Mitt Romney

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 11 years ago

   To those who are going to vote for Mitt Romney, what are the pressing issues which draw you to him?  Why do you believe that Mr. Romney is going to make a better president than our current President Barack Obama?     Do you believe that Mr. Romney will make this country's sociopolitical and socioeconomic climate better?   Please elucidate on this matter.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      PseudoLogicposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Personally, I believe Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are equally bad in every significant way possible. Neither one of these politicians work for the American people, nor do they care about the American people. They both are simply puppets being controlled by globalist ideologies.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I will be voting for Romney and against Obama - but then I have always been a highly motivated voter(except in 2008) Even voted for the vacillating and grumpy McCain.
      
      http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/20 … nd-economy

      replyreport
   3. 59

      icu12bme2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      As far as I can tell, niether has the slightest clue how fix the economy. While Obama's approach has seen mediocre success at BEST (be that by failure of concept, or simply failure to IMPLIMENT doesn't really matter, does it?), Romney's "plan" is clearly based solely on self intrest. Romney doesn't grasp the idea that profit and national "success" are not neccesarily synonymous... This makes the economic issues a stalemate, so we need to look to social policy for the deciding factor.
      
      There will ALWAYS be those folks who vote solely on "God, guns, and gays", but I'd like to think that as a NATION, we are a more accepting people. "Liberal" has been branded a dirty word, but all labels aside, the vast majority of us really DO believe "ALL men were created equal".
      
      On that basis alone, given the LIMITED choice between the two, I'm for Obama.

      replyreport
2. 67

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   I am equally fascinated in why people would vote for this gentleman, especially if they did so to get a 'change' from Obama. I see only superficial differences between the two candidates. Anybody remotely interested in civil liberties should really be abstaining from voting in protest considering both of their despicable records.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      +++++++++!

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Two Minute Reviewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure I agree with the "superficial differences" part of your statement. Many people say that and it leaves me dumbfounded. On abortion, gay marriage, size and scope of government, taxation, and environmental policy they seem quite different. Somewhat in the same place on gun control (neither wants to touch it, even in the wake of the Colorado massacre). Where do you see similarities?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I'll tell you two places where they are the same.
         
         Tax incentives to stimulate job growth(I would love to see a liberal call out Obama for suggesting tax-breaks for corporations).
         
         The auto-industry bailout. Obama ended up doing what Romney had said needed to be done.
         
         People who think they are the same probably haven't read Mitt's stances on the big issues.

         replyreport
   3. 0

      Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, I think democrats in particular should show their dissatisfaction in the presidential candidates by abstaining from voting.

      replyreport
   4. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Here's a non-superficial difference between the candidates. (There are plenty of others.)
      
      Republicans vs. Women
      Published: July 29, 2012 37 Comments
      
         Even with a persistent gender gap in a presidential election year, House Republicans have not given up on their campaign to narrow access to birth control, abortion care and lifesaving cancer screenings. Far from it.
      Related in Opinion
      
          The Republican spending proposal revives some of the more extreme attacks on women’s health and freedom that were blocked by the Senate earlier in this Congress. The resurrection is part of an alarming national crusade that goes beyond abortion rights and strikes broadly at women’s health in general.
      
      These setbacks are recycled from the Congressional trash bin in the fiscal 2013 spending bill for federal health, labor and education programs approved by a House appropriations subcommittee on July 18 over loud objections from Democratic members to these and other provisions.
      
      The measure would bar Planned Parenthood’s network of clinics, which serve millions of women across the country, from receiving any federal money unless the health group agreed to no longer offer abortion services for which it uses no federal dollars — a patently unconstitutional provision. It would also eliminate financing for Title X, the effective federal family-planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for sexually-transmitted diseases. Without this program, some women would die, and unintended pregnancies would rise, resulting in some 400,000 more abortions a year and increases in Medicaid-related costs, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on reproductive health.
      
