Skip to main content

View Diary: Stockman: Romney and Bain Were About Stripping Cash Out Of Companies For Themselves, Not About Jobs (179 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks divineorder! (16+ / 0-)

    I'm from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner Wing of the Democratic Party!

    by TomP on Wed May 23, 2012 at 10:53:13 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  TomP - it was the purpose of Bain Capital (20+ / 0-)

      to make money for their investors. They generated significant profits and the partners at Bain Capital received 20% of the gains. It was never the purpose of Bain Capital to create jobs, but to create wealth for their investors and themselves. But is is important to recognize that the primary focus at Bain Capital was to make money for its investors, because that is how you build a sustainable private equity investment firm.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed May 23, 2012 at 11:08:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure, however (20+ / 0-)

        it is also important to note that the LBO business model is a different model from the private investment in early stage companies model.

        "All things are not equally true. It is time to face reality." -Al Gore

        by Geek of all trades on Wed May 23, 2012 at 11:22:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Of course you're correct, but (33+ / 0-)

        the point is that the experience running Bain doesn't translate into experience with creating jobs. That's the link Romney is trying to make and it's hogwash.

        Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

        by NMDad on Wed May 23, 2012 at 11:29:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, make money for their investors at the (26+ / 0-)

        expense of some if not all of the employees in many cases.

        Which is also important to recognize, no?

        This is about how the 1% Romney chums suck the life-blood out of middle class economic security for their own gains.

        The focus of Bain Capital is equal to about that of a leech.

        Romney - his fingernails have never been anything but manicured.

        by Pescadero Bill on Wed May 23, 2012 at 11:34:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Mittens claim, on most days (6+ / 0-)

        is that he should be POTUS because he knows how to create jobs from his business experience. Or he knows how jobs are created from business.

        Sure, he contributed to some job creation through Bain. As Robert McNamara learned the hard way, a lot of judgements need to consider proportionality.  Add the moral/ethical question of whether it is ok to kill the business in order to make money for the investors, and the problem becomes, nuanced.

        Really pisses me off when some people excoriate Ayn Rand for the way these thugs distorted her philosophy. Despite her political errors, the business ethic she advocated was moral, far above and beyond the Rmoney type practices. And they know full well what she meant.

        Mittens also knows how to fire people for no reason.

        "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

        by Ginny in CO on Wed May 23, 2012 at 11:45:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Moral? In what way? (11+ / 0-)

          I don't consider her business ethics or any part of her philosophy moral. When one of its core tenets is "the virtue of selfishness", how can anyone understand that and remain moral? Moreover, it is clearly reflected in both The Fountainhead and especially Atlas Shrugged that it is the duty of the "lesser people", to quote Alan Simpson, to profusely thank and damn near worship the rich industrialist, and it the duty of said industrialist to be amoral to an astonishing degree.

          One thing I have not found in any of her books is any positive view of love for another. One thing I have found over and over is that she regarded any sort of compassion for another as a sin.

          I would really like to understand how you find anything moral in that.

          Organ donors save lives! A donor's kidney gave me my life back on 02/18/11; he lives on in me. Please talk with your family about your wish to donate.

          Why are war casualty counts "American troops" and "others" but never "human beings"?

          by Kitsap River on Wed May 23, 2012 at 12:49:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  First, I think Rand was too (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            auditor, mumtaznepal

            severe in many of her ideas, to the point of ugliness in some. I also read her biography and saw some clear reasons for her mistakes.

            Given that English was a second language and she was writing with a personal dedication to the idea that words have an exact meaning, I think her use of selfishness was also a mistake. She did not grasp the negative implications well enough; although to any extent that she did, it could well have been a plus for her.  

            Had she not been as lacking in compassion and empathy, her ideology would have been closer to the more recent enlightened self interest. (No, she would never have advocated it because of her poor understanding of human nature as a whole.)

