# Romney



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.

Specifics would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Pho_King (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.
> 
> Specifics would be greatly appreciated.



A business acumen.  Executive experience.   Moderate political beliefs.  Interest in boosting the private sector.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

The business acumen he has does more harm than good. How, specifically, will he undo the damage that's already been done.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.
> 
> Specifics would be greatly appreciated.


 Nothing. Picking between the only 2 candidates given to us, is like picking between arsenic, and cyanide. Neither has the best interests of the American people at heart, and both are out of touch with what they're going through.
The biggest problem we face is the economy, and the rigged monetary system, AKA the Fed.
No one but Paul has mentioned this.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.
> ...



Please start this thread, here in the Clean Zone. I was just discussing it with someone else, about how this REALLY shouldn't be D v R, or us v them. It should be We, the People v the system as it stands.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> The business acumen he has does more harm than good. How, specifically, will he undo the damage that's already been done.



???  You're not making a lick of sense!  How is business acumen bad?


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Do you see where you are posting? Go check the rules.


----------



## Dr.House (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> The business acumen he has does more harm than good.



That statement is an opinion...

Can you provide examples of your "more harm than good"?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

Not sure what you mean by 'has done more harm than good' BDB.

I look at Romney's resume and see that he has mostly accomplished what he sets out to do.  And he has left whatever forum/entity/platform in better shape than he found it.  Has he made mistakes.  Almost certainly.  Does he get it wrong sometimes.  Sure.  He's as human as anybody else.  But none of that takes away from his successes and accomplishments which are considerable and impressive.

Further he has managed to successfully manage and govern and make hard decisions to meet a specific goal apparently without making any serious enemies along the way.  That says a lot about his negotiating skills.  And there are very few areas of his life that are not a completely open book or that he is evasive about in any way.

So, if he brings a solid pro business sense, a love of America, an instinct to help instead of hurt, and doesn't try to pick winners and losers and/or make government the end all for every problem, he won't fix everything that ails us, but he will give us a leg up on turning us loose to fix a lot of what ails us.

I believe Romney will not intentionally do any harm.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > The business acumen he has does more harm than good.
> ...



Yes, thank you. But it will take time, because I intend to do this right i.e., providing citations for what I allege.


----------



## Dr.House (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Don't forget you said MORE harm than good!

To be honest, it's going to difficult to prove "business acumen" doing either...

But I submit that if you are going to use Bain as a "for example", I would submit that the company has helped more companies than harmed companies...

And yes, that's an opinion too, but I'm not going to do a list...

I would imagine if they harmed more companies they would be out of business...


----------



## hortysir (Jul 30, 2012)

Running a business.

While it may not have, what seems like, a lot to do with running a government....it DOES mean that he knows that *Red ink* is bad and *Black ink* is good.

Through the past few years, if we learned anything, it's apparent that Obama has ZERO clue.
tried telling people this when he was running, but NNnnnooooooo........

O-Bah-Mah
O-Bah-Mah
O-Bah-Mah


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

And I hope we don't all think that debate via linksand cut and paste to the extreme is honest debate.  Yes, if somebody makes an allegation it is appropriate to ask them for their rationale.  And if their rationale includes facts that we think can't be backed up, then sure, ask for a link.

But I would rather have people articulating their opinions and convictions.

My opinions about Romney are formed from many many different sources, and I doubt any of you would want to look at ALL the links I could probvide to back up my convictions and no one source would likely cover it all.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 30, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > The business acumen he has does more harm than good. How, specifically, will he undo the damage that's already been done.
> ...





BDBoop said:


> Do you see where you are posting? Go check the rules.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> And I hope we don't all think that debate via links is honest debate.  Yes, if somebody makes an allegation it is appropriate to ask them for their rationale.  And if their rationale includes facts that we think can't be backed up, then sure, ask for a link.
> 
> But I would rather have people articulating their opinions and convictions.
> 
> My opinions about Romney are formed from many many different sources, and I doubt any of you would want to look at ALL the links I could probvide to back up my convictions and no one source would likely cover it all.



I'm voting for Romney. Nothing could be worse than what we have right now. 8.2% unemployment for 42 months. 1.5% GDP.. divisiveness, I can't imagine anyone thinking obama has done a good job. did I mention we have suffered the most massive tax increase in US history? Why would you want more of that? Vote Republican.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

I've always thought the idea that "business acumen" was a qualification for President as being a little ridiculous.

Government and Business have different purposes. Knowing how to run one has no correlation to the other.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Not sure what you mean by 'has done more harm than good' BDB.
> 
> I look at Romney's resume and see that he has mostly accomplished what he sets out to do.  And he has left whatever forum/entity/platform in better shape than he found it.  Has he made mistakes.  Almost certainly.  Does he get it wrong sometimes.  Sure.  He's as human as anybody else.  But none of that takes away from his successes and accomplishments which are considerable and impressive.


I agree.



> Further he has managed to successfully manage and govern and make hard decisions to meet a specific goal apparently without making any serious enemies along the way.  That says a lot about his negotiating skills.  And there are very few areas of his life that are not a completely open book or that he is evasive about in any way.


Aside from his tax records, and where he keeps his money.


> So, if he brings a solid pro business sense, a love of America, an instinct to help instead of hurt, and doesn't try to pick winners and losers and/or make government the end all for every problem, he won't fix everything that ails us, but he will give us a leg up on turning us loose to fix a lot of what ails us.
> 
> I believe Romney will not intentionally do any harm.


I don't think Romney will _intentionally_ do any harm. That's as ridiculous as the people who claim that Obama is intentionally destroying America because he "hates" it.

Obama and Romney are just people with ideas. Both of them think that they know how to solve the problems we're facing. Both of them "love" America, and are trying to do what they think is best.

I personally don't agree with either of them.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> I've always thought the idea that "business acumen" was a qualification for President as being a little ridiculous.
> 
> Government and Business have different purposes. Knowing how to run one has no correlation to the other.



well, obama can't run either so he has two strikes going "forward."


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.
> 
> Specifics would be greatly appreciated.



Your vote goes to whomever will allow Muslims exile, unemployment, a welfare check and Food Stamps.

Why beat around the bush with policy?


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 30, 2012)

What Romney would bring to the the office of president is:
more cronyism
more spending on the unnecessary
more international catastrophes
more for the rich
more of the same
more or less the same as Obama


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.
> ...



Um.

What's "Muslims exile"?

Not to mention, both Obama and Romney will continue unemployment, welfare and food stamps...


----------



## The Infidel (Jul 30, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > The business acumen he has does more harm than good. How, specifically, will he undo the damage that's already been done.
> ...





BDBoop said:


> Do you see where you are posting? Go check the rules.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 30, 2012)

Judging from how long it took Romney to assess the disaster of the London Olympics, he could bring a LOT to identifying and fixing the obamadisasters.   Just ending obamacare is a huge good start.   Restoring American support to our only ally in the middle east would be a huge benefit.   As far as that goes, getting the muslim brotherhood out of the white house is a benefit all by itself.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

I never thought I'd vote for a Mormon for President, but Romney is exactly what the USA needs at this time.  Iran will not obtain nukes, he will stand for traditional American values, and knows how business works and how to create success.  All of this is what Obama is opposed to.  Barky has to go.


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...




Sorry - Muslim sympathy/poilitical correctness... Muslim's alway's right!!!  

Just back from the UK

Saw what the US will look like 10 years from now under Dem/Lib PC rule. Not pretty. 

Can't even own a pocket knife or defend oneself in their own home!! No shit. 

Sharpen up that Koran.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Judging from how long it took Romney to assess the disaster of the London Olympics, he could bring a LOT to identifying and fixing the obamadisasters.   Just ending obamacare is a huge good start.   Restoring American support to our only ally in the middle east would be a huge benefit.   As far as that goes, getting the muslim brotherhood out of the white house is a benefit all by itself.



Romney created the system that Obamacare is based on.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

Yup.

Just the fact that he doesn't despise humanity is a refreshing change.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Judging from how long it took Romney to assess the disaster of the London Olympics, he could bring a LOT to identifying and fixing the obamadisasters. Just ending obamacare is a huge good start. Restoring American support to our only ally in the middle east would be a huge benefit. As far as that goes, getting the muslim brotherhood out of the white house is a benefit all by itself.
> ...


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Buford said:


> I never thought I'd vote for a Mormon for President, but Romney is exactly what the USA needs at this time.  Iran will not obtain nukes,


How will Romney stop them?


> he will stand for traditional American values,


What "traditional American values" does Romney stand for, that Obama does not?


> and knows how business works


What correlation is there between how "business" works and how "government" works? The US Executive Branch isn't a "business".


> and how to create success.


"Create success" is a completely meaningless phrase.


> All of this is what Obama is opposed to.  Barky has to go.


How is Obama "opposed" to any of those things?


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

^^^yawn^^^more progressive spew.

*"A new forum has been added to the board with the intent of having civil debates or discussions on a wide variety of topics without the flames, name calling, trolling, hijacking, etc."  Please follow these rules, thanks!
*


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure what you mean by 'has done more harm than good' BDB.
> ...