      On top of that, the bill would prevent implementation of most of the Affordable Care Act, wiping out its numerous advances for women’s health. It would seriously weaken the requirement that employee insurance plans cover birth control and other preventive health services by allowing any employer to opt out based on personal religious beliefs or moral objections.
      
      Pushed by the subcommittee’s chairman, Denny Rehberg, a Montana Republican, the budget plan stands little chance of being passed in its current form. Congress is about to leave on its August break, and, without explanation, the full Appropriations Committee’s consideration of the bill has been postponed indefinitely. It may be that Speaker John Boehner wants to avoid a controversy heading toward November that shifts focus from the economy.
      
      Even so, the subcommittee’s anti-woman work product is a statement of Republican policy. It is endorsed by the full committee chairman, Harold Rogers, and will be a starting point for negotiations on a budget deal with the Senate. Furthermore, when Congress puts forth bad ideas to curtail birth control and abortion access, they tend to spread, helping to inspire copycat bills in the states. Since House Republicans first tried to defund Planned Parenthood, for example, similar attacks have been enacted in six states, most recently in North Carolina earlier this month.
      
      There is a striking overlap between the subcommittee’s regressive politics and the polices espoused by the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. That makes it a window on what a Romney presidency could mean for women’s rights and lives.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You know Ralph, all that attacks on women stuff has been proven liberal propaganda long ago. The facts are either distorted beyond belief or out and out lies. You really should do some research.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Really?  How about you provide us with evidence of that instead of expecting us to believe your pronouncements.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               To the true believer what amount of proof would be sufficient?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  To understand the proof, any proof, it would be required of the liberal to have a mind that could understand and process it. Since that doesn't exist, no proof is necessary.

                  replyreport
               2. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Works both ways, unfortunately.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     
                     
                     Not really, the true believer is specific.
                     
                     Hoffer argues that all mass movements such as fascism, communism, and religion spread by promising a glorious future.
                     
                     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
                     
                     The Utopian promise of liberalism smacks of the same concept.

                     replyreport
            2. 0

               SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               PP I'm not sure, but I'll assume that was directed at me. Why don't you ask women?
               
               "Three in ten women (31 percent) overall believe that there is currently a "wide-scale effort to limit women's reproductive health choices and services, such as abortion, family planning, and contraception" in the U.S.  A larger share (45 percent) say there are some groups that would like to limit women's reproductive health choices and services but it is not a wide-scale effort, while others volunteer that no such effort exists (7 percent) or decline to offer an opinion (17 percent)."
               
               If such a wide-scale attack existed, women would be up in arms.
               
               It's funny you're so very concerned about a perceived attack on women, but fail to mention the current Administration's attack on religion.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Most liberal couldn't care less about religion with a good portion of them out-and-out hating the very mention of it unless, of course, you're speaking of the one where we're all suppose to bow to Barack Hussein Obama as supreme leader.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        SSDD

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           The bumper stickers just get bigger louder and more hateful - sometimes the best thing to do is ignore the source of annoyance.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes, it would seem so, undermyhat. Sad, really. It use to not be that way.

                              replyreport
               2. 65

                  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opini … mp;emc=rss
                  
                  Republicans vs. Women
                  Published: July 29, 2012 314 Comments
                  
                     
                  
                  Even with a persistent gender gap in a presidential election year, House Republicans have not given up on their campaign to narrow access to birth control, abortion care and lifesaving cancer screenings. Far from it.
                  Related in Opinion
                   
                     
                  A new Republican spending proposal revives some of the more extreme attacks on women’s health and freedom that were blocked by the Senate earlier in this Congress. The resurrection is part of an alarming national crusade that goes beyond abortion rights and strikes broadly at women’s health in general.
                  
                  These setbacks are recycled from the Congressional trash bin in the fiscal 2013 spending bill for federal health, labor and education programs approved by a House appropriations subcommittee on July 18 over loud objections from Democratic members to these and other provisions.
                  