            Rand's basis for considering selfishness moral was her emphasis on self responsibility. I did not see the expectation in her books

            to profusely thank and damn near worship the rich industrialist.
            I remember distinctly that one of them advocated leadership listening, using and giving credit to employees with good ideas - whether they worked in the board room or the mail room.  Her business characters mostly loathed unearned credit for accomplishments, unearned and lavishly displayed wealth.

            They didn't use their employees like the current crop of profit focused CEOs. Hank Rearden's mill was unionized. The goons that participated in the strike/riot were characters based on a lot of misinformation at the time about unions - created by the robber barons who wanted to discredit and kill the movement.

            Rand was about the people who created businesses - often with their own names in the company's. I cannot believe she would have anything but the highest contempt for the current CEOs, financiers and the idea that America's GDP is now so heavily financial and so low in manufacturing. When Reagan was chosen for the GOP presidential candidate, she went to California to meet with him, and was totally appalled at what she learned.

            The core of her philosophy that I saw as missing from human life and religions as far back as history records, and even more today is: honesty.

            She was absolutely devoted to the idea that lying is a major source of human inequality, immorality and misery. I cannot agree more.

            My issue with most of the critiques is blaming her for the distorted interpretation of her work and application of that by people who distort Jesus' work as much or more. While I completely agree with some of his teachings, I completely disagree with others.

            However both make viable and worthwhile contributions to the overall concept of morality. Jesus says 'don't judge' - which should apply to gender, race, etc. Rand says judge and expect to be judged - which should apply to your mechanic, minister, physician, etc. While I really, really respect the Dalai Lama, there are aspects of Buddhism I cannot agree with.

            No one is completely right or wrong in whatever they propose. The trick is to read to find the ideas that have merit and those that are bunk. You have to look at the writer's connections and take apart the ones that are invalid, illogical, etc. That doesn't mean every part or even some connections are wrong or don't add to the understanding.

            Do you remember the speeches one of the heroines gave after she spent a month in a ghetto? I think it was Roark's gf, don't remember the name. She gave one to some social workers and one to socialites. They were the exact opposite in the information she presented and the conclusions she made. The social workers got the one that said: (some of) these people are lazy and don't want to make any effort. The socialites got: (some of) these people are really hard working and never get a break. Someone challenged her on which was true. She basically said both were partially true. Then it was suggested she should have reversed the speeches to fit the groups. And her response had to do with challenging each groups assumptions. Rand wrote this as an illustration of how facts can be manipulated to convey something that is not completely accurate, which manipulates the audience. She should have had a third speech which contained both perspectives.

            I find it completely human that those of us who are fighting a situation that is an historical example of how much damage dishonesty can do to our country and the rest of the world, are unaware of her arguments on the subject.

            Unfortunately Rand was all too willing to promote and accept the adulation she was given. Naming her philosophy objectivism to avoid having labeled after her (like Marx) did not avert the distortion of it and her reputation. Which is why the bible I wrote has this quote (with no source).

            The true teacher kills the idol you have made of him

            "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

            by Ginny in CO on Wed May 23, 2012 at 02:51:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Ayn Rand's characters had complete respect for (0+ / 0-)

            every other human being.  They would also never backstab another character.   They were excruciatingly honest and fair.   Concepts totally lost on the current Rand acolytes.

            2012: the Year of the Voting Woman. And by the way, Republicans ... we're pretty pissed about what you've done to our country. Republican Party Motto: "Tax the poor, gift the rich"

            by mumtaznepal on Thu May 24, 2012 at 12:23:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Respect? No, Rape. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sharon Wraight

              Your headline makes a bizarre claim. In addition to Rand's consistent portrayal of capitalist exploitation as heroic - the opposite of respect - what about the horrendous rape scene where Howard Roark in the Fountainhead (her hero) rapes Dominique Francon?