My opinions on this may be ridiculous but they are 100% informed opinions.  I believe Romney loves America because he has lived his life supporting the values that have made America great, he speaks of it in positive terms, and he has devoted his life to problem solving and/or in service for the benefit of others, often without any personal gain for himself.  It is pretty hard to make a similar case for the current resident of the White House.

We can debate whether his tax returns beyond what is asked of ANY presidential candidate or where he keeps his money when he is not in any elective office is fair game for criticism.  We can also debate whether he has to expose his entire family to being nitpicked and scrutinized with a huge magnifying glass if he provides more personal information than is required of ANY presidential candidate.  There is no suggestion that he acquired any of his wealth dishonorably, illegally, or unethically and that should be sufficient to allow him some privacy.   There is a lot of evidence that he has given more of his personal wealth, time, talent, and energy to others with no monetary benefit to himself than probably any President in U.S. history.

And disagreement with anybody, including who is President or running for the office, is perfectly allowed under the freedoms we have.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Judging from how long it took Romney to assess the disaster of the London Olympics, he could bring a LOT to identifying and fixing the obamadisasters.   Just ending obamacare is a huge good start.   Restoring American support to our only ally in the middle east would be a huge benefit.   As far as that goes, getting the muslim brotherhood out of the white house is a benefit all by itself.
> ...



Please don't be so disingenuous.

You know his model was for a STATE plan.

Not a nationwide, take it or pay a tax, plan


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 30, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



What were you doing in the UK? Why didn't you stay for the olympics? What do they use to murder each other with in the UK?


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

hortysir said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Which doesn't negate the FACT that Obamacare is based on Romney care.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> The business acumen he has does more harm than good. How, specifically, will he undo the damage that's already been done.


More harm than good?

That simply isn't true.  And, you can't just make a claim like that without trying to support it.

So, your claim - as it has no support - means absolutely nothing.

Just so you know.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Do you see where you are posting? Go check the rules.


Frank's asking you hard questions is not against the rules.


----------



## Liability (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.
> 
> Specifics would be greatly appreciated.



Because if we present a clear cut case, you will of course change your mind and vote for Romney.



Newsflash:

Being the anti-Obama is a damn fine qualification when the incumbent is such a disaster and a clusterfuck.

Romney:  He actually likes capitalism.  Vote Romney.


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 30, 2012)

WillowTree said:


> What were you doing in the UK? Why didn't you stay for the olympics? What do they use to murder each other with in the UK?



I was there on a motorcycle tour/vacation - well out of London. 
At dinner at a friend's house - the gun issue came up. He showed me a pocket knife that he is NOT allowed to own (anything that folds is illegal). We're talking a $12 WalMart piece here - ILLEGAL. I asked him, "What happens if someone breaks into your home and you stab the guy to defend yourself."
He told me - "I go to jail - the intruder gets community service."

Brit residents are to "subdue" the attacker - not kill or injure them. 

This is what the Obama regime would love to happen here.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 30, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > What were you doing in the UK? Why didn't you stay for the olympics? What do they use to murder each other with in the UK?
> ...



That just sounds like liberal PC Madness.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 30, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > What were you doing in the UK? Why didn't you stay for the olympics? What do they use to murder each other with in the UK?
> ...



That's why I'm voting for Romney.


----------



## Dr.House (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Romneycare wasn't 1200+ pages long....

Obamacare takes parts of Romneycare, adds about a billion other things, and can't even pay for it at implementation....


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


I disagree - I think it's pretty easy to make a similar case for Obama. Perhaps even a more fitting one.

Romney's background is in business, Obama's background is in community service. Romney didn't run Bain Capital "without any personal gain". He didn't run the Olympics "without personal gain".

I don't think that a background in business is a bad thing, but it's not reason for beatification either.



> We can debate whether his tax returns beyond what is asked of ANY presidential candidate or where he keeps his money when he is not in any elective office is fair game for criticism.  We can also debate whether he has to expose his entire family to being nitpicked and scrutinized with a huge magnifying glass if he provides more personal information than is required of ANY presidential candidate.  There is no suggestion that he acquired any of his wealth dishonorably, illegally, or unethically and that should be sufficient to allow him some privacy.


I don't think that any candidate should be forced to show anything. I'm not saying that I care to Romney's tax records. Just countering your claim that he's a completely "open book".


> There is a lot of evidence that he has given more of his personal wealth, time, talent, and energy to others with no monetary benefit to himself than probably any President in U.S. history.


I don't know what "evidence" you're talking about, but I also don't really care.


> And disagreement with anybody, including who is President or running for the office, is perfectly allowed under the freedoms we have.


Of course.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Then, in order to stay true to the model, Obama should take it to Illinois


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Is it a fact?   Or does the Administration use Romneycare to justify Obamacare?  Or to attack Romney?   But even if the developers of Obamacare took some of their ideas from Romneycare, it doesn't really change anything.  The fact remains that Obamacare is intended to control all the healthcare for the entire nation of more than 300 million widely diverse people.  Romneycare was developed to address a very small state with a unified and homogenous population that is smaller than New York City.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


You have to support that claim.

If you want debate, then DEBATE!

Don't just spew cheap talk - support claims, present logical arguments, etc.


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 30, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Don't just spew cheap talk - support claims, present logical arguments, etc.


*No Flaming!*


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 30, 2012)

Having not made up my mind yet on Mitt Romney,  in my humble opinion I see  Mitt Romney more as a moderate than I do as a conservative  and in these days  while some think that is a bad thing I myself do not. While he seemed to govern more as a Moderate  his  current stances on things  lean more conservative, but I tend to see those as more to shore up the base of the party rather than an indication of how he will govern the nation.  On a personal level,  he seems like a genuine family man that loves his nation  and yes  as some would call him a bit boring , perhaps thats  not such  a bad thing.  Let me explain, maybe just maybe we  might benefit from a President  that would  have less controversy around him than perhaps our current President or the one before him.  His downside appears to be  his detachment from the average American in terms of  their financial well being , as it would be hard for any person with his amount of wealth to understand that.  The other downside I see with  Mitt Romney as President is that he has surrounded himself with a number of former  Bush Adminstration foreign policy types that I have  a strong disagreement with in terms of what the US  Military footprint should be around the world.  Overall however,  I have my PAC paid ad filter on as most of those from both sides are meaningless and do not tell me a thing about the candidate and are for the most part  propaganda , so I await Oct. to see how these men do when the actually debate one another to talk about the real issues facing this nation. It would be nice to see one of them come out of this debate focused on this nation, it's people and perhaps if we are lucky they might be able to give back to this nation a sense of pride in what it means to be an American.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



It is a fact, and it's giving credit where credit is due.


----------



## Some Guy (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> I've always thought the idea that "business acumen" was a qualification for President as being a little ridiculous.
> 
> Government and Business have different purposes. Knowing how to run one has no correlation to the other.



Sure about that?  Both might have different purposes but they both operate to achieve a given goal.  If you have run a business, you've dealt with stress, you've had to make tough, make-or-break decisions.  You've had to surround yourself with smart people who can relay good information to you and whom you can rely on for an informed second opinion. 

For the highest office of government, I'd much rather have someone with that experience than someone without it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

I do think a few of you good people do need to read CK's and Meister's rules (in the sticky) re this forum before proceeding any further.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > I've always thought the idea that "business acumen" was a qualification for President as being a little ridiculous.
> ...


Dealing with stress, and making tough, make-or-break decisions are not experiences limited to those who have run businesses. Nor is "surrounding yourself with smart people".


> For the highest office of government, I'd much rather have someone with that experience than someone without it.



How would you know what experience a candidate has with "stress" and making "tough, make or break decisions"?


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > I never thought I'd vote for a Mormon for President, but Romney is exactly what the USA needs at this time.  Iran will not obtain nukes,
> ...



I only answer one question to one post.  

Romney will stop Iran the way they should be stopped.  Bomb their bomb factories.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

> Obamacare is based on Romneycare. In 2007, on Meet the Press, then-Governor Romney defended mandates and encouraged President Obama to copy his Massachusetts mandate model. Romney said, &#8220;Those who follow the path we pursued, will find it&#8217;s the best path. And we&#8217;ll end up with a nation that&#8217;s taken a mandate approach.&#8221; Governor Romney has yet to distance himself from Romneycare.
> 
> In fact, he&#8217;s been proud to highlight and defend it as a major accomplishment for the state of Massachusetts. Defending mandates is a strange position to take for a supposed &#8220;Republican&#8221; but it&#8217;s even stranger when you consider exit polls in the Massachusetts primary show that 51% of conservative voters in Massachusetts believe that RomneyCare &#8220;goes to far.&#8221;



Obamacare Is Based On Romneycare!