                  The measure would bar Planned Parenthood’s network of clinics, which serve millions of women across the country, from receiving any federal money unless the health group agreed to no longer offer abortion services for which it uses no federal dollars — a patently unconstitutional provision. It would also eliminate financing for Title X, the effective federal family-planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for sexually-transmitted diseases. Without this program, some women would die, and unintended pregnancies would rise, resulting in some 400,000 more abortions a year and increases in Medicaid-related costs, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on reproductive health.
                  
                  On top of that, the bill would prevent implementation of most of the Affordable Care Act, wiping out its numerous advances for women’s health. It would seriously weaken the requirement that employee insurance plans cover birth control and other preventive health services by allowing any employer to opt out based on personal religious beliefs or moral objections.
                  
                  Pushed by the subcommittee’s chairman, Denny Rehberg, a Montana Republican, the budget plan stands little chance of being passed in its current form. Congress is about to leave on its August break, and, without explanation, the full Appropriations Committee’s consideration of the bill has been postponed indefinitely. It may be that Speaker John Boehner wants to avoid a controversy heading toward November that shifts focus from the economy.
                  
                  Even so, the subcommittee’s anti-woman work product is a statement of Republican policy. It is endorsed by the full committee chairman, Harold Rogers, and will be a starting point for negotiations on a budget deal with the Senate. Furthermore, when Congress puts forth bad ideas to curtail birth control and abortion access, they tend to spread, helping to inspire copycat bills in the states. Since House Republicans first tried to defund Planned Parenthood, for example, similar attacks have been enacted in six states, most recently in North Carolina earlier this month.
                  
                  There is a striking overlap between the subcommittee’s regressive politics and the policies espoused by the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. That makes it a window on what a Romney presidency could mean for women’s rights and lives.

                  replyreport
               3. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Lil' Susie, I have not expressed any concern at all in this thread.  That was Ralph.  I merely asked you to support your claims that Ralph's list of actual actions by Republicans is full of lies and propaganda with something like, you know, evidence.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Wayne Brownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     You can start with the premise that we are broke, broke, broke, and someone is attempting to get the reins on spending.  Don't come back with the suggestion that more taxes is a solution...it is not.  Our government responds in only one manner to an increase in revenue and that is an increase in spending which leaves us right where we started. We have long since passed the point at which we can just decide that we are going to furnish people with "free stuff"....sooner or later that debt will come due. Now maybe Ralph needs to paint his list in that light rather than insinuate that the actions on the right are rooted in greed and hatred as opposed to fiscal responsibility....something total devoid and not the least bit familiar to the current administration or the Pre-2010 Congress. WB

                     replyreport
3. 78

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   Good luck with this thread, gmwilliams.
   It's a great question.
   I think you'll find, however, very, few PRO-Romney voters.
   It wouldn't matter who the GOP put up.
   They're just against Obama.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you.    There are many Republicans and conservatives here and I just am interested in their responses regarding this subject.    There is going to some brewing in this pot!

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I will be curious to read responses as well.
         
         I guess JaxsonRaine, Habee, Sparkling Jewel, Brenda Durham, Longhunter, Olyhooch and JSChams (to name some I'm 99% sure are Romneyites but not for the same reasons!! ) are not online tonight.
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Don't worry, they WILL be here either tomorrow or another day.  I can't wait!

            replyreport
         2. 0

            Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            MM & GM,
            
            I'm not overly happy with the presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, and I don't believe there's any question as to whether or not I support Barack Hussein Obama. I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils, as I've had to do for the last several elections.
            
            Sorry to disappoint but no great controversy here.

            replyreport
   2. 0

      SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Like many just weren't against Bush in 2008.
      I'll be truthful...
      