              Warning: for survivors of abuse or misogynist violence, I'm going to quote the passage below, just to illustrate how awful the scene is, quoted via Jezebel:

              She tried to tear herself away from him. The effort broke against his arms that had not felt it. Her fists beat against his shoulders, against his face. He moved one hand, took her two wrists and pinned them behind her, under his arm, wrenching her shoulder blades.…She fell back against the dressing table, she stood crouching, her hands clasping the edge behind her, her eyes wide, colorless, shapeless in terror. He was laughing. There was the movement of laughter on his face, but no sound.…Then he approached. He lifted her without effort. She let her teeth sink into his hand and felt blood on the tip of her tongue. He pulled her head back and he forced her mouth open against his.
              What makes this scene even worse is that Dominique is portrayed as loving Roark afterwards. The fact that Rand had internalized these rape myths is sad. The fact that she propounded these rape mythis is tragic. But the fact that there are Objectivists out there (such as Andrew Bernstein) who engage in pretzel logic to try to justify Rand's internalization of misogyny still today is grotesque.

              But consistent respect? Hardly.

        •  A bit like PIRATES talking about doing shipping... (0+ / 0-)

          ...of other peoples' goods, from their ships to some foreign port where not too many questions were asked as to the origins of such material.

          Pirates were certainly "wealth creators", for themselves, but not much for those whose ships and cities they looted.  To suggest otherwise would be to talk about how Attila the Hun was engaged in "economic stimulus".

          Mitt would be about the dumbest choice for President in decades, if we base his effectiveness on his past behavior.  What, does he want to turn our entire economy into a Vulture Capital firm?  Nice.  As if the Third World needed a new Colonial Empire, right?  to come in and strip their assets and then toss those small nations aside like a banana peel?

          You know how they talk about Mitt the Barber as feeling "entitled"?  That's what they are talking about.  Heck, maybe he will bring slavery back, while he is at it, right?  or maybe just "indentured servitude".  That's another grand old tradition, isn't it?

      •  Breaking news: It is not the purpose of ANY (15+ / 0-)

        business to "create jobs"

        Business exists to make a profit.

        That is all

        •  Yes, the profit motive AND return to owners are... (6+ / 0-)

          ... the raison d'être of business.

          As the President is saying better than Booker (who can no longer be considered a reliable surrogate) and now Rendell (campaign aspirations, any one?), it's Mitt Romney who used to want his business experience to explain his approach to government. But it shouldn't because government has fundamentally different obligations and goals. So let us draw comparisons to what Bain stands for, precisely because The Mitt asked us to look at his record there.
          Yes, let's!

          Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

          by TRPChicago on Wed May 23, 2012 at 12:13:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  who decides the purpose of business? (5+ / 0-)

            I find those two comments odd, especially here on dKos.

            The old 1960s-70s MBA 'saw' that "the only purpose of business is to maximize shareholder value" went out the window long ago, before Milton Friedman died. Who is to decide what are the (possibly many) purposes of a given business or business person? Privately-held companies can largely act the discretion of their owners. Fiduciary responsibility to shareholders in public companies is certainly one purpose (institutionalized in various laws), as is a responsibility to one's family, one's self, one's god(s) [if one is religious], one's communities, the environment, etc. These require judgment calls, tradeoffs, ad hoc decisions, etc. E.g., Ray Anderson believed that environmental sustainability should be part of his business, Interface Inc., which is publicly traded (IFSIA) He was quite transparent about this, and anyone who invested in his company knew it. Interface has done well -- but this was not at all a sure thing when Ray undertook it.

            •  I don't think most publicly-held businesses ... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Nowhere Man, bluegrass50

              ... believe in the list of things you mention beyond responsibilities to share owners (AND, sub rosa, returns to the top officers). They SAY they do in mission statements and credos, but the only sustaining business principle is return to owners. That trumps all other goals - each one and all combined - in a heartbeat. (That is, assuming businesses are people with hearts that beat.)

              I don't like it. But otherwise, there would be only "social investors" and they aren't sufficient to the needs of publicly held businesses. If they were - and IF there were more of us than the Far and Farther Right, who could raise a LOT of "social capital" - we'd have a different world of business.

