Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Mitt Romney

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
July 28, 2012 2:05:03 AM

Personally speaking do you really think Mitt Romney can lead the U.S. as a President?

More about : mitt romney

July 28, 2012 6:13:42 AM

Hes been governor, hes helped establish an Olympics, He has run a large business in success.
He listens to the people around him, be it immediate, or far away voters.
Hes decent and upstanding, he should be fine, qualifications are there.
July 28, 2012 11:09:04 AM

He has more experience than Obama had in 2008.

Still does. :) 
Related resources
July 28, 2012 3:18:24 PM

He kind of comes across as being a bit vague ... even looks like Ronnie Raygun.

July 28, 2012 10:46:04 PM

Typically, throughout US history our best Presidents have been Governors first. Our worst have been Senators or Congressmen first. Grant and Eisenhower being exceptions. Grant sucked. Eisenhower, not so bad. Both Generals first.
July 29, 2012 12:55:16 AM

Governors are forced to deal with a multitude of problems, often converging, as well as opposing.
One blanket law doesnt work thruout a state, as theres differing needs, populance, ecologies etc.
A congressman doesnt have to deal with any of these things, the scale is different, and often, if its a first exposure, such as the current president, they have to rely more heavily upon their admin/help surrounding them.

Now, to be popular, one only needs to say the right things to the right people, such as those in San Francisco, where fly over country is a nowheres place, and the old ways need to die, where a president can tell them, they cling to their bibles and guns, and dont like things that are different from them.
July 29, 2012 2:47:14 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Hes been governor, hes helped establish an Olympics, He has run a large business in success.
He listens to the people around him, be it immediate, or far away voters.
Hes decent and upstanding, he should be fine, qualifications are there.
Qualifications to lie to the people and never talk about the real truth Bain and his hidden tax returns. Common please.
July 29, 2012 3:16:03 AM

And to destroy mankind as well.
Oh, and he hates animals, especially dogs.
Hates women too, wants to deny all women birth control, unless they pay something for it.
He has so much money, even many of Obamas staff have started doing what hes been doing, thats how good it is.
Not only that, but many dem congressmen have done this too, glad Romneys leading the way.
Now, if they, er um he, can only hold onto that secret, he/they can make even more money
July 29, 2012 11:45:00 AM

The first thing he wants to do is attack Iran ... jeez ... the last thing we want is another crazy at the helm.

Bush were bad enough.

Plus you can't afford any wars ... your broke.
July 29, 2012 2:20:05 PM

Reynod said:
The first thing he wants to do is attack Iran ... jeez ... the last thing we want is another crazy at the helm.

Bush were bad enough.

Plus you can't afford any wars ... your broke.



Sure we can! We can just print money at will!! Start up the presses!
July 30, 2012 2:24:14 AM

Reynod said:
The first thing he wants to do is attack Iran ... jeez ... the last thing we want is another crazy at the helm.

Bush were bad enough.

Plus you can't afford any wars ... your broke.
Don't you know that the Republicans are hawks loving these wars making tons of money off them.Romney is a hawk!
July 30, 2012 3:08:52 AM

See?
Its the roentgen rays
July 30, 2012 2:06:47 PM

I would gladly take Romney over Obama anyday.

Obama has to attack Romney.. since he can't stand on any accomplishments.
July 30, 2012 11:25:31 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Typically, throughout US history our best Presidents have been Governors first. Our worst have been Senators or Congressmen first. Grant and Eisenhower being exceptions. Grant sucked. Eisenhower, not so bad. Both Generals first.


Grant was a raging alcoholic as well. Don't blame him after going to war.

Personally, none of them are suitors for the throne...I mean presidency. ;) 

We need a balanced, moderate, Independent president...another Washington if I may say so myself.
July 31, 2012 2:56:48 AM

dogman_1234 said:
Grant was a raging alcoholic as well. Don't blame him after going to war.

Personally, none of them are suitors for the throne...I mean presidency. ;) 

We need a balanced, moderate, Independent president...another Washington if I may say so myself.
You have to be realistic what candidate would you have in mind as President?
July 31, 2012 6:18:34 AM

There is no candidate right now that I see fit. There is not public official that has my vote as the leader of the free world. Until a person fit enough comes around, I will be happy to publicly speak about them.

July 31, 2012 12:32:41 PM

musical marv said:
You have to be realistic what candidate would you have in mind as President?



