It's morning in Obama's America

[Admiral Yi]

Making a decision to fire employees because of economic requirments has nothing to do with liking doing it.  Liking the act of firing employees just makes you a cruel bastard.

Have you read or seen what Romney said?

[crazy canuck]

"Liking" firing people has nothing to do with what you have just said.

It has everything to do with what Romney said.  If there's no relationship between our two posts then yours was a total non-sequitor.

Making a decision to fire employees because of economic requirments has nothing to do with liking doing it.  Liking the act of firing employees just makes you a cruel bastard.

Depends on which definition of "like" is being using.

Which definition would you use - without reading something into the defintion Romney didnt actually say.

[Phillip V]

Attacks on Romney Prompt Backlash

'Republican critics argue that the attacks on Mitt Romney over his role at Bain Capital are attacks on the free-market system and help the Democrats.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/us/politics/new-hampshire-vote-seen-as-gauge-as-rivals-try-to-slow-romney.html

Attacks on Mitt Romney by some of his rivals set off outrage within the Republican Party on Tuesday as voters went to the polls and the candidates turned their attention to South Carolina.
Mr. Romney has been under attack for 48 hours over his role at Bain Capital, the investment firm he helped found. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas equated firms like Bain to "vultures," and Newt Gingrich demanded answers from Mr. Romney about how many jobs were lost on his watch.
Those statement prompted a backlash from other Republicans, much as similar comments were denounced several weeks ago. These critics argue that the attacks on Mr. Romney are attacks on the free-market system and help the Democrats.
"They are also using the language of the liberal left to attack private equity and condemn capitalism in a desperate and, frankly, unsavory attempt to tear down another Republican with tactics akin to those of MoveOn.org," said Jesse Benton, the campaign manager for Representative Ron Paul of Texas....Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host, accused Mr. Gingrich of sounding like Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat running for the United States Senate in Massachusetts against the Republican incumbent Scott Brown.
"This is not the kind of stuff you want said by Republicans," Mr. Limbaugh said on his show. "I mean, even the establishment Republicans don't go after conservatives this way."
"He's using language that the left uses, and he's attempting to make hay with this," he added. "You know, he's trying to dredge up and have long-lasting negatives attach to Romney — this is what's so unsettling about this — in the same way the left would say it." Mr. Perry and Mr. Gingrich offered no apologies on Tuesday for their rhetoric.

[crazy canuck]

Given those backlashing out I gain confidence in the correctness of my position.

[Sheilbh]

"Liking" firing people has nothing to do with what you have just said.

Romney was discussing purchasing insurance but used that language.  So it's not really anything to do with firing people.  But it's also a sentence that should just stop in the gap between mind and mouth if you're a politician.

[crazy canuck]

"Liking" firing people has nothing to do with what you have just said.

But it's also a sentence that should just stop in the gap between mind and mouth if you're a politician.

Yeah, that is the point.

[Admiral Yi]

Good Lord.

[grumbler]

"Liking" firing people has nothing to do with what you have just said.

Romney was discussing purchasing insurance but used that language.  So it's not really anything to do with firing people.  But it's also a sentence that should just stop in the gap between mind and mouth if you're a politician.

You are talking about what Romney actually said.  Crazy Canuck is talking about a strawman Romney comment that CC just made up out of thin air: "Making a decision to fire employees because of economic requirments has nothing to do with liking doing it."

[grumbler]

Good Lord.

It's CC.  He will now try to weasel out of the fact that he was erroneously assuming Romney was taking about "making a decision to fire employees because of economic requirments."

It's an amusing little game.  This time, I will let you push him until he starts with the ad homs. 

[Admiral Yi]

This time, I will let you push him until he starts with the ad homs. 

No you won't.

[Razgovory]

CC, you need to work on your "Gotcha" debating tactics.  Then you won't have to put up with Grumbler's bullshit.

[garbon]

Good Lord.

It's CC.  He will now try to weasel out of the fact that he was erroneously assuming Romney was taking about "making a decision to fire employees because of economic requirments."

It's an amusing little game.  This time, I will let you push him until he starts with the ad homs. 

The only other thing I can see, from his bit of agreement with Sheilbh, is a stance of "I'm wise enough to understand that what he actually said was x, but it could easily be misunderstood as y by other individuals, so it makes no practical difference whether he said x or y. He's at fault."

I don't really understand that position though.

[grumbler]

No you won't.

Cross my heart.

[grumbler]

The only other thing I can see, from his bit of agreement with Sheilbh, is a stance of "I'm wise enough to understand that what he actually said was x, but it could easily be misunderstood as y by other individuals, so it makes no practical difference whether he said x or y. He's at fault."

I don't really understand that position though.

There is no way I can see that one can take Romney's statement and interpret it in the way CC did.  He added a bunch of words Romney never used, and deleted a bunch that Romney did use.  Plus, he gets the context completely wrong.

[Jacob]

The only other thing I can see, from his bit of agreement with Sheilbh, is a stance of "I'm wise enough to understand that what he actually said was x, but it could easily be misunderstood as y by other individuals, so it makes no practical difference whether he said x or y. He's at fault."

I don't really understand that position though.

There is no way I can see that one can take Romney's statement and interpret it in the way CC did.  He added a bunch of words Romney never used, and deleted a bunch that Romney did use.  Plus, he gets the context completely wrong.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

If anyone is going to push CC to make ad hominem attacks in this thread it's you, not Yi.