              What do you think sent "maximizing share owner value" "out the window"? That goal was central to the very large business enterprise I worked for through the 80's and mid-90's. Since then, do you really think that the big banks believe otherwise? The hedge funds? Most private capital investors? Big law firms and accountancies? GM doesn't exist to employ people. It exists to sell cars. If it doesn't, it can't pay benefits or pensions, much less current employees.

              Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

              by TRPChicago on Wed May 23, 2012 at 05:07:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The values that you describe (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TRPChicago, Cassandra Waites, fumie

              -- community, environment, etc. -- are high on the wish list of responsibilities that a modern corporation ideally would consider essential. But from a legal standpoint, a public corporation can still be sued by its shareholders if it ever sacrifices shareholder returns for some other, higher purpose.

              (Perhaps laws need to be passed that would shield corporations from shareholder lawsuits if they go so far as to show some sense of public responsibility.)

              Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

              by Nowhere Man on Wed May 23, 2012 at 05:25:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  can also be sued if they don't (0+ / 0-)

                It's not a black or white issue. CEO's have huge leeway in their discretion as to what will maximize shareholder profits. Almost never (ever?) is a firm sued for pursuing some higher purpose of public responsibility. Especially if the Board is supportive, the CEO can easily say it is for public relations purposes, or market positioning, or branding, or image, or to cultivate a niche market, or a loss-leader, or for new product-development, or marketing, or long-term profit, to avoid law-suits, etc.

                Firms can also be sued if they violate public responsibilities (on a wide variety of grounds).

                Again, I'm surprised to see this level of discussion here, I'd assumed this was widely known by the mid-1990s.

            •  Ray Anderson was not representative of the (0+ / 0-)

              average, and he got away with doing great things by making huge profits at the same time.  Carpet tiles were a great idea that sold really well.

              Shareholder primacy out the window?  Don't think so.

            •  that is not the point here (0+ / 0-)

              People like Romney say businesses are 'job creators'

              They are not

              they only create jobs if there is demand

              And if one new company or new industry thrives then other companies and industries decline and LOSE JOBS

              Business is in business for business

              And if you want to add other goals fine.  But there is no business that sets out to create jobs or add jobs unless there is demand or some other goal.

              •  not zero-sum (0+ / 0-)

                That's the crux of economic growth: one can expand the 'economic pie'. This is basic -- and something that Democrats forget more often than Republicans. I sure hope that the average DailyKos contributor doesn't think that all companies are bad -- that'd be a death-knell for the Democratic Party.

                Most jobs are provided by small business, btw, not publicly-traded companies. And everyone agrees that most privately-held companies have no restrictions on double- or triple-bottom line CSR practices. (In practice, even most publicly-traded companies could legally go a lot further in this direction.)

                Imagine saying of IBM in 1982: "if one new computer company thrives then other companies and industries decline and LOSE JOBS."

                That'd be nonsense.

                Also, the point is not the intent of the company, but it's impact. Intent can be a starting point, but it's not ultimately what counts. A company could have 'good intentions' (by our standards) and still mess up royally and have a bad impact. (E.g. maybe it designs a 'green' thermostat that turns out to have bad wiring and causes thousands of house-fires before it is recalled and the company is forced into bankruptcy.) Or a company could be ruthlessly profit-seeking in its development of a new product, that turns out to be environmentally-friendly and provides well-paying American jobs. Usually, behavior is somewhere in between, a grey area.

                Imagine a unionized company selling an improved solar-panel and improved batteries that allows affordable battery-operated cars made in America. Put solar-cells on your roof or balcony, hooked up to a battery by day, that then charges your ZEV car overnight.

                The point is not that all companies do good things; jeez, that's a straw-man that no-one has suggested. But many companies can do good things -- with the right leadership, or if faced with demand for it (I agree wholeheartedly with this!), or if pressured (a form of demand), etc.

                •  with the advent of computers alot of (0+ / 0-)

                  people lost their jobs

                  That is not to say that computers are bad.

                  The point is that business is not in the business of creating jobs.  business is in the business of meeting demand and making money.

