Steve, you know the phrase comparing "apples and oranges"--that is what you are doing here. You are comparing the failure rate of small businesses with the failure rate of businesses bought out by other businesses. Those two things are not the same. So therefore your comparison is not correct, my claim is not false, and as you will see when you read the Wall Street Journal Bain's record with regard to bankrupcies of the companies it buys is clearly high, how high is a matter of debate. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... in+capital

WIth regard to the other post asking for a source regarding whether Romney is a corporate raider see this source who is I think you will agree is not against Romney.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ider_.html

theodorelogan wrote:Not fighting Germany /= staying out of WWII.

Well actually it does but then you would had to have read something about WWII and Roosevelt's intentions to understand that. However, that is a topic for another thread in the general discussion topic.

theodorelogan wrote:Interesting, I didn't know that Rand received that much money from "party establishment sources" (what does this mean...the GOP senetorial committee? People or PAC's that donate to other Republicans?)

It is a combination of all three. However, most of Rand's money came from high dollar donors that donate predominately to the Republican party and candidates.

theodorelogan wrote:However, my question/point still stands. Do you think Ron Paul is going to endorse Mitt Romney for the sake of his son's political career?

Absolutely. It's the act of a father helping his son. Ron's political career is over if he doesn't get the nomination. He knows it so it won't hurt him politically to endorse Mitt Romney.

So his options would be to endorse someone other then the Republican nominee and kill his son's career or endorse the nominee and help his son's career. To a parent, there is no choice.

Absolutely. It's the act of a father helping his son. Ron's political career is over if he doesn't get the nomination. He knows it so it won't hurt him politically to endorse Mitt Romney.

So his options would be to endorse someone other then the Republican nominee and kill his son's career or endorse the nominee and help his son's career. To a parent, there is no choice.

Bold added for emphasis. The most important thing to Ron Paul is for Rand to continue his career in the senate? LOL

So yes, my "dream on" stands. Again, especially funny is the idea that the GOP, that has been trying (and failing) to kill Ron Paul's career for decades, could make a credible threat to kill the career of his son at the very height of his own influence. You're in fantasyland. Rand Paul's star is a bright one, and he is going to do fine with or with the GOP's money, just as his father has.

Well actually it does but then you would had to have read something about WWII and Roosevelt's intentions to understand that. However, that is a topic for another thread in the general discussion topic.

I don't think this contradicts what I said.

Nothing helps re-election like incumbency. They tried to run candidates against Ron repeatedly. Threats against Rand are silly and will backfire on establishment Republicans.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

theodorelogan wrote:Not fighting Germany /= staying out of WWII.

Well actually it does but then you would had to have read something about WWII and Roosevelt's intentions to understand that. However, that is a topic for another thread in the general discussion topic.

It may be a topic for another day, but it was brought up as an attack on Paul--fallacious as it may be.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Ron Paul would have voted for war. End of story.

Well actually it does but then you would had to have read something about WWII and Roosevelt's intentions to understand that. However, that is a topic for another thread in the general discussion topic

.

I don't think this contradicts what I said

.

History does. Learn some.
The US did not declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbour. Only Japan. They declared war on Germany ONLY after Germany and Italy declared war on the US. (Their treaty with Japan required this....) So what choice would the fantasy Paul of 1941 have? To not retaliate against a country that had declared war on the US?

Not forgetting that Germany had been attacking US shipping before Pearl Harbour, and with a declaration of war that would have increased. And it did.

It's nonsense to suggest that the US could have avoided conflict with Germany once Japan attacked.

Germany's declaration of war was equired by treaty. It did not signal any new hostilities against the US (how could it?)

The US could have easily ignored it, and done nothing more than protected shipping with convoys. Or agreed to stop shipping arms to Britain and the USSR. Point being that, like in the case of Japan, the USA was not thrust into war by circumstances...FDR maneuvered the US into war over the years by by violating neutrality in Europe and by actng with hostility to Japan.

A quick search for Operation Drumbeat (or Paukenschlag), which was initiated in Dec 1941, might give you some info about what Germany did as soon as war was declared on the USA. They send loads of U-boats to the eastern seaboard to attack shipping.

Libertarians sure love their 'revisionist' history.

Anyway, reports are coming in that:

Perry has pulled out and will endorse Gingrich

Sarah Palin has endorsed Newt as well, and he's said he'd give her a job if he gets to DC

Turns out that Romney didn't win Iowa - Santorum had 34 more votes, but some districts didn't report properly so no 'official' winner.

One former Mrs Gingrich is going to be on TV and Newt's guys tried desperately to stop it.

This is turning out to be great race for spectators.

rickyp wrote:So what choice would the fantasy Paul of 1941 have? To not retaliate against a country that had declared war on the US?

While I don't agree with the Paulistas, I would note that others have declared war on the US, only to have us ignore them. Granted, none were as powerful as Nazi Germany, but it's been done.

In fact, I'm really done arguing with the Paulistas about Ron. I was thinking they considered him nearly perfect, but I now understand I underestimated their reverence for him. It is as close to worship as it can get. There is belief in a candidate. There is devotion to a candidate. Then there is something almost inexplicable, a "I would take a bullet for you, Mr. Paul" fervor. That's where these guys are.

theodorelogan wrote:Bold added for emphasis. The most important thing to Ron Paul is for Rand to continue his career in the senate? LOL

Seriously, you need to be a parent to understand this. Seriously, I mean this without trying to be snarky but ask you mother what she would be willing to do to help your career if it didn't hurt her.

theodorelogan wrote:So yes, my "dream on" stands. Again, especially funny is the idea that the GOP, that has been trying (and failing) to kill Ron Paul's career for decades, could make a credible threat to kill the career of his son at the very height of his own influence. You're in fantasyland. Rand Paul's star is a bright one, and he is going to do fine with or with the GOP's money, just as his father has.

There is a huge difference in running for a Congressional seat that has a constituency of about 700,000 people and a Senate seat with a constiuency of 4.4million people. Further there is a huge difference in the media buy cost for running ads in the Houston-Galveston market (Texas 14th - Ron's district) and the entire state of Kentucky.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:So what choice would the fantasy Paul of 1941 have? To not retaliate against a country that had declared war on the US?

While I don't agree with the Paulistas, I would note that others have declared war on the US, only to have us ignore them. Granted, none were as powerful as Nazi Germany, but it's been done.

Given that within weeks the coastal waters on the US Atlantic saw a duck-shoot of American shipping, I can't see that it could have been ignored. It's not just the declaration, but the military action.

You are right about the cult of Paul though. Obamania was a passing fad, compared to the level of fanatical devotion to the man.

theodorelogan wrote:Germany's declaration of war was equired by treaty. It did not signal any new hostilities against the US (how could it?).

Actually, not it wasn't. You really need to learn some freaking history dude. The Axis Pact recognized the parties dominance in their respective spheres of influence and promise help against a 3rd party not already an active belligerent in the European War or Sino-Japanese War if the afforementiond 3rd party attacked one of the parties to the Treaty. This means that since Japan attacked the U.S., Germany was not obligated to enter the war on the U.S.