And, from the perspective of the Office of the President, 



> Yesterday Jay Carney was asked about a recent Gallup poll showing that a large majority of Americans believe ObamaCare is unconstitutional. His response was to remind the press that ObamaCare was based on what was once a &#8216;very conservative idea&#8217; from the Heritage Foundation and that its practical origins are from RomneyCare:



It begins &#8211; Jay Carney says ObamaCare based on RomneyCare » The Right Scoop -


----------



## Some Guy (Jul 30, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> Having not made up my mind yet on Mitt Romney,  in my humble opinion I see  Mitt Romney more as a moderate than I do as a conservative  and in these days  while some think that is a bad thing I myself do not. While he seemed to govern more as a Moderate  his  current stances on things  lean more conservative, but I tend to see those as more to shore up the base of the party rather than an indication of how he will govern the nation.



Considering the political climate right now, having a moderate like Romney who can bring people together vs. drive them apart would definitely be a good thing.




Navy1960 said:


> On a personal level,  he seems like a genuine family man that loves his nation  and yes  as some would call him a bit boring , perhaps thats  not such  a bad thing.



Of course it's not; it s a good thing.  Anything a campaign can come up with to put down the other candidate, they're going to use it.  But boring?  Can there be a worse attack?  Mike Tyson is anything but boring: does that make him a good candidate.  Nope.  Being boring usually means being stable and predictable: something that I think a lot of people who appreciate in the highest office.




Navy1960 said:


> His downside appears to be  his detachment from the average American in terms of  their financial well being , as it would be hard for any person with his amount of wealth to understand that.



Meh.  The left would have the nation believe that anyone who is rich was born rich or used and took advantage of people on their way to the top.  That may be true in some circumstances, it's not in most.  Many successful business people are so because they grew up having little or nothing.  It helped them learn the importance of family and hard work.  Add some intelligence there and those values lead to a successful business career.

I've never got the impression from Romney that he hates the common man or shows disdain for them.




Navy1960 said:


> so I await Oct. to see how these men do when the actually debate one another to talk about the real issues facing this nation. It would be nice to see one of them come out of this debate focused on this nation, it's people and being to give back to this nation a sense of pride in what it means to be an American.



Yep.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



There is a plethora of information on the stress and tough decisions that Romney has incurred in his various projects.  Analysis and summary and evaluation galore written by people with the credentials to do that re Romney.  All one has to to is google it up and read up or watch any of the documentaries that have already been produced.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 30, 2012)

Buford said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



Did Romney say thats what he would do? bomb Iran?


----------



## Dr.House (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



That is kind of disingenuous...

It's like saying that a cruise ship is based on my little rowboat...


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



I don't how else anyone is going to stop them from building a nuke.  Tell us another way.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



He said he would back Israel against Iran should they take action against them.

He also declared Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which apparently came as a big surprise to the Palestinians.


----------



## SayMyName (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.
> 
> Specifics would be greatly appreciated.



Romney has actually worked for a living, from delivering newspapers in youth, running the Olympics, and being the governor of a state, besides operating businesses. He has much more experience at "working" and running businesses and governments. He has a solid moral compass, and isn't in search of himself. We need all of that right now.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Some Guy said:
> ...



I don't doubt for a second that Romney has had stress in his life.

My point was that _everyone_ has - not just those who've "run a business".


----------



## Some Guy (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Dealing with stress, and making tough, make-or-break decisions are not experiences limited to those who have run businesses. Nor is "surrounding yourself with smart people".



It is when considering a large amount of people working underneath you who are dependent upon your decisions to be sound and correct in order to keep them in a job.

It seems like a lot of people hold a disdain for big business owners simply because they make a lot of money, thinking they're cruel and evil and step on people along the way.  Fact is, they want to see the people that work for them succeed because it means the company as a whole succeeds.  They also don't want to see all their employees out of a job because it means that the business has failed.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



Jerusalem belongs to Israel and everyone is just going to have to accept that.


----------



## syrenn (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.
> 
> Specifics would be greatly appreciated.




Hope and change. 


Obama had his shot and in my opinion failed. Its time for him to go and time for a change. I dont care who takes his place..but obama has to go. 

I never thought there would EVER be a day i would welcome a clinton back into office.... i would happily vote one of them back in to get rid of obama.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 30, 2012)

Buford said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



If we bombed Iran, how would that stop them from building nukes? wouldn't that actually accelerate the process?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Dealing with stress, and making tough, make-or-break decisions are not experiences limited to those who have run businesses. Nor is "surrounding yourself with smart people".
> ...



Who has said that big business owners are "cruel and evil"?


----------



## Si modo (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


Again, more cheap talk.  DEBATE has a specific meaning.  That means, if you make a claim, you support it with facts and a logical argument.

Otherwise, it is NOTHING but cheap talk.

Read.:


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



You can't make bombs when your bomb factories are destroyed.


----------



## SayMyName (Jul 30, 2012)

I also like Romney because I would like to see a First Lady in the house who doesn't feel the need to show off her arms all the time, and dresses the part.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Having not made up my mind yet on Mitt Romney,  in my humble opinion I see  Mitt Romney more as a moderate than I do as a conservative  and in these days  while some think that is a bad thing I myself do not. While he seemed to govern more as a Moderate  his  current stances on things  lean more conservative, but I tend to see those as more to shore up the base of the party rather than an indication of how he will govern the nation.
> ...



Good debate going here.  Kudos to both gentlemen.  

Re Romney being 'out of touch', I would say that I AM the common man (okay woman but you get my drift.)  Nowhere near wealthy; in fact I'm not sure we couldn't qualify for food stamps with the income we currently have, but we don't need them and it is highly unlikely that we would ever apply if we could qualify.  We have worked for every penny we have ever received and exept for one very brief stint with the New Mexio State Police, and one contract I accepted to do a county wide survey one time, we have never received a dime from the government.   We have not really held any glamorous jobs and have never been famous outside our relatively narrow experience.

And yet I am quite sure that all of you who oppose Romney and/lor who support Obama would say that "I am out of touch with the common man" because of the views that I hold.

Romney is not at all out of touch with me.  He mostly speaks my language.  He mostly recites my values and what I hold dear.


----------



## Some Guy (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



Seriously?  Plenty of (far) left wingers.  Occupyers.  At the very least, the MSM in general shows a lot of disdain for big business including big oil, big pharmaceutical and of course, Wall Street.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> I also like Romney because I would like to see a First Lady in the house who doesn't feel the need to show off her arms all the time, and dresses the part.



Michelle's ass is big enough to turn an aircraft carrier around on.


----------



## Dr.House (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> > Obamacare is based on Romneycare. In 2007, on Meet the Press, then-Governor Romney defended mandates and encouraged President Obama to copy his Massachusetts mandate model. Romney said, Those who follow the path we pursued, will find its the best path. And well end up with a nation thats taken a mandate approach. Governor Romney has yet to distance himself from Romneycare.
> >
> > In fact, hes been proud to highlight and defend it as a major accomplishment for the state of Massachusetts. Defending mandates is a strange position to take for a supposed Republican but its even stranger when you consider exit polls in the Massachusetts primary show that 51% of conservative voters in Massachusetts believe that RomneyCare goes to far.
> 
> ...



What was discussed in 2007 and what was delivered in 2012 are two completely different animals...


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 30, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



How would it accelerate the process?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Some Guy said:
> ...



I'd love to see a quote from the "MSM" that calls big business owners "cruel and evil".


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 30, 2012)

Buford said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



Where are all these bomb factories located? do we know? Iran is a huge country.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



But it is. Obama gave credit, Romney took credit.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Judging from how long it took Romney to assess the disaster of the London Olympics, he could bring a LOT to identifying and fixing the obamadisasters.   Just ending obamacare is a huge good start.   Restoring American support to our only ally in the middle east would be a huge benefit.   As far as that goes, getting the muslim brotherhood out of the white house is a benefit all by itself.
> ...






And he put it in place in one state.  One state where it could be seen how well it worked, and what would need to be fixed.

Obama took a plan which was already starting to show some weaknesses and applied it to a gigantic nation.

There were two things Obama could have done which could have kept his promises to improve the healthcare in America and to not be so  divisive, either of which would have allowed him to preserve his political capital for the other things he needed to work on and would not have had the suppressive effect that the year of paralysis of 2009 had on the economy.

First, he could have advanced a program which would encourage the 50 states to be 50 experiments in what works best, or more specifically in what works for them.

Second, he could have done his national initiatives in a piecemeal way focusing on the common ground.  And if Republicans were dragging their heels on small easily explainable parts of it, he could have used his sway with the American people to get them to call their representatives to get it passed.  


Unfortunately he didn't go that way.  Instead he pushed a massive comprehensive anxiety-inducing regulatory behemoth which the nation was so opposed to that even Massachusetts elected a Republican to try to stop it.  


It is disingenuous to suggest that Romney would have done that.  Romney wouldn't have tried to force the nation to follow Massachusetts' model.  Two things would have stopped him: his ability to recognize that the Massachusetts plan still had a lot of kinks to work out and his appreciation for the will of the people when they made their voices known from their various states.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

WillowTree said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



War. They'd kick into high gear, because they were under attack.


----------



## Some Guy (Jul 30, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > > Obamacare is based on Romneycare. In 2007, on Meet the Press, then-Governor Romney defended mandates and encouraged President Obama to copy his Massachusetts mandate model. Romney said, Those who follow the path we pursued, will find its the best path. And well end up with a nation thats taken a mandate approach. Governor Romney has yet to distance himself from Romneycare.
> ...