                  I don't think I said all companies do bad things or that all companies don't do good things.

                  My point is limited but I think important.

                  The current MSM/Repub frame is that companies and rich people are "job creators'.  they are not.  They hire people to meet consumer demand and make a profit.

                  If there is no consumer demand there are no jobs

                •  other points (0+ / 0-)

                  Where are alot of the jobs "created"?

                  In countries like China with no worker protections, no safety regulations and no pollution controls.

                  Look at where Apple builds its products to make staggering profits

                  Look at the global clothing industry

                  If companies wanted to 'create jobs' they would create them where the company is based

                  but their motive is profit so they race to the bottom, even with programmers, engineers, etc.

                  That is what business does. that is how capitalism works

                  •  definition of "net" (as in 'net job gains'), etc. (0+ / 0-)

                    net adj. 1. Business: a. Remaining after all deductions have been made, as for expenses: net profit. From Old Italian netto, remaining after deductions, from Latin nitidus, clean, elegant; see neat.]

                    net, nett [adj] 1. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Accounting & Book-keeping) remaining after all deductions, as for taxes, expenses, losses, etc. net profit Compare gross. 2. (Mathematics & Measurements / Units) (of weight) after deducting tare* 3. ultimate; final; conclusive (esp in the phrase net result)

                    3. Net - the excess of revenues over outlays in a given period of time (including depreciation and other non-cash expenses)net - the excess of revenues over outlays in a given period of time (including depreciation and other non-cash expenses) net income, net profit,

                    Adj. 1. net - remaining after all deductions; "net profit" nett 2. net - conclusive in a process or progression; "the final answer"; "a last resort"; "the net result"

                    Net job gains: job gains minus job losses

                    *tare (târ) n. 1. The weight of a container or wrapper that is deducted from the gross weight to obtain net weight.


                    See also Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, on "creative destruction". As the economy grows, some older industries will close as new ones emerge, based on new technologies and entrepreneurial innovations (PDP-11, Apple, VisiCalc, WordStar, DOS, Lotus 123, WordPerfect, Windows, WWW, Internet, Mozilla, Firefox, etc. :-) ). It's important to have unemployment insurance, job retraining, affordable re-education, social welfare, etc. for those people caught in these dislocations. But only Luddites want to stop new businesses.

                    'Races to the bottom' do occur, but mainly when assets can easily be moved from one country to another. There can also be races to the top, and mixed outcomes. It is not that simple.

                    I'm glad to see Chinese workers earning enough not only to live but to fulfill their human potential (rather than facing famines as in centuries of Chinese history). How about you? As economies move above $3,000 GNP/capita, they also tend to improve their environmental record -- this would especially be important in China (with its awful pollution, coal consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.).

                    •  and again you make my point (0+ / 0-)

                      businesses are not in business to create jobs or give people good wages.

                      They are in business to make money

                      They may hire people and there may be net job growth but that only happens when there is demand.

                      The race to the bottom is in full force and it is destroying the economy.  The recession in the US is caused by weak demand at the same time "job creators" are cutting jobs and benefits and salary, and outsourcing to much lower paying locations.

                      The race to the bottom is an unmitigated disaster  

        •  Indeed, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP, JayBat, Dirtandiron

          in fact it against the law for a CEO to do anything other than try and maximize shareholder value.

          perhaps we should change the law.

        •  Exactly (8+ / 0-)

          It is naive to believe that any business, from the local bookstore to Walmart deliberately sets out to hire more people.  Making a business grow and profit is the purpose of any business.

          I owned and operated a small retail store and despite my need to have one part time employee, I could not justify increasing her hours based on the level of business I was doing year round.  If my business had grown to a point where a full time employee was needed, I would not have hired anyone new but would have expanded her hours.  

          I'm convinced that the biggest and best employer is the government and rather than dumping gazillions of dollars into Afghanistan, this country needs to have support for massive infrastructure investment.

