The ad does not say Romney killed the guys wife it says he does not give a flying Fark what his profit margin means to your family

And the ad is absolutely correct.

Which is why the GOP turned the derp up to 12 to try to discredit it.

The only derp worse than the derp contained in a political ad is the derp of a backlash that the opposing side makes against it.

/ The "jungle drums" ad of 2006 still holds the record in my opinion though.

So it's only derp when Democrats do it. Right.

I really don't see how you could have read it that way, since I was agreeing that the GOP backlash to this one counts as derp, unless you're accusing the GOP of being populated by Democrats....

I'm just saying the Democrats are better at derp. Well, the "get overly offended by something trivial" kind of derp anyhow. Republicans probably still have more medals overall, but this is one event the Democrats take every election year.

Right, who proclaimed the President created death panels. And got mad because he ate mustard again?

serial_crusher: GAT_00: dr_blasto: El_Frijole_Blanco: The ad does not say Romney killed the guys wife it says he does not give a flying Fark what his profit margin means to your family

And the ad is absolutely correct.

Which is why the GOP turned the derp up to 12 to try to discredit it.

The only derp worse than the derp contained in a political ad is the derp of a backlash that the opposing side makes against it.

/ The "jungle drums" ad of 2006 still holds the record in my opinion though.

So it's only derp when Democrats do it. Right.