I would be curious to know if Romneycare is something that Mitt truly believes in, partly believes in or if it was mostly manifested from the predominantly left-wing governance of the state.  And depending on that, I'd be curious to know what his thoughts are regarding it's application for a much larger populous, that being the U.S.

Also, something being the model for something doesn't mean it's exactly the same.  I could say that i like the basis of the Chevy Volt in that it's a car, but i'm going to replace the electric motors with a big block engine and add performance suspension and tires.  Not really a true 'Chevy Volt' anymore, is it?


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Amelia said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



I give this post five gold stars, two Hail Mary's and an Our Father. Also, a warm fuzzy.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Sure they would.


----------



## Liability (Jul 30, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



I doubt that there's one factory of any significant kind in all of Iran that we couldn't pinpoint on a moment's notice.

And by "we" I do mean U.S. military and our intelligence agents.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 30, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Having not made up my mind yet on Mitt Romney,  in my humble opinion I see  Mitt Romney more as a moderate than I do as a conservative  and in these days  while some think that is a bad thing I myself do not. While he seemed to govern more as a Moderate  his  current stances on things  lean more conservative, but I tend to see those as more to shore up the base of the party rather than an indication of how he will govern the nation.
> ...



I don't  believe  Mitt Romney hates the common man or for that matter the poor, middle class, you name it.  In fact I see it as a downside  more so because it is a lack of understanding  than one of  disdain or hatred.   In fact he comes across to me as a genuine  man who cares for his nation very much.  I fail to understand the need to make villians out of anyone  that seeks office, like some do these days  simply because  we might not agree with them on a political basis.   

I looked at his  record as Gov. of Mass. and he appears to be more moderate than conservative  contrary to how he is shown in the media.  I am in agreement that someone who is more moderate and does not have as much controversy surrounding them might just be able to understand that  ideas to run this nation can be both left and right and in there we can find dare I say it, middle ground to move this nation in a positive direction. 

As I indicated though, my biggest issue with Mitt Romney is  his  foreign policy people that seem to be moving him towards one that was more  like the former  President which I  was  not in agreement with.  His  support of  Rep. Ryans plan even after it was  told by the CBO that it would blow a hole through the deficit  is a little bit  concerning as well. 

As for the man himself though,  he comes across to me as a genuine and sincere man who means well and has nothing but the best intent for this nation.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

WillowTree said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



What reason do you have for believing they would not prepare for war once they were under attack.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



^ This.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 30, 2012)

Liability said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



I agree however if we bomb Iran we have to stick with it, not bomb it a few times and than stop after we see pics of dead Iranian toddlers when they start putting daycare centers at the missile sites.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 30, 2012)

WillowTree said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



So the Iranians would lay down and accept us bombing their country?


----------



## Some Guy (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> I'd love to see a quote from the "MSM" that calls big business owners "cruel and evil".



I'm not going to spend a few days looking through terabytes of data for you.  Regardless of whether or not direct quotes exist, no one can deny that there's been plenty of sentiment out there.  Is Obama not out there right now running negative ads suggesting Romney isn't fit to run the country by implying that he's a business man who enjoys stepping on the little guy and hiding money from the government?  C'mon.

But i'll take the lack of response to the previous point about business owners being better equipped for political office as a win.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love to see a quote from the "MSM" that calls big business owners "cruel and evil".
> ...


Sure, but that's not an attack on "business owners", it's an attack on Romney.



> But i'll take the lack of response to the previous point about business owners being better equipped for political office as a win.



If it makes you feel better to claim a "win" on the internets, feel free.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Israel and the USA know where everyone of the bomb factories are located and we have the tools to destroy them.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Buford said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



What do you base this claim on?


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



What are they going to do other than unleash Hezbollah and Hamas.  Their navy will last about 2 hours.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Israeli and USA intelligence.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Buford said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



What are you doing with access to Israeli and USA intel?


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 30, 2012)

Buford said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



They said they will fire on Israel and our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and the rest of the gulf.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



I have a permit.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Buford said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Hamas is a Sunni Palestinian political party and paramilitary group, and Hezbollah is a Shi'a Lebanese political party and paramilitary group.

Neither have anything to do with Iran.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 30, 2012)

Buford said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



Lets just say this is true, why haven't we already done so?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Buford said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



A "permit"?


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Well to be fair Hamas recieves large sums of cash and weapons/training/support from Iran, and Hezbollah is Irans step child. The organization was created by Iran when Israel invaded Lebanon.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



I totally disagree.  They have everything to do with Iran.  Do you need current info on that?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Buford said:
> ...



That's true. 

But they _hate_ each other, and Iran has no control over either.


----------



## Some Guy (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Sure, but that's not an attack on "business owners", it's an attack on Romney.



...and it just so happens to fit in the with the theme of his "you didn't build that" speech and his desire to raise taxes on the rich claiming that they should pay their "fair share" despite the top 1% already paying for accounting for the overwhelming majority government revenue already.  The democrats are the party of more regulation which effectively is government controlling how the business is conducted in certain respects.

But, i guess i'm not going to convince you.  There's plenty of evidence out there that Obama and his collegues are anti-big business, perhaps you just don't want to believe it, which is your opinion.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



Iran supports them in their agenda against Israel.  That's undeniable.


----------



## Dr.House (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Romneycare and what was passed by 0bama are not the same thing...

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, but that's not an attack on "business owners", it's an attack on Romney.
> ...



I think you're confusing rhetoric with reality.

The reality of the situation is that _big business_ are the ones that _write_ the "regulations". "Regulations" are pro-big business. Regulations are almost always aimed to stop small businesses from competing with big business.

Obama isn't anti-big business, he's bought and paid for by big business.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



If Hamas and Hezbollah want to continue getting their generous aid packages from Iran they better listen, I know Hezbollah would unload on Israel if Iran gave the word, not sure about Hamas. There are Iranians living in Lebanon working with Hezbollah, during the Israel/Hezbollah war Israelis killed and captured bodies of the Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 30, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...


But giving and accepting credit is all it takes to make one thing the same as the other.  Didn't you know that?  No need for actual comparing and contrasting.


----------



## Some Guy (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Obama isn't anti-big business, he's bought and paid for by big business.



Selective big business perhaps?  If he was really pro big business, you'd think that more big businesses would throw their money behind him in his re-election effort.  So far, Romney is out raising him with, reportedly, not even really having to work for it.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Obama isn't anti-big business, he's bought and paid for by big business.
> ...



2012 Presidential Race | OpenSecrets

Obama has raised nearly twice as much money as Romney has.


----------



## Some Guy (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



Not sure where i got that other stuff from then.  Maybe it was within a certain demographic or something.  Thanks.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



I absolutely agree that Obama is bought and paid for by big business and government is hand in hand with big business.  I think that's why he is doing his damndest to make small business noncompetitive with big business and force everybody under government control.

But this thread isn't about Obama.  It is about Romney.

And Romney is proposing measures that will strengthen small business and take more of it out of government control to make it much more competitive against big business.  If you like big government and lots of federal control, then you'll hate Romney.  But that's one of the main reasons I'll be voting for him.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 30, 2012)

"Romney will stop Iran the way they should be stopped. Bomb their bomb factories."

Take a close look at the wording! This is the way it should be done. No matter that many other paths might work, this is the proper one.

'Reasoning' such as this almost impossible to engage intellectually. For anyone else, consider how US-Iranian relations have gotten to where they are.
OK, American hostages were held a very long time during a somewhat chaotic revolution. They were not executed, 'water boarded', raped or starved and they were returned. That did not happen out of the blue. Western powers, the US included, intervened in Iranian politics to install a government friendly to them in the early fifties. The totalitarian regime of the Shah was notoriously repressive. Iranians did not forget that, as we might expect of any people.
There is much to repair in our relations, but they are reparable peacefully, and remember PEACE IS CHEAPER THAN WAR!


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 30, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Some Guy said:
> ...



In the last 2 months, Romney has raised more money. Not overall.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> "Romney will stop Iran the way they should be stopped. Bomb their bomb factories."
> 
> Take a close look at the wording! This is the way it should be done. No matter that many other paths might work, this is the proper one.
> 
> ...



Tell us what will work to stop Iran.


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> The business acumen he has does more harm than good. How, specifically, will he undo the damage that's already been done.


Understanding the American energy business has been the Hallmark failure of the current administration that has resulted in small business owners afraid to hire as they face one threat after another by an administration that wishes to tax successful businesses and bolster green businesses as they go out of business anyway, with no tried-and-true profit-making ability in sight.

In disciplining BP Petroleum, Obama also nixed new drilling by American oil riggers, which resulted in some horrible consequences:

It created an immediate vacuum of oil prospects for America in the Gulf of Mexico, one of the richest oil reserves on earth
It threw tens of thousands of high-paying jobs workers into unemployment lines, exacerbating an already-unfortunate employment situation.
Gas prices went up with overseas sources, now in demand to deliver America's daily quota for oil every day.
People quit traveling when gas prices doubled and even tripled.
No travel collaterally hit restaurants in all tourist areas and most national parks, far removed from population centers.
​All tourist areas are now depressed; as many as half of all tourist service industries have gone out of business; worse yet, American children will not see the national parks like others did in years past when gas was cheap and people could go places on their vacations that would broaden the horizons for their children, not to mention light up some imaginations.