          When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

          by msmacgyver on Wed May 23, 2012 at 12:43:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not entirely true (5+ / 0-)

          There are family run businesses that keep chugging along with the express purpose of keeping the family members employed and paying a decent wage, not for creating ridiculous amounts of wealth.  Not all businesses are so cut and dried.  

          But you are right about Bain and this particular type of business, or almost any business that has outside investors. Their fudiciary responsibility is to shareholders and to make a profit for them, not to create jobs.

          ~ Nothing insightful to say ~

          by EagleOfFreedom on Wed May 23, 2012 at 01:08:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Show how should Mitt "make a profit" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dirtandiron, mumtaznepal

          in government?

          Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

          by dadadata on Wed May 23, 2012 at 01:41:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Businesses exist to serve markets (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Without the demand ( which drives the demand economy ) there exists no profit potential. Profits don't happen from nothing, unless vampire squid capitalism and its courtiers try to convince us otherwise.

          Demand comes first.

          "What have you done for me, lately?" ~ Lady Liberty

          by ozsea1 on Wed May 23, 2012 at 03:35:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  True, but a byproduct of most growth oriented (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          businesses is additional jobs. The opposite is usually true if your business consists of a handful of lawyers and bankers trying to make a buck on someone else's business.

        •  purpose of business (0+ / 0-)

          Business should exist to provide a good or service to others. Making a profit should only be  a measure of whether or not you're good at your core business.  Make money, work for the mint - otherwise there should be more to your life.   Focusing everything on profit alone is what's wrong with our country.

      •  If you define profits (16+ / 0-)

        as taking the proceeds from leveraging a company to the hilt , not putting it back into the growth of the  company,  paying yourself to eliminate your risk and lock in profits on front end, under funding or raiding pensions, then yes they did a fine job.

        The word investment should not be associated with it. It is the business equivalent of a dine and dash.

        •  It is only possible to do this... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...with companies that are circling the drain.

          Well managed companies that are making money cannot be liquidated in this manner because their sale price is too expensive to make liquidation attractive.

          Then again, if you're a failing company with some valuable assets but are unable to make money, it starts to make economic sense to sell off the assets and lay off the employees.

          But productive companies cannot be taken down in this manner.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Wed May 23, 2012 at 04:01:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can't agree with that (4+ / 0-)

            You can take a healthy company , load it with debt and they may not be able to survive a bad economic cycle , that they might otherwise, due to debt load. Then they are circling the drain cause you drained the water and kept it for yourself.

            Even in the boom days it was a lot easier to borrow money
            against a good company than a poorly performing one. I am not saying  it was their strategy going in  to bankrupt the companies , but they did seek to get paid and maximize as soon as possible even if not in the best long term interest of the company. If the company survived that was just gravy.

            Check out what Bain did with Dade.

      •  But if Romney's argument is that he "knows" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dirtandiron, ozsea1, TomP, Deep Texan

        how to "create jobs" due to his experience in Lame Capital, then it is relevant whether or not he did "create jobs."

        Romney opened the door to this, arguing that his "private business" experience better qualifies him to be president.

        Of course it does not.  There is zero comparison between setting public policy for a nation and driving hard for profits for an individual company which exists in a universe of companies.

        Public policy's goals are to maximize benefit to society.
        Corporate goals have nothing to do with benefit to society.

        As you point out, they do not exist to help people, to employ people or to do anything else than accumulate wealth for the wealthiest.  

        We probably should tweak that system a bit, huh?

        What a Police State Looks Like: "On one side: soft human flesh, unprotected human skulls, cardboard signs, slogans they chant, armed with belief in 1st Amendment rights. On the other: helmets, body armor, guns, batons, chemical weapons." -- JanetRhodes

        by YucatanMan on Wed May 23, 2012 at 01:48:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I like firing people named Romney (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dirtandiron, TomP

      "Load up on guns, bring your friends. It's fun to lose and to pretend" - Kurt Cobain

      by Jeff Y on Wed May 23, 2012 at 02:40:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site