      
      I can see the difference in a Health Care Reform program at a State Level and the same at a Federal Level.
      I do not want bigger Federal Government.
      I want the economy to have a fighting chance.
      President Obama had his four years and only made it worse.
      Romney has actual business experience.
      It's still time for change because the first one promised never happened.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Paul Wingertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         "Romney has actual business experience." Why would a president need business experience? Since when is a government suppose to make a profit? Romney has experience of profiting at other people's loss and a compulsive liar.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The ingredients are bubbling slowly to the surface, good show!

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah, but from the opposition rebutting the argument.
               

               replyreport
         2. 0

            SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Left wing rhetoric with absolutely no proof. Business experience is necessary to get out of the mess we're in.
            A business man understands the difference between "I will cut the debt in half by the end of my first term" and continuing to increase that debt by trillions of dollars.
            Consider President Obama never held an actual job in his life, whose back did he walk on to get where he is?
            
            Just because someone is successful does not make them an oppressor. Oh or is it only successful Republicans who are oppressors?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Paul Wingertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Whatever you say

               replyreport
            2. 0

               DMartelonlineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Yes just look at how well President Bush did after all his job experience

               replyreport
4. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   My main concern with the US, at this point in time, is the unemployment rate. We still have double digit unemployment, and according to CBO we won't see 6% unemployment for another 3 years, and we won't see true 6% unemployment any time in the next decade.
   
   We need to attract investment into our economy, both domestic and international. The simplest thing we can do on that front is to provide a competitive corporate tax rate, along with short-term investment tax rates. Effective corporate tax rates on new investment can range as high as 41%(if memory serves), and average around 30%. The OECD average is close to 20%, with several countries near 10%. Just from the tax standpoint alone, there is a huge incentive for investors to look elsewhere.
   
   Romney's business experience is relevant. He understands the challenges businesses face. He understands that businesses have to make a profit to survive. When 10%+ of Americans are out of work, we need to help businesses be successful and grow.
   
   Ironically, liberals poke fun at conservatives' insistence on lower corporate rates, while Obama is claiming his tax break on new hiring expenses(a 10% break on new expenses, so if you hired an extra person at $30k per year you would get a $3k tax break) would create a million new jobs.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Romneys record while Governor of Massachusetts for creating jobs was dimal at best during his term.  There was a recession at that time also.
      
      "During that time, according to the U.S. Labor Department, the state ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth. Fourth from last.
      
      The only ones that did worse? Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana. In other words, two rustbelt states and another that lost its biggest city to a hurricane.
      
      The Massachusetts jobs growth over that period, a pitiful 0.9 percent, badly lagged other high-skill, high-wage, knowledge economy states like New York (2.7 percent), California (4.7 percent) and North Carolina (7.6 percent)."
      
      The article is anti democratic and checks facts on David Axelrod but the conclusion is the same.  Romney has no answers nor is he letting on as to any new strategy as to what he will do if elected.
      
      Here is a link to the article.
      
      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … ssachuset/

      replyreport
      1. 0

         SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         What they don't tell you is that the rate of job growth in Massachusetts the year before he took office. The state ranked 50th. In his final year as Governor, it ranked 28th. The ranking of 47 is an average for his entire tenure as Governor. It was improving, not declining when he left office.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The big problem, and I've been guilty of this in the past, is people will look for someone in the other party to blame, and someone in their part to credit.
            
            So if a D governor is under an R POTUS, and jobs go down, liberals will blame the R POTUS. If jobs go up, they will credit the D governor. Vice versa for conservatives.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Doesn't really apply Jaxson because he was an R Governor under an R POTUS. He was Governor from 2002 - 2006. He did not seek re-election in 2006.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm just saying, there is little to no consistency in who gets credit or blame for job creation/loss. It's still the same with R/R. Is it the governor, is it the POTUS, is it congress?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     That's fine. Then the prevailing argument here, that he "lost" jobs in Massachusetts, which is not even true, is moot. I've seen no other argument against Romney other than that.
                     
                     So offer me something else.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm not arguing against Romney.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes I know. I meant generally, not specifically you. Sorry about that.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Haha.
                              
                              Well, I can be the devil's advocate.
                              
                              He was a corporate raider, slashed jobs, and outsourced.
                              He is a puppet of his church.
                              He hates dogs.
                              He is a puppet of Wall Street.
                              He wants tax breaks for the wealthy.
                              He wants tax breaks and loopholes for corporations.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Oh marvelous! This will be fun.
                                 
                                 1. He wasn't hands-on at Bain at that time. Further, there is little proof of these claims.
                                 2. Rather a puppet of the Mormon church than one of Reverend Wright's church.
                                 3. Maybe he prefers cats. Some people just don't like dogs. Maybe he was bit as a child. Can be traumatizing.
                                 4. No proof of this, just said because he has investments. Is Pelosi a puppet of Wall Street as well? Do believe she has investments. Overseas ones as well. Hmmm..isn't that odd.
                                 5. Not really. He wants to not raise taxes from their current level. It is not the same thing. He is in favor of corporate tax breaks, which I do believe President Obama has a watered down version of and they are claiming how it will create a million jobs. Imagine how many jobs real corporate tax breaks will create.
                                 
                                 Ooops! Covered 2 with one lol

                                 replyreport
                     2. 61

                        Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Problems I have with Romney
                        
                        #1) He is an empty suit, I have yet to see him express a single opinion with conviction or do anything that makes me believe he has leadership capability Obama isn't much better mind you, it's been a while since this country has had real leaders but Romney seems especially bad, it's a cliche by now but he just seems to be saying what people want to hear to get conservatives and moderates to vote for him, whatever they want to hear at that particular moment.
                        
                        #2) He has not, in my eyes, acted with the moral integrity that we saw from McCain last election, I didn't vote for McCain because I didn't support his policies but as an actual candidate he was very impressive, he always rejected vitriol and venom and distanced himself from things like birthers, Romney has not.
                        
                        #3) Romney was involved in sending American jobs overseas, I understand the benefits of outsourcing but I don't consider it a moral choice and when it became a possibility for my business I avoided it, there are certain things more important that saving some dollars and I am not willing to vote for a person who sent American jobs overseas for the sake of a bottom line at the expense of Americans and the US as a whole
                        
                        #4) He is the furthest possible thing from self made being born into wealth etc. again the opposition is only a little better but I have a lot more respect for someone who has earned it than for someone who had most of it given to him and I think Romney sits in the second category (I am sure he worked hard etc. but I don't believe he would be a notable figure politically at all if it were not for who his family are)
                        
                        Having said all that the actual candidates are really secondary and we tend to focus on them far too much, both sides have started attacking the respective candidates often rather viciously rather than the actual important part which is their policies, the sad thing is their policies on close examination are economically very similar and I prefer the Obama social stance (big fan of the repeal of the don't ask don't tell particularly)  to the Romney one which is at best bland at worst non existent.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           How do you feel about Romney's work with the budget in Massachusetts? How about him closing loop holes for banks?
                           
                           Of course a candidate is going to appeal to the voter base. I actually think Romney is more centrist, but he has to appeal to the right to get the votes.
                           
                           Neither side has done a good job of that. This cycle, Romney has stuck to the issues while the left has levied personal, non-issue attacks against Romney.
                           
                           Josak, if you can save a company by outsourcing some of its work, is that a good thing to do? Or is it better to let the company go under for the sake of patriotism?
                           
                           Can you show how Romney outsourced 'at the expense of' Americans and the US as a whole?
                           
                           So, the fact that he donated his inheritance, and built his own wealth, means nothing?

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              DMartelonlineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              As a MA resident you can rest assured that these "balanced budgets" were balanced by increases in local taxes and other fees.  I'm an undecided (and registered Independent) ..... and here's the info: http://thepresidency.us/2011/09/mitt-romney/
                              
                              Scroll down until you see Taxes and spending and you'll see this:
                              
                              :"Upon entering office in the middle of a fiscal year, Romney faced an immediate $650 million shortfall and a projected $3 billion deficit for the next year.  Unexpected revenue of $1.0–1.3 billion from a previously enacted capital gains tax increase and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2–1.5 billion.  Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, by 2006 the state had a $600–700 million surplus.
                              Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including those for driver’s licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses.  Romney increased a special gasoline retailer fee by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue.  Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years.
                              The state legislature, with Romney’s support, also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.  The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63 percent over four years.  Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as Massachusetts governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget, but all of them were overridden by the Democratic-dominated legislature.
                              The cuts in state spending put added pressure on local property taxes; the share of town and city revenues coming from property taxes rose from 49 percent to 53 percent.  The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney’s governorship but still was below the national average.  According to the Tax Foundation, that per capita burden was 9.8 percent in 2002 (below the national average of 10.3 percent), and 10.5 percent in 2006 (below the national average of 10.8 percent)."

                              replyreport
                        2. 0

                           SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           1. I will agree he needs to open up more I saw him in debates when he ran before and he does have personality. I do not agree that he panders. He went before the NAACP, on invitation, knowing it was a hostile audience. He did not pander in the least. He kept his stance and took the boos in stride. It deserves respect when our President, who was also invited, couldn't be bothered.
                           
                           2. I disagree wholeheartedly with this. It is the Obama campaign who has gone on the attack, and much of it out and out lies. They called him a felon for pete's sake. Is he not allowed to defend himself? I've seen no vitriol from that side but rather from the other. Give me some example please.
                           
                           3. Romney was not hands-on at Bain when this occurred. That is the first thing. Second, President Obama used stimulus money to create jobs overseas. Which one is worse? Before you even try to talk about proof, there is the same amount of proof that Romney outsourced jobs as the President used stimulus dollars to create jobs overseas. Can't have it both ways.
                           
                           4. And what is President Obama? He attended private, foreign schools. How were these paid for? Secondly, Romney's father was self-made. You really think he has forgotten how hard his own father had to work to be successful?
                           
                           I will agree with your point that we lack real leaders these days. There are some I see up and coming around the country but they lack true experience at this time. Economically similar? How so? I would disagree there entirely.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              DMartelonlineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              RE: Stimulus dollars: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/stimul … -overseas/
                              
                              RE: Foreign schools: 1971-1979 Obama attends Punahou School in Honolulu from the fifth grade to his High School graduation in 1979.
                              
                              1979-1981 Obama moves to Los Angeles to attend Occidental College. Obama transfers his studies two years later to Columbia in NY.
                              
                              1981-1983 Obama studies Political Science and International Relations at Columbia University in NY where he received his BA in 1983.
                              
                              http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/money.asp

                              replyreport
      2. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         From your source: "Economists told us that it's a stretch to blame or credit Romney or any governor for job numbers."
         
         Nor does your source have the 'conclusion' that you claim it does.
         
         Let me ask you a question: Do you think the US is an attractive environment for investors compared to other countries?

         replyreport
5. 92

   habeeposted 11 years ago

   I'm voting for Romney, although I certainly don't agree with him 100%. I'm not an Obama-hater, by the way. I just think Mitt will be better for jobs, small business, and the deficit. I'm more in line with Obama on some social issues, but my biggest concern is the economy.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Good evening, habee, nice to have you on board!

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks, gm!

         replyreport
   2. 60

      mio cidposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm a little disappointed by you decision , I still hope Obama wins so the real republicans as yourself can take back control of your party and the country will be much better off.I'm affraid if Romney wins the loons will take most of the credit and remain in control

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Sorry, Mio. We see things differently. Despite the way Romney has had to appeal to the far right, he's a moderate. I can't imagine that he'd go on some "witch hunt" against gays, minorities, etc. We need more moderate Republicans in office. In fact, I think we need more moderates, period - R, D, and Indies!

         replyreport
6. 78

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   What makes us think that keeping more money in businesses' pockets will translate to job growth?
   Maybe the employers will, as they have in the past, simply sit on the extra cash.
   

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The real incentive is for new investments. Why wouldn't we want to look attractive to multinational investors?
      
      Besides, if Obama can create a million jobs with a very small tax break, just think how well a real tax cut will do!

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hey, I have a great idea to make American companies more attractive to foreign investors.
         Take the burden of paying health care benefits off them.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            MM, I've addressed that three times, and you've ignored me each time.
            
            Ok, employers don't have to pay anything into employee's healthcare anymore.
            
            So who is going to pay for it now?

            replyreport
         2. 0

            DMartelonlineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The fact is that small business (e.g., 50 employees or less) are not impacted at all.
            
            http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43090

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               That's true.
               I wasn't entirely sure whether the poster who mentioned making companies appealing to foreign investors meant big American companies or microAmerican companies.
               I assumed big.

               replyreport
7. 0

   screamingposted 11 years ago

   I don't see Romney helping small business (ma and pas). I believe he's more apt to help Big Business at the expense of ma and pas. On the issue of creating job? I don't see it.

   replyreport
8. 78

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … xperience/
   
   Obama has never worked a day in his life? Define "work."
   
   In 2008 Politifact found "TRUE" the claim that he spent 20 years devoted to working on behalf of families who are having a tough time and are seeking out the American dream.
   The bulk of Obama's professional experience is either in elected office or working for a nonprofit, a university or a civil rights law firm.
   So now he's got 24 years working for those who are having a tough time seeking the American dream.
   
   SUMMARY: Though often described as an upstart or newcomer, Barack Obama has a solid resume in public service work — 20 years' worth, in fact.
   We find Obama's claim of two decades of experience to be accurate. We also find that just about all of his experience is in the field of public service, education or civil rights law.
   For our examination, we looked at Obama's official congressional biography, his professional resume and news articles chronicling his political rise in Illinois.
   
   If Obama wins election and takes office in January 2009, he will have served four years in the U.S. Senate representing Illinois.
   
   Before that, he was a state senator in Illinois for eight years.
   He was also a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School during that time.
   
   His schedule from the school shows him teaching two or three classes in the fall and winter terms — usually Constitutional Law III: Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process; Voting Rights and the Democratic Process; and Current Issues in Racism and the Law.
   In the spring, he would attend the Illinois legislative sessions.
   Press reports indicate he would do a small amount of private law practice during the summer.
   So that's eight years as a public official in Illinois, bringing our total to 12 years.
   
   Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983. He worked for a year as a financial analyst.
   He gave up that job to go into community organizing, work he felt was more important politically.
   He worked three years as a community organizer in Chicago before going to Harvard Law School.
   We won't count the junior-level business experience as working "on behalf of families who are having a hard time," but the community organizing work does seem to fit the bill. That brings his work experience to 15 years.
   At Harvard, Obama began to receive national attention. He became the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and was recruited heavily by law firms around the country.
   He met his future wife, Michelle Robinson, as a summer associate at the Chicago firm Sidley Austin.
   He graduated in 1991. He ran Illinois Project Vote, a voter registration drive, for much of 1992, and then accepted a position with the Chicago firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland. The firm specialized in political and civil rights work and neighborhood economic development work.
   He also began teaching at the University of Chicago in 1993. He was elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996 and took office in 1997, so his full-time work after law school comprises five years. That gets us to 20 years.

   replyreport
9. 60

   Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years ago

   
   
   
   
   

   replyreport
10. 60

    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years ago

    

    replyreport
11. 60

    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years ago

    

    replyreport
12. 60

    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years ago

    

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       AHHHH, a little "he said she said."

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Well this my be proof that one of them is a lying hypocrite . . .
          
          http://youtu.be/lNDsyKnQIes

          replyreport
13. 60

    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years ago

    

    replyreport