Mitt's energy plan is fully detailed here, and:



> As president, Mitt Romney will make every effort to safeguard the  environment, but he will be mindful at every step of also protecting the  jobs of American workers. This will require putting conservative  principles into action.


According to Investor's Business Daily, where American drillers would be now have now fallen into the hands of Cuba, China, and Russia: details



> Drilling will be done off America's coast soon enough. But thanks to a  treaty signed by President Carter, the new oil and gas resources that  will be discovered in the region will be discovered by Russia and Cuba  to their economic benefit.
> Normally, economic zones extend 200 miles off a country's coastline.  In some cases, conflicts can arise based on resources and geography. In  1977, Carter signed a treaty with Cuba that essentially split the  difference and created for the communist country an "exclusive economic  zone" extending from the western tip of Cuba north virtually to Key  West. Cuba has divided its side of the Florida Straits into 59 parcels  and put them up for lease.
> Foreign countries, including China and India, had acquired the rights to develop 16 of them.
> "This is the irony of ironies," complained Charles Drevna, executive  vice president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association.  "We have chosen to lock up our resources and stand by to be spectators  while these two come in and benefit from things right in our own  backyard."


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 30, 2012)

The Iranians are an intelligent, sophisticated people. Their culture is thousands of years old. Thinking of 'stopping' them is already an error and absolutely not the question. 
What we don't want is nuclear proliferation (by 'we', I mean you and me, but I think the government, too). 
We need to progress into the future together in understanding. The more contact we have, the better for both of us. Isolating and demonizing them is not the way. You don't like their 'leaders'? Neither do I. Neither do the Iranian people in a large number of cases. I don't like 'our' 'leaders' very much and certainly don't regard that the interests or sentiments of Americans is expressed in government policies.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> The Iranians are an intelligent, sophisticated people. Their culture is thousands of years old. Thinking of 'stopping' them is already an error and absolutely not the question.
> What we don't want is nuclear proliferation (by 'we', I mean you and me, but I think the government, too).
> We need to progress into the future together in understanding. The more contact we have, the better for both of us. Isolating and demonizing them is not the way. You don't like their 'leaders'? Neither do I. Neither do the Iranian people in a large number of cases. I don't like 'our' 'leaders' very much and certainly don't regard that the interests or sentiments of Americans is expressed in government policies.



I see your point now.  We have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.  That's not going to happen.  What's going to happen is Iran is going to have to learn to live without nukes.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

On that last point, Becki, Obama did America a HUGE disservice in the wake of the BP mishap.  By denying our own oil producers ability to lose all those offshore rigs, we lost those rigs, maybe forever, to other countries.  It will require billions to build new ones to start up our own production.  So instead of our own well regulated and monitored oil companies having those rigs producing our own oil, Obama allowed them to go to other countries who are drilling in the same waters but without having any U.S. interests in mind and without us having any control whatsoever over the safety or other risks involved.

Romney, by contrast, will do whatever is possible to do to get those rigs back and will also favor our own oil producers instead of those of other countries.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

Romney will make us the USA again instead of just another cog in the new world order.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 30, 2012)

Nothing could be better than for America to wake up and end this addiction to oil and the social, economic, ecologic and political catastrophe it is.
We have the know-how, creativity and resources to do other than send precious lives and billions of dollars overseas for something we would be better without. That a wee bit more petroleum can be squeezed from the ground so that Exxon or whoever can make hundreds and hundreds of dollars per second net profit and continue the agony a few days or weeks is not to our advantage.
America re-fitted for total war in a few months and outproduced every other country in the world put together. In less than ten years it invented almost everything required to send humans to the moon. Don't you think we can adapt to a new energy situation, especially when it means security, peace and prosperity?


----------



## Some Guy (Jul 30, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> The Iranians are an intelligent, sophisticated people. Their culture is thousands of years old. Thinking of 'stopping' them is already an error and absolutely not the question.
> What we don't want is nuclear proliferation (by 'we', I mean you and me, but I think the government, too).
> We need to progress into the future together in understanding. The more contact we have, the better for both of us. Isolating and demonizing them is not the way. You don't like their 'leaders'? Neither do I. Neither do the Iranian people in a large number of cases. I don't like 'our' 'leaders' very much and certainly don't regard that the interests or sentiments of Americans is expressed in government policies.



The sentiments of the Iranian people toward their leaders don't mean too much when the leaders are the ones who could possibly have the ability and the will to start a nuclear war.

So, however you'd want to go about it, equipping the people for a revolution or simply and directly taking out whatever targets we need to, is it really in our best interest or the interest of the world to allow Iran's leaders to try to pick up where Adolph Hitler left off, just with a nuclear missile in their arsenal?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

Buford said:


> Romney will make us the USA again instead of just another cog in the new world order.



I do think he will facilitat that in his approach to governing.  It's really up to us to make it happen though.

That is the #1 most significant difference between Romney and Obama.  Romney puts his faith in us and I believe will do his damndest to make government more conducive to us being able to do our thing to get America back to work and do its thing.

Obama puts all the faith in the government and actually diminishes and belittles private effort.  And never in the history of the world has authoritarian government been able to generate anything close to as much productivity and prosperity as does the free market populated by a free people.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 30, 2012)

I thought the New World Order was a Bush I thing?

No president is going to make America anything. Americans will make the country, as has always been the case.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Nothing could be better than for America to wake up and end this addiction to oil and the social, economic, ecologic and political catastrophe it is.
> We have the know-how, creativity and resources to do other than send precious lives and billions of dollars overseas for something we would be better without. That a wee bit more petroleum can be squeezed from the ground so that Exxon or whoever can make hundreds and hundreds of dollars per second net profit and continue the agony a few days or weeks is not to our advantage.
> America re-fitted for total war in a few months and outproduced every other country in the world put together. In less than ten years it invented almost everything required to send humans to the moon. Don't you think we can adapt to a new energy situation, especially when it means security, peace and prosperity?



Technology and demand will make the adaptations, not the govt.  We have plenty of oil right here in the USA.  There is a boom going on in North Dakota that no one seems to notice.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > Romney will make us the USA again instead of just another cog in the new world order.
> ...



I agree.   A true leader leads by consent of those he leads, not by his demand.  That is the difference between Barky and Romney.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> I thought the New World Order was a Bush I thing?
> 
> No president is going to make America anything. Americans will make the country, as has always been the case.



I believe the flaw in your thinking is that Iran's leaders can be dealt with.  I don't think peace is their goal.  I believe the destruction of Israel is their goal.


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> On that last point, Becki, Obama did America a HUGE disservice in the wake of the BP mishap.  By denying our own oil producers ability to lose all those offshore rigs, we lost those rigs, maybe forever, to other countries.  It will require billions to build new ones to start up our own production.  So instead of our own well regulated and monitored oil companies having those rigs producing our own oil, Obama allowed them to go to other countries who are drilling in the same waters but without having any U.S. interests in mind and without us having any control whatsoever over the safety or other risks involved.
> 
> Romney, by contrast, will do whatever is possible to do to get those rigs back and will also favor our own oil producers instead of those of other countries.


Agreed. Some think shutting an entire industry down in a region for good was a bad idea. I don't know whether this edict has been lifted, but we need a congress to ensure this never happens again. It wreaks of monarchial times that we broke away from 236 years ago this month.


----------



## Interpol (Jul 30, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > The business acumen he has does more harm than good. How, specifically, will he undo the damage that's already been done.
> ...



Business acumen is not all bad. 

Mitt Romney's business acumen is. 

His entire basis for running is, "I made a fortune. I'm a huge success. I'm gonna teach this country to do the same". 

Ok, so let's look a little deeper than that. 

He says that painful American taxation policy forces American companies to do business in cheaper labor markets. However, Mitt Romney's own tax rate was just 13.9% for the one year of returns he has put forward. 

The reason why he won't give up any previous years is that it looks like he paid even less than that amount in 2009. 

My tax rate is 25%. Mitt Romney's is 13.9%. 

The reason why that is is because the country is under a right wing tax policy that says, "Taxes are too high on the Mitt Romneys of the world. Lower their tax burden, and they'll shower us with jobs and prosperity". 

But if the Mitt Romneys of the world are taxed at close to nothing already because of all the breaks they qualify for, but all their money is in Swiss bank accounts, offshore island accounts, or being used to create jobs for Communists in China, than the right wing economic philosophy is not working. 

"Hi, I'm rich, but because I'm burdened with taxes, I can't invest in my own country."

That's the whole basis of why Romney is running. However, the truth is that he probably paid nothing in 2009, and is still creating jobs for Communists. 

I'm a Republican who has now been excluded from that party because they don't care about common sense anymore. 

I make a fraction of what Romney makes, but pay a higher tax rate. 

I hope for the day when the average American sees that the only redistribution of wealth going on is from hard-workin' folks like me who are subsidizing the Mitt Romneys of the world so they can turn around and stab us in the back by not creating the jobs and prosperity here that they said would happen if we made it possible for them to pay hardly anything back in a country that allows them to make untold billions. 

Not all business acumen is good, my friend.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

Interpol said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



If tax rates are the problem, why didn't Obama and his congress fix it when they had total control for two years?


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 30, 2012)

Do the people who want to bomb Iran also think North Korea should have been, or maybe still should be bombed?


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Do the people who want to bomb Iran also think North Korea should have been, or maybe still should be bombed?



Big difference.  N. Korea is run by rational people.  Iran is run by murderous cultists who believe armageddon will usher in their messiah.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 30, 2012)

Interpol said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I note that your post totally undermines your central thesis of "not all business acumen is good, my friend"

Shouldn't we learn from and emulate successful people? If Romney has found a way receive income other than working, if he found a way to make money work for him, instead of him working for money, well, isn't that a lesson that all Americans should learn?


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 30, 2012)

I certainly do not perceive the North Korean régime as more rational than just about anyone or anything. Their 'faith' is every bit as bizarre and murderous as any I can think of. 
So, sorry, on that count I cannot agree.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 30, 2012)

Making money by creating wealth helps. Creating profit from profit is not wealth creation and only serves to excessively concentrate power to the detriment of democratic processes.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> I certainly do not perceive the North Korean régime as more rational than just about anyone or anything. Their 'faith' is every bit as bizarre and murderous as any I can think of.
> So, sorry, on that count I cannot agree.



No need to be sorry.  I respect your opinion.

The North Korean leaders know what the cost of nuclear war will be.  The Iranian leaders dont believe there will be a cost because they believe in a fictional character to come to their rescue in a nuclear war.  

That's my opinion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 30, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Making money by creating wealth helps. Creating profit from profit is not wealth creation and only serves to excessively concentrate power to the detriment of democratic processes.



Is dividend reinvestment bad? evil?


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Buford said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



They never did have total control for two years. Not by a long shot.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> The business acumen he has does more harm than good. How, specifically, will he undo the damage that's already been done.


 
So I pointed out when the supermajority that you denied occurred, occurred.

Now will you please provide specifics of the harm Mitt Romney has done with his business acumen? Please provide links to evidence of the harm done, and explain exactly how it can be attributed to his business acumen.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > Interpol said:
> ...



And you're gonna pull the Scott Brown soundbite out of the hat.  

The fact is the Dems and Obama got Obamacare passed.  Why didn't they fix the tax problem when they had the chance?  Can you address that or not?


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > Interpol said:
> ...


 
Who had control?


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

The truth is, Obama inherited a Dem-controlled congress and that is what he had for the first 2 years of his rule.

Boop is incorrect when she says they didn't have control. Factual error.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

Here are the facts.  Obama and the Dems had total power for two years and didn't use it to fix immigration or the tax structure.  Now they can blame the republicans for "obstruction".

Some people will swallow the "obstruction" lie.  A lot of us will not.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

Yup.  In those first two years, the Democrats passed the most unconscionable, bloated, pork laden appropriations bill in history, passed the stimulus package that busted the budget wide open, raised the debt ceiling, and passed Obamacare without a single GOP vote.

But how many of us have seen our fellow Obama-supporting members whine that Obama couldn't do anything to fix the economy or the tax system because the eeeeeeeevul Republicans blocked everything?


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Because Senator Kennedy had a seizure, and Franken had not yet arrived. So. they only had 58, not the necessary 60.

You're welcome.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Because Senator Kennedy had a seizure, and Franken had not yet arrived. So. they only had 58, not the necessary 60.
> 
> You're welcome.



That's "not by a long shot"?

LOL  (Am I allowed to laugh?)


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Because Senator Kennedy had a seizure, and Franken had not yet arrived. So. they only had 58, not the necessary 60.
> 
> You're welcome.



You found enough votes to pass Obamacare.  The fact is nothing was even brought up to vote on regarding taxes and immigration.  Try again.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Because Senator Kennedy had a seizure, and Franken had not yet arrived. So. they only had 58, not the necessary 60.
> ...



It's like being pregnant. You either are, or you aren't. There was no "super majority for two years" as alleged.


----------



## Buford (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Why didn't your President and congress fix taxes and immigration when they had a "super majority"?  Did the dog eat their homework?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



But Dems did have a vetoproof majority for some period of time, no?


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 30, 2012)

Buford said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Please quote me what dates Obama had a super majority.

And also, tell me why in eight years, Bush didn't fix taxes and immigration.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 30, 2012)

"Is dividend reinvestment bad? evil?"
What dividend re-invested in what? If it's re-invested into a factory to make it more productive or in its workers to improve their skills, that's wealth.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



true. lets not forget about the "blue dogs" as well


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


 
We have 60 votes on paper, Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said Wednesday in an interview."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/politics/02cong.html

That was 2009...

"Obamacare is the product of a brief moment of total Democratic dominance in Washington. Key to that dominance was a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Senate majority."

The Democrats&#8217; 134-Day Supermajority | PoliPundit.com


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

"But health care had been passed. Later, without a decisive Senate majority, Democrats were forced to use procedural maneuvers to put the final touches on Obamacare. But they were just tweaking what had only been possible with a 60-vote majority."
The Democrats&#8217; 134-Day Supermajority | PoliPundit.com


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

Please provide specific info on the harm Romney has done by applying his business acumen.

"Any examples that you use should be _relevant_ to the topic at hand."

http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/basicskills.html#matter


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Bush didn't fix immigration because he was so out of step with most of the members in his party that it wasn't going to get done at least by his doing.  He was pro amnesty which is one of the issues I personally had with him.

Bush didn't fix taxes because he and the GOP Congress thought they had plenty of time before the ten years was up.  They did not anticipate losing the House and Senate in 2006 and then the Democrats were absolutely opposed to fixing the tax problem, at least as President Bush wanted it fixed.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

What Romney will bring to the Presidency:

1. Executive decision making skills. Romney has experience making tough decisions that affect people and jobs,  as a businessman in the private sector and as the governor of Massachusetts. He's an experienced legislator and businessman.

2. He has experience leading turnarounds. He turned around the Salt Lake City Olympics, taking that chaotic organization that was rocked by the spectre of financial ruin and scandal, and re-created it as a vibrant diplomatic and economic success. He did it by working with diverse groups, applying sound financial principles, and inspiring those involved with a sound, clear vision.

3. He's lived a life of committment to his faith and to his family. This isn't to say he's perfect, but he certainly has maintained himself and promoted himself as a strong family man as well as a devoted Mormon, despite the fact that  Mormons are not treated with respect or consideration by the press or the left leaning public. Instead of distancing himself from his faith, he has maintained it, and continued to contribute financially and through service to his church, and that is an admirable trait. 

4. He understands economics and how to increase productivity and income. Romney knows how jobs are created, he has a history of creating jobs.


----------



## blackhawk (Jul 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.
> 
> Specifics would be greatly appreciated.


To be honest not much which is the same way I felt when Obama was sworn in.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 30, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.
> ...



My problem with this premise has always been that what makes you a success in business doesn't necessarily translate into success in politics. 

The Business environment almost discourages dissent.  You have to see something really wrong before you object.  And depending on the boss, you'd better be right. 

The political arena is pretty much the opposite. People will object to stuff merely because you proposed it.  

Now, I've been critical of Romney in nearly every other thread, but let's concede that within the context of what he did in Bain, he was very good.  

But when he got into a position where people objected or disagreed or he had to build concensus, not so much.  As governor, he was unpopular, largely ineffective, and only served one term.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


 
His success with the Olympics in Utah was an example of both political acumen, and economic sense. He did not seek re-election in Massachusetts, so the fact that he only served one term is not evidence of lack of popularity. " During his term he presided over a series of spending cuts and increases in fees that eliminated a projected $1.2&#8211;1.5 billion deficit" (wiki, link below). That is not evidence of an "ineffective" governor.

Please provide evidence and specifics about how you define "unpopular" and show where he was ineffective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> His success with the Olympics in Utah was an example of both political acumen, and economic sense. He did not seek re-election in Massachusetts, so the fact that he only served one term is not evidence of lack of popularity. " During his term he presided over a series of spending cuts and increases in fees that eliminated a projected $1.21.5 billion deficit" (wiki, link below). That is not evidence of an "ineffective" governor.
> 
> Please provide evidence and specifics about how you define "unpopular" and show where he was ineffective.
> 
> Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Okay- evidence he was unpopular.  

In popularity polls in 2006, he ranked 48 out of 50 governors, with a 34% approval rating.  

veracitystew.com/2012/05/19/romney-ended-governorship-with-34-approval-rating/

He was polling behind potential democratic opponents by double digits. 

Mitt Romney Trailing in Massachusetts poll

As far as Utah, the problem there was, no one wanted the SLC Olympics to fail.  Everyone invovled was invested in their success, even if it meant huge infusions of federal cash.  So the premise that he pulled something off great when everyone involved was working towards the same goal is hardly impressive.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 30, 2012)

They didn't want it to fail, but it failed anyway because they were unable to make it work. Enter Romney. He was able to provide the leadership, the vision, and the plan to pull it together (quickly) and turn it around.

He did the same thing with the state of Massachusetts.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 30, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> They didn't want it to fail, but it failed anyway because they were unable to make it work. Enter Romney. He was able to provide the leadership, the vision, and the plan to pull it together (quickly) and turn it around.
> 
> He did the same thing with the state of Massachusetts.



It failed because instead of providing the resources to provide a suitable venue for Olympic Games, the people who ran SLC decided bribing IOC officials was a better course.  And when it was obvious what had happened, everyone from the Federal Government to Corporations moved to correct their mistake.  

Romney was about as signifigant to the success of the Olympics as Ringo Starr was to the success of the Beatles.


----------



## Toro (Jul 30, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > They didn't want it to fail, but it failed anyway because they were unable to make it work. Enter Romney. He was able to provide the leadership, the vision, and the plan to pull it together (quickly) and turn it around.
> ...



JoeAmpad couldn't say a thing positive about Romney if his life depended on it. That's how hatred warps objectivity. 

If it were so easy, they would have gotten some local shmoe to turn around the Olympics. But they didn't. They turned to a guy who had a long history of turning around organizations, and he did that. 

But haters gonna hate.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 30, 2012)

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I'm seeing you missed the whole discussion about Clean Debate Zone not including personal attacks.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



He was also a conservative with a semi hostile Democratically controlled State Legislature, and of course Romney's GOP opponents in the primary races and President Obama now are trying to make his record as governor of Massachusetts look as ineffective and awful as possible.

However, nobody could accuse WaPo of being a pro-Republian or pro-Romney publication, and their fact checker probably shows it pretty close to how it was:



> . . . You&#8217;ll notice the former governor has a mixed record on employment, with the outcomes largely depending on how you look at the data. This is what happens when job gains are tenuous. The takeaway is that Romney&#8217;s record is decent at best and unimpressive at worst -- but not wildly successful or dismal, as the two campaigns want voters to believe.
> Is Romney&rsquo;s Massachusetts record really as bad as Obama says? - The Washington Post



Ineffective?  That's pretty strong against the actual record.


----------



## Toro (Jul 30, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



This is in the Clean Zone?  I can't tell on Tapatalk.  

OK, I'll scrub it clean. Here:

It is politically convenient for those who oppose and even hate Romney to minimize his accomplishments. But the truth is that he did turn around the Olympics. He was hired because Romney is known as a brilliant turnaround artist. Of course, his opponents who have a vested interest in minimizing his vast accomplishments will point to a few instances when he failed, but he did not fail in SLC. If it was a nonevent, as the politically biased claim, then they would have hired anyone. Of course, they did not. They hired Romney. And now, his opponents are engaging in historical revisionism, which is pretty sad.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



LOL, you sound like Obama.
"Lots of people are smart."
"Lots of people work hard."
"Lots of people have stress."

But of course you are right, lots of people have stress.  But. . . .those who have succesfully incurred the stress and difficulty of major problem solving and putting a struggling business back on its feet as well as juggling the very difficult job of managing a state budget and negotiating critical legislation, would seem to have a more attractive resume to take on bigger responsibiltiies than would somebody who has done little or none of that.


----------



## Peach (Jul 30, 2012)

A focused mind, and the discipline he learned through his faith. Unfortunately, the last few days he has failed to exhibit either quality while outside the US.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 30, 2012)

Peach said:


> A focused mind, and the discipline he learned through his faith. Unfortunately, the last few days he has failed to exhibit either quality while outside the US.



I disagree.  The Left has been trying to make hay out of some of his comments they have taken out of their full context, and have grossly exaggerated any extemporaneous negative comments others say in what I believe is their ongoing campaign to diminish and discredit Romney.   And they meticulously avoid reporting on much that would be in Romney's favor.

But it was obvious, at least to me, in his trip to Israel that Romney is not interested in following the standard politically correct wishy washy attitudes re Israel versus the Palestinians.  Of course he has been soundly criticized for those gaffes while the whole thing struck me as the mark of a statesman who is telling it like it is instead of what he is 'supposed to say.'


----------



## Peach (Jul 30, 2012)

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Romney received adequate money, and lists of actual organizers to get things going; he himself did not work overtime. The LDS church played a large role in that Olympics, and should be credited. Having a favored son at the helm resulted in the Church, a well organized faith, doing the actual WORK. The LDS church deserves he credit, not the poster boy. Cameron was wrong, Salt Lake City is not in the middle of nowhere, it is part of the only state in the US actually run, in large part, by a church.


----------



## MeBelle (Jul 30, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JoeAmpad couldn't say a thing positive about Romney if his life depended on it. That's how hatred warps objectivity.
> ...



Links??


----------



## Toro (Jul 30, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Well, what was the problem I'm the first place then?  If it was all there, why was it failing?  This dichotomy seems to escape the politically motivated critics. If the problem was easy to solve, it wouldn't have been a problem in the first place. 

Truth is, the Olympics were failing. Romney took over leadership of the Olympics and it succeeded. The politically motivated people are trying to tear him down because it is in their political interest to do so.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 31, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Can you support that?


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 31, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



Okay, but why isn't Romney pointing at his record? He doesn't want to talk about anything that makes him look bad, but he can't just point and scream about Obama for the next 90 days.

Well, I mean - he CAN but seriously. He needs to discuss the good, the bad and the ugly of being a governor (OR being the CEO of Bain), but he won't, just like he won't release more tax returns or discuss tax havens.

Makes it hard to get enthusiastic about the man.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 31, 2012)

I think pointing at Obama could be pretty effective, all things considered.

But I thought the discussion wasn't about what he should do in his campaign, but why we like Romney.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 31, 2012)

Jimmy Carter was successful in business and was a governor, yet most Romney supports do not consider his preparations sufficient.
I am definitely not a Romney supporter and can see he has a very poor understanding of economics.
I am definitely not a supporter of Obama.
Both have poor defense and international relations ideas. 
Neither has answers for the real problems that confront humanity.
Almost anyone else would be better, and at least overthrowing the two-party dictatorship would be good.
Get off Romney! Get off Obama!
Get off dualism.


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink (Jul 31, 2012)

I don't like him. His "buisness experience" consits of major cuts. Wow, companies did better when they spent less. Great busiess model there romnom.

Many expenses need to be cut, yes, but I strongly believe romney will slash out at everything. He's going to be JUST like bush, a blank page on which his advisors can and will write whatever they damn well please.

Furthermore, his stance on tax cuts. The rich can pay clintion-era taxes. Its not too much to ask. The middle class, however, is the source of power of our economy. If low taxes are needed anywhere in America, they are needed for the middle class.

Honeslty, who cares about the rich's tax level anyway. You can give them a 40% rate and they'll find a way to pay 15%.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 31, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



From the following link, this gentleman totally hit the nail on the head as far as my perceptions of Willard go.



> The most striking (but by no means only) example of this was Romney's non-position on President Obama's changes to immigration policy for children. After Obama made his announcement, Romney tried to have things both ways. According to Romney, what Obama did was wrong (naturally), and a "President Romney" would much rather have Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform so he could sign it into law. What would Mitt do from "Day One" in office until this wondrous event happened? He wouldn't say. Would he overturn Obama's directive? Mitt was mum. Would he continue the policy until Congress acted? Not going to answer that one, sorry.
> 
> This is Mitt's position on issue after issue that comes up in the news. "I've got a secret plan, which will be implemented on Day One, but I'm not going to tell you about it because it might cause somebody somewhere to vote against me." How will Mitt magically cut taxes and end the deficit? We don't know. How will Romney reform the tax code to get rid of all those loopholes? Got me. Will this involve lower mortgage deductions, or reducing the charitable giving write-off? Mitt'll tell you later, after he's elected. Has Mitt used tax-dodging schemes himself? "You people" have all the information you're ever going to get out of him, sorry. What will Romney replace Obamacare with? Dunno. What would he do differently in Afghanistan? Your guess is as good as mine. Mitt's list of such weaseling is a long one.



Chris Weigant: Romney: Not Wimp But Weasel


----------



## Artevelde (Jul 31, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Aside from "He's not Obama." What do you seriously believe that he will bring to the Office of the President that will help America.
> 
> Specifics would be greatly appreciated.



Frankly, I wouldn't know. He is very vague and I find it difficult to get an idea of what kind of President he would be. One can presume he would be business-friendly and that he will espouse free market principles. I also get the impression that he is rather international-minded and in favour of free trade, which is a good thing. He may actually stand up better against protectionist pressures than Obama.

This being said, what did Obama bring to the Presidency except overblown rhetoric? And after 4 years, it's not really looking any better.

Compared to Obama in 2008, Romney has a wealth of experience.

but frankly, I'm not very much impressed by either of them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 31, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



If Romney thinks the MA Legislature was "hostile", what does he think the Dems in Washington are going to be like when after he topples Obama?  

Of course, this is revisionism by Mr. "Severely Conservative".  The fact is, he was a liberal to moderate governor up until the point he decided he had higher ambitions, and had to work the conservative side of the street because McCain and Guliani had the moderate side all sewn up. 

Here's the bottom line. He served one term, and he left such a bad taste in the mouths of the people he represented that he isn't even trying to win Mass. in November.  That I think is very telling in and of itself.  Usually, when a guy loses his home state, that's a bad sign.  McGovern and Gore come to mind.  But when he doesn't even try, you have to wonder why.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 31, 2012)

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Okay, in the spirit of things.  

He was hired because he was well known enough to be a good front man after SLC officials stepped in it by bribing IOC officials, and because being a member of their "religion", he was more likely to help them bury the bodies than point them out.  Anyone could have re-organized it, but not everyone would have done so in such a way that minimized how the Olympics got into such a mess to start with. 

And at the end of the day, it was the Olympics.  And not even the important one.  seriously, if you don't have ice-skaters kneecapping each other, who really cares about the Winter Olympics?


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Did you know that at the time, the women's figure skating event between Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding in Albertville was one of the highest rated sporting events in the US of all time?  It was either the second highest or the second highest excluding Super Bowls, I can't remember exactly, but I think it was the former. Either way, it was huge. 

First, the politically motivated play down Romney, now they're playing down the Olympics. Diminishing his accomplishments debases their arguments, which is why Democrats aren't doing it. Democrats are going after a handful of investments that went bad because they believe it undermines the Romney narrative of being a job creator but they aren't denying that he wasn't enormously successful otherwise. They aren't rationalizing away the Olympics because they know it's a loser. The extremely biased on all sides will rationalize away to reinforce their beliefs. That's the critique of Romney and the Olympics.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 31, 2012)

Toro said:


> Did you know that at the time, the women's figure skating event between Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding in Albertville was one of the highest rated sporting events in the US of all time?  It was either the second highest or the second highest excluding Super Bowls, I can't remember exactly, but I think it was the former. Either way, it was huge.



And if the USOC had its way, it never would have happened. They did their level best to throw Harding off the team before it ever got there. Because it was kind of a disgrace. But because they couldn't prove that her husband told her about the plot, she was allowed.  

Yeah, it was big, for the wrong reasons. Not because of the grace of the sport, but because people wanted to see the train wreck. 

And without checking Wiki, the biggest event of the 2002 games were.. ummmm, what exactly? 





Toro said:


> First, the politically motivated play down Romney, now they're playing down the Olympics. Diminishing his accomplishments debases their arguments, which is why Democrats aren't doing it. Democrats are going after a handful of investments that went bad because they believe it undermines the Romney narrative of being a job creator but they aren't denying that he wasn't enormously successful otherwise. They aren't rationalizing away the Olympics because they know it's a loser. The extremely biased on all sides will rationalize away to reinforce their beliefs. That's the critique of Romney and the Olympics.



As more than a few people pointed out, Romney's purpose at Bain was not to "create jobs", it was to create profits for investors.  And if that meant moving jobs overseas or shuttering a plant or yanking worker's pay and benefits, that's what he did.  Those investments didn't "go bad", they were the victim of looting by vampire capitalists. 

The same thing with the Olympics. His purpose was to whitewash over what a mess his fellow LDS had made of it, and because it would have been a huge national black eye if it had fallen flat, everyone from Corporate America to the Federal Government pitched in to make it work. So give Romney Credit. Only if you give everyone else credit as well. From Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to the kid working security that Romney screamed at and berated because he was Mitt Romney and no peasent was going to tell him where to park his car. 

My question is, why isn't Romney talking more about his time as governor of Massachusetts, which is far more relevent than Bain or the Olympics and more recent.


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2012)

A better question is if Romney was such a horrible governor, why aren't the Democrats talking about it?

And the reason, of course, is that

1.) he wasn't, and
2.) it undermines their narrative that he isn't a moderate


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 31, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You have anything to back any of this up? Supporting evidence? That is the spirit of true debate, of course.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 31, 2012)

Toro said:


> A better question is if Romney was such a horrible governor, why aren't the Democrats talking about it?
> 
> And the reason, of course, is that
> 
> ...



I keep asking for something besides rhetoric. While nobody is calling names, nothing else is different here. Nobody is adhering to the standard of real debate or anything remotely close it it. The name of the forum should be changed.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 31, 2012)

Toro said:


> A better question is if Romney was such a horrible governor, why aren't the Democrats talking about it?
> 
> And the reason, of course, is that
> 
> ...



Or that all his dodgy deals at Bain are such a target rich environment that they don't need to really go into his non-tenure in Massachusetts.  

Of course, a few more incidents like his "RomneyShambles" tour, he might do himself in.


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > A better question is if Romney was such a horrible governor, why aren't the Democrats talking about it?
> ...



Yet his opponents have to mislead about his record at Bain. 270 deals, a dozen go bad, and according to the biased partisans, GS Technologies was a wonderful company and Newt finds ex-employees who say that Gingrich's video is wrong. 

But, as Obama said, that's what you expect from those who can't run on their own record.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 31, 2012)

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Yeah, if Romney were so proud of what he did at Bain, he wouldn't be acting like the piano player at the cathouse who claims he had no idea what was going on upstairs after 1999.


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



He talks about his success at Bain all the time. 

But in the Gotcha! culture of politics and journalism, people distort, lie and lie by omission to advance their agendas and careers.


----------



## Peach (Jul 31, 2012)

Sancto & Newt ripped him so hard, it will be good to learn about the real man in the coming months.


----------



## The Infidel (Jul 31, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> I keep asking for something besides rhetoric. While nobody is calling names, nothing else is different here. Nobody is adhering to the standard of real debate or anything remotely close it it. The name of the forum should be changed.



Agreed

Just a Romney hate fest IMO.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 31, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> The business acumen he has does more harm than good.



How so?


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 31, 2012)

Trajan said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > The business acumen he has does more harm than good.
> ...



Sorry, I've already been ruled out as not qualified to post in here.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 1, 2012)

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Yes he does.  And he pretends that the bad stuff- AmPad, DDi, Damon Medical, GS Steel, all the outsourcing -  That had nothing to do with him.  Nope.  He was doing the Olympics when the bad stuff happened.  Yuppers.  Ignore that $100,000 Bain was paying him. And Tax returns? Fuggitaboutit! 

 and this is kind of a problem. The "Good Parts" happened in the 1990's, when thanks to Bill Clinton, we had 4% unemployment and a rolling stock market and you could even make up a company like Pets.com where your only asset was a stupid puppet and make a bunch of money. 

But when everything went South in 2001?  Nope. I was doing the Olympics.  Nothing to do with any of that bad stuff!


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 1, 2012)

Actually, the more I see and learn of him and his family, the more I like him. I think he would end up being a great leader, but one facing tremedous challenges in the future of this nation. I believe the divide has reached near "fighting" proportions in our country.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 1, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> Actually, the more I see and learn of him and his family, the more I like him. I think he would end up being a great leader, but one facing tremedous challenges in the future of this nation. I believe the divide has reached near "fighting" proportions in our country.



But the question is, why is there a divide at all?  

My problem with Romney (besides my mistrust of his religion) is that he looks at the decline in the middle class that has been wrought in the last 30 years as a good thing. Cut those union wages and benefits so investors can have more. Send jobs overseas. Replace people with machines.  Do Six Sigma to squeeze the last ounce of productivity out of an overstressed underpaid worker.  And the promise is, we will all be investors, so it will work out. 

But no, not really.  I keep a copy of my 401K statement from Q4 2008 to show the lie to that statement.  

When you dismantle the middle class, you make people more dependent on government.  When the working poor have to get food stamps and section 8 vouchers and medicare to get the things their parents used to earn with a good paying job, you get people who will vote for more government.  

The GOP's position has not to correct this problem. Their Wall Street Sugar Daddies won't hear of that.  Nope. Instead what they do is find other issues to keep working folks mad at each other.  Gay marriage, abortion, guns, "War on Christmas".


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 1, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, the more I see and learn of him and his family, the more I like him. I think he would end up being a great leader, but one facing tremedous challenges in the future of this nation. I believe the divide has reached near "fighting" proportions in our country.
> ...



Unfortunately, the cabal that seems to have existed between both new Democrats and establishment Republicans, leading the rise in government spending, played equally to the bankers and Wall Street elites. The current regime shows that it is no different, and someone new is needed over the current administration.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 1, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SayMyName said:
> ...



The problem is not that the government spends too much. In fact, 90% of what the government spends really can't be reduced.  The problem is, in the quest to destroy the middle class and give huge tax breaks to the wealthy, the system has created more dependency while generating less revenue.  

The TEA Party whining that "my taxes are too high" doesn't solve this problem. 

Fact is, under Clinton, we had it about right.  We had full employment, and the government was taking in more than it was spending.  More to the point, it was the only time in the last four decades we saw any real increase in middle class wages.


----------



## Listening (Nov 17, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> The business acumen he has does more harm than good. How, specifically, will he undo the damage that's already been done.



Are you ever going to support your assertions ?

This is a debate zone, not an opinion zone.


----------

