[org.whodat]

If you do not like the rules of capitalism and the way the game is played you can change the rules and if you change the rules you need a department to make sure the new rules are enforced. And it does not have anything to do with obummer, unless you agree he does not like capitalism either. In which case you would be agreeing with him. Your statement is as bad as the ones that think the Willard company and the BS of TARP are the same. And confuse the actions of the pension guaranty insurance with a bail out.

[Liberty Tree Surgeon]

You’re not getting it - I’m not saying Romney was doing something illegal, I’m saying he’s doing something I personally view as objectionable - and I can vote accordingly. No department of fairness involved.

This is what Newt is saying - with Romney as the nominee, Obama’s people will shine a spotlight on this, and hordes of other people will then equate Romney with “greedy a-hole” and walk away. Newt is not saying, “arrest him” or “regulate him”, he’s saying this is the type of guy you are looking at, and if he’d do that to companies, what will he do or promise to get what he wants?