George Washington
July 31, 2012 2:46:48 PM

Reynod said:
The first thing he (Romney) wants to do is attack Iran ... jeez ... the last thing we want is another crazy at the helm.
Wow! Talk about taking things out of context. Please cite the speech where Romney said he would lead America into an attack on Iran. If anything, Romney's position on Israel and a nuclear Iran are not really all that different from Obama's.

musical marv said:
You have to be realistic what candidate would you have in mind as President?
dogman_1234 said:
There is no candidate right now that I see fit. There is not public official that has my vote as the leader of the free world. Until a person fit enough comes around, I will be happy to publicly speak about them.
American has walked too far down the path of social democracy and the entitlement society is too far dependent on government to support a candidate that runs on a platform of returning America to its Constitutional roots. With the current political mentality that government is the end-all-be-all to the American people's problems, the notion of a candidate returning American to its Constitutional roots is perceived as radical.

July 31, 2012 5:58:24 PM

Yes, there are some that would want to go back, but thats being condemned by Obama as not working, as if it were those things that caused the current scenario.
Does anyone have the actual percentage that Obama wants to tax those at 250K, and its % of the national debt?
Is this leadership?
Is this just playing on the bigots?
Is this just taking up time to avoid lack of leadership, with nothing to show prior to this , other than saying itd better be fixed, as he said, or he doesnt deserve to be reelected?

While this is about Romney, there has to be a contrast in which to compare.
While I see Romney promoting himself as a leader in Bain, I see nothing of leadership from Obama, just attacks on Bain and Romney, where many from everywhere said this wasnt right, coming from many on the left.
While I see Romney promoting what he did as governor, I see Obama trying to deny why and what the supreme court proclaimed what Obamacare is, a tax, denial, not leadership, only more twisting.
I see Obama attack Romney on his health care he set up, while Romney said this is best left to a state issue, where it would be defined mby the US supreme court as a fine, and not a tax, again, more twists to keep the truth from the people.

And once again, I see Obama not having solutions, only to spend more, showing no leadership on tough decisions, as having more money makes his, and everyone in governments jobs easier and easier. Attacking a tougher scenario, where government would have to do more with less, as Romney wishes to do.

If they were my kids, I would be proud of Mitt, getting more out of less, and be annoyed with Barack, as he always keeps spending more than he has, always asks for more, and just wont change, so then, where is the hope?
July 31, 2012 6:09:30 PM

Can someone tell me how privatizing water, roads, police, fire would be a better system than the gov running it?
July 31, 2012 6:15:28 PM

This all depends on how government runs it.
A friend was in the Kosovo region back during the fighting, he lived there.
The town in which he lived had a water heater
Yes, one, all heated water came from that socially/government owned/controlled/maintenenced run hot water heater.

The main problem I see is the scope, or rather the lack of scope in pinning your success in the overall grasp and control of the government.
While this may not answer your question, I do hope it brings more
July 31, 2012 11:48:40 PM

Here, look at two presidents we have had and tell me how they were precieved by their own ideology and party...then compare it to what the people thought.

The two are:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Ronald Regan

August 1, 2012 3:02:28 AM

dogman_1234 said:
Here, look at two presidents we have had and tell me how they were precieved by their own ideology and party...then compare it to what the people thought.

The two are:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Ronald Regan
FDR introduced the Social Security for all Americans we have now. Regan closed down most of the mental hospitals in California when he was president we can thank him for that.FDR was liked by his party and so was Regan. He was a sheer Conservative RR.
August 1, 2012 12:41:44 PM

musical marv said:
FDR introduced the Social Security for all Americans we have now. Regan closed down most of the mental hospitals in California when he was president we can thank him for that.FDR was liked by his party and so was Regan. He was a sheer Conservative RR.


It was actually the Democrat controlled legislature in Kalifornia that defunded the mental health facilities as the Governor does NOT have that power. They defunded them because they said it was inhumane to keep mentally unstable people locked up.

A few years later they are sitting around scratching their heads wondering why there are so many homeless people wandering around. Go figure.
August 1, 2012 2:54:34 PM

dogman_1234 said:
Here, look at two presidents we have had and tell me how they were precieved by their own ideology and party...then compare it to what the people thought.

The two are:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Ronald Regan
Both Reagan and FDR were true to their ideology and set the agenda for their respective parties. The primary difference being that FDR was a known liberal and Reagan a conservative. You can argue who's economic policies were better for America but the real interesting difference between Reagan and FDR was their belief in the role and size of government, government regulations and its effect on businesses, and government intrusion into the lives of Americans.

History and liberal academia has recorded FDR as being a savior of America by authoring the New Deal and pulling America out of the Great Depression. But aside from liberals idolizing FDR, the reality is FDR really succeeded in growing government into the leviathan it is today. But even with the New Deal programs and massive government (stimulus?!) spending, America fell into a major recession again in 1938. FDR was not a friend to the Constitution as six of the New Deal projects and a government agency were declared unconstitutional, which led FDR to attempt to pack the SCOTUS with judges that would vote in his favor; obviously packing the SCOTUS failed and FDR was prevented from doing so. Most of the regulations placed on businesses by New Deal programs were ended by 1985 leaving only some smaller programs in place along with the FDIC, Social Security, and the SEC. I remember an elementary school teacher promoting the 3 terms served by FDR as President as evidence of his popularity, but it wasn't until I got older that I learned the 22nd Amendment was passed in direct opposition to FDR's three terms and his growth of presidential power beyond what was enumerated in the Constitution.

Reagan also succeeded in growing the government which mostly centered on the military build up that contributed to ending the Cold War. Reagan also had his share of scandal with Iran-Contra and White House filled with ethics and legal misconduct. Regardless of how you are argue Reagan's supply side economic policy, he successfully pulled America out of a poor economy left by Carter, saw the third largest economic expansion in American history, averaged an unemployment rate of 7.5%, and reduced the rate of inflation from 12% to 4.5%. But where Reagan truly succeeded was his view on the role of government; Reagan was a staunch believer in smaller and limited government. Reagan recognized the limits placed on government by the Constitution and promoted through legislation and policy individual freedom, property rights, limited government, and entrepreneurial activity.

musical marv said:
FDR introduced the Social Security for all Americans we have now.
Read up on the history of Social Security and how FDR got is passed through Congress and why the SCOTUS did not vote it as unconstitutional. In short, Social Security was deemed a tax. Initial drafts of the Social Security legislation did not gain full support of Congress and the SCOTUS, but by intentionally changing the verbiage of the legislation to call Social Security a tax, and by exploiting the "excise tax" clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, FDR was able to get the votes in Congress and have Social Security pass Constitutional review by the SCOTUS.

Now, think about how the recent Obamacare Act was pushed through Congress and what Scalia wrote about the ACA to make it Constitutional and compare that to the history of Social Security. It is not a coincidence...Democrats have a proven track record of avoiding the Amendment process and exploiting the Constitution to pass legislation that would not otherwise get enough votes in Congress or pass Constitutional review.
August 1, 2012 3:57:17 PM

Tax is a dirty word, and wont pass, as it leaves no child left behind
August 1, 2012 6:03:46 PM

How about that trip for Romney overseas? Tried to pick a fight with Iran and Palestine at the same time. Well for Iran it was more like egging Israel on but still. He pissed of the Brits too but thats to be expected since they are our closest allies.
August 1, 2012 6:11:28 PM

Calling a spade a spade is what we need, no apologies, just an honest, you guys are jerks, and dont mess with us
August 1, 2012 6:19:34 PM

Could maybe agree with you on the Iran thing but the other two were obvious gaffes.
August 1, 2012 6:40:03 PM

He dared to repeat what their media said?
For shame, there goes our relationship with the Brits
Using tons of aid to buy weapons and kill innocents is good how?
And those that were killed, the Israelies, maybe wanted to be reasured someone saw their side as well?

Yea, building relationships, yet ommiting Lech Welesa, and his endorsement, what a liberal take from the media.

I really could care less, as they simply ignore what they wish to, or later, if it doesnt go away, the MSM then deftly and daftly uses their poor talking points with all the twists, and the further left you turn, the nastier it gets

"I wish you to be successful because this success is needed to the United States, of course, but to Europe and the rest of the world, too," Walesa told Romney ahead of an hour-long meeting between the two men. "Romney, get your success! Be successful!"

August 1, 2012 6:55:04 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
He dared to repeat what their media said?
For shame, there goes our relationship with the Brits
Using tons of aid to buy weapons and kill innocents is good how?
And those that were killed, the Israelies, maybe wanted to be reasured someone saw their side as well?

Yea, building relationships, yet ommiting Lech Welesa, and his endorsement, what a liberal take from the media.

I really could care less, as they simply ignore what they wish to, or later, if it doesnt go away, the MSM then deftly and daftly uses their poor talking points with all the twists, and the further left you turn, the nastier it gets

"I wish you to be successful because this success is needed to the United States, of course, but to Europe and the rest of the world, too," Walesa told Romney ahead of an hour-long meeting between the two men. "Romney, get your success! Be successful!"


Who cares if some religious zealot like Lech endorses Romney? Romney has plenty of those back home. Romney wouldn't even answer questions from our Media so how can you possibly blame them? Was there not enough Fox people there?
August 1, 2012 6:58:47 PM

It was a publicity stunt for him, he really just did some fundraising and picture taking. So of course the coverage (Or lack thereof) is just about as substantial.



August 1, 2012 7:16:55 PM

Oh, I keep forgetting, if Christ comes soon, youll hate on Him too

If Obama has a Godly relationship, as all previous presidents pretty much have had, why like them?

It was an opportunity to meet with others overseas.
Obama did this as well, and publicity is where you find it, if its a communist breaking/nobel peace prize winning leader, or to talk to an old ally, its a good thing overall
August 1, 2012 7:28:14 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Oh, I keep forgetting, if Christ comes soon, youll hate on Him too

If Obama has a Godly relationship, as all previous presidents pretty much have had, why like them?


If Christ came back he would be crucified as a liberal, or as a lunatic.

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." -Thomas Jefferson

"What has been [Christianity's] fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison

Some presidents and some founding fathers were agnostic or doubtful of a higher power.

Mitt did meet with people and had his picture taken. I could do that, and I think I would look much better in magic underwear.
August 1, 2012 7:47:24 PM

While I agree with Madison, what makes you think this isnt the most pro Christian remark one can make regarding man and God?
August 1, 2012 7:54:16 PM

While most hide under their rocks ready to throw it and scurry towards the next to hide under, this isnt true Christianity, nor placing yourself above others.
Make no mistake, those who met Him face to face, they didnt recognize Him.
This time, there will be no mistaking Him

I come in like a lamb, and return as a lion
August 2, 2012 1:16:45 AM

This really has nothing to do with Romney at all.
August 2, 2012 3:11:51 AM

Im glad you agree, unless hes a satanist
August 2, 2012 10:23:06 AM

musical marv said:
Personally speaking do you really think Mitt Romney can lead the U.S. as a President?


Is there anything that you do like or favor?

You seem to complain about everything.
August 2, 2012 1:27:37 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
While most hide under their rocks ready to throw it and scurry towards the next to hide under, this isnt true Christianity, nor placing yourself above others.
Make no mistake, those who met Him face to face, they didnt recognize Him.
This time, there will be no mistaking Him

I come in like a lamb, and return as a lion


Every Christian has their own version of "true Christianity".
August 2, 2012 3:09:17 PM

johnsonma said:
Every Christian has their own version of "true Christianity".
And every atheist thinks they know the truth about religion...
August 2, 2012 3:19:01 PM

chunkymonster said:
And every atheist thinks they know the truth about religion...


Lol....religion and truth in the same sentence.....you funny.

On a serious note though, I was referring more to the fact that everyone has a different opinion and views on Christianity are no different.
August 2, 2012 3:23:00 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Not this one, unless they throw out much of the old testament, and much of the new, including Christs own words on several occasions.
He surely wont be considered a liberal
http://bible.cc/hosea/11-10.htm
http://bible.cc/revelation/10-3.htm
http://bible.cc/isaiah/31-4.htm
http://www.lamblion.us/2010/01/jesus-lamb-and-lion-conq...
http://einron.hubpages.com/hub/jesuschristlionlamb

To name a few
johnsonma said:
Thanks for proving my point.
Johnsonma, I'm not quite sure you have a full and complete grasp of reading comprehension as the links provided by jaydeejohn say exactly the same thing. Attempting to use the fact that there are differing version of the Christian Bible does not validate or prove your claim that "every Christian has their own version". The fact that there are so many versions of the Christian Bible that say the same thing actually proves the consistency and cohesion throughout the various Christian denominations.

If you want to split hairs, you can argue the differences in verbiage between one version of the Bible compared to another, but those differences in verbiage still do not change the message, purpose, and intent of the passage and of the Bible as a whole.
August 2, 2012 3:47:12 PM

I see the bible, old and new, as really just a blueprint for civilization. By following its teachings it raises you out of barbarism. Now, I know many barbarous acts have been carried out in the name of god, the bible, whatever. It still comes across to me as blueprint for how society can thrive and grow and not tear itself apart, sending civilization back to the stone age.
August 2, 2012 3:54:29 PM

God promotes growth in a society via regulation...aka the Big 10. Oh, and don't forget the Golden rule...you know, the one what guys like me are to follow but still cannot figure out yet!

If religion was that bad, our Founding Fathers would have criminalized it.
August 2, 2012 4:51:11 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I see the bible, old and new, as really just a blueprint for civilization. By following its teachings it raises you out of barbarism. Now, I know many barbarous acts have been carried out in the name of god, the bible, whatever. It still comes across to me as blueprint for how society can thrive and grow and not tear itself apart, sending civilization back to the stone age.
Totally agree. If you look at the Bible from a historical perspective, especially the Old Testament, it was exactly that, a blueprint of laws and rules (Mosaic law) for governing society like; criminal punishment, ritual bathing, proper care and slaughter of animals, treatment of family and enemies, etc. The Old Testament is also the story of Man's progressions from loosely related nomadic tribes living hand-to-mouth to the establishment of agrarian city-states with common customs and a greater sense of community. Incidentally, all ancient civilizations attempted to establish laws and rule to move society from nomadic tribes into city-states, i.e.; the Law Code of Gortