.....actually noted neoconservative Michael Medved was talking about this earlier today.
To be nice and not clutter up your thread, I started one where you can see the facts.
Another Obama bashing thread mingled in with all the others.
You're just not on your game tonight and you continue to disappoint me that you haven't figured out Mitt's escape clause yet.
Everyone wants health, wealth, and prosperity.
But to get there - you need a plan. A well thought-out detailed plan.
If somebody is wanting my vote - they better have rigorously researched the problems, considered the best approach, and be absolutely sure to stick to their game-plan.
A majority of these are not 'new' issues. They've both had a lot of time to contemplate this and (I hope) have done their homework.
*I* don't care about colors or parties. I care and vote on issues.
One significant characteristic I expect from a leader is long-term reliable consistency on issues.
Wavering on issues indicates sub-par research, poor decisions, lack of commitment to 'their direction', ....or disingenuous intentions.
Yes I agree that sometimes changes on issues are necessary.
Issues can change, new information can be brought to light, or who knows what else. But dramatic changes should not occur overnight - or often.
Willy-nilly "changing your mind" raises a BIG red flag for me.
If he's not committed to his position, ...and is free to 'change his mind', ...then how do you vote on issues?
And if this isn't about 'issues', then what do you base it on? Blindly on color or party?
But to get there - you need a plan. A well thought-out detailed plan.
If somebody is wanting my vote - they better have rigorously researched the problems, considered the best approach, and be absolutely sure to stick to their game-plan.
A majority of these are not 'new' issues. They've both had a lot of time to contemplate this and (I hope) have done their homework.
*I* don't care about colors or parties. I care and vote on issues.
One significant characteristic I expect from a leader is long-term reliable consistency on issues.
Wavering on issues indicates sub-par research, poor decisions, lack of commitment to 'their direction', ....or disingenuous intentions.
Yes I agree that sometimes changes on issues are necessary.
Issues can change, new information can be brought to light, or who knows what else. But dramatic changes should not occur overnight - or often.
Willy-nilly "changing your mind" raises a BIG red flag for me.
If he's not committed to his position, ...and is free to 'change his mind', ...then how do you vote on issues?
And if this isn't about 'issues', then what do you base it on? Blindly on color or party?
Another Obama bashing thread mingled in with all the others.
You're just not on your game tonight and you continue to disappoint me that you haven't figured out Mitt's escape clause yet.
1) To be honest I had to go to the doc today with a stomach virus.
2) Could be because I do not care about an "escape clause" from a manufactured controversy that is only an attempt at covering for the Obumbler.
Sorry to hear that. Hope you are better soon.
That explains the crankiness.
Oh dang, your a nice fellow!
Sorry to hear that. Hope you are better soon.
That explains the crankiness.
Me too and thank you.
I had this crap a week or two ago and thought I was over it but it is back with a vengeance. I even seem to have given it to the wifey. Which is bad, very bad. She will not let me do anything and I am BORED!!!!
As I see it, I am going to have to vote for the one who at least professes to have American values. Not my favorite choice of all candidates or others who could have been chosen, but at least someone who grew up in America, attended American schools, knows what fried chicken on Sunday after church is, been told that going to "hell" is something different than going to Chicago. Been part of kids in America himself ( real life), knowing what playing work up at the local ball field is, knowing what a cake walk to raise money at the elementary school is, or why mentioning Saturday night in you Chevrolet with your favorite girlfriend couldl make you smile, and how playing Monopoly can change your life.
For you younger people, Monopoly, a board game, before computers. This was my first introduction to capitalism. Use strategy, have a little luck, win the game. No one (EPA or OSHA) came in and took your money away from you. Some times, you had to go to jail, but play smart, you win.
Romney and Bain Cap only took on Failing companies, they were toast to begin with. Good ideas, but with not enough whatever to carry though. It was Bains bushiness structure to only look for companies that were on the way down and out, not much of a chance of recovery, and had no way to survive. Bain was their last hope of anyone saving them, for the last resort. Bain was able to pull something close to 75% of their fat out of the fire. I do not know about you, but I do not buy stock in failing companies, (at least on purpose.) I sold my Staples at $2.04/share many years ago at a loss. I should have waited for Bain Capital to take them over, now at $11.63 after the stock splits and dividends I could have made money. I guess I bet against Romney then. I will not do it again, promise.
Damned them Republicans trying to help make money for us lowly people like me, and adding employment for many people. And worse yet, they paid a dividend.
I have mentioned to one of my friends in the neighborhood that is a die hard Kennedy Democratic who has commentated that he can not understand why our other neighbor who is smart enough to be a manager of one of the Staples stores has not quit his job and try to get employment with the EPA to help shut down some other businesses ( toner companies , paper companies etc ) to protect our environment and help our economy,.
I just cannot seem to get it across to him. If you shut everything down, there is nothing left.
At least Romney grew up in America I guess that is all I can use for a reason.
For you younger people, Monopoly, a board game, before computers. This was my first introduction to capitalism. Use strategy, have a little luck, win the game. No one (EPA or OSHA) came in and took your money away from you. Some times, you had to go to jail, but play smart, you win.
Romney and Bain Cap only took on Failing companies, they were toast to begin with. Good ideas, but with not enough whatever to carry though. It was Bains bushiness structure to only look for companies that were on the way down and out, not much of a chance of recovery, and had no way to survive. Bain was their last hope of anyone saving them, for the last resort. Bain was able to pull something close to 75% of their fat out of the fire. I do not know about you, but I do not buy stock in failing companies, (at least on purpose.) I sold my Staples at $2.04/share many years ago at a loss. I should have waited for Bain Capital to take them over, now at $11.63 after the stock splits and dividends I could have made money. I guess I bet against Romney then. I will not do it again, promise.
Damned them Republicans trying to help make money for us lowly people like me, and adding employment for many people. And worse yet, they paid a dividend.
I have mentioned to one of my friends in the neighborhood that is a die hard Kennedy Democratic who has commentated that he can not understand why our other neighbor who is smart enough to be a manager of one of the Staples stores has not quit his job and try to get employment with the EPA to help shut down some other businesses ( toner companies , paper companies etc ) to protect our environment and help our economy,.
I just cannot seem to get it across to him. If you shut everything down, there is nothing left.
At least Romney grew up in America I guess that is all I can use for a reason.
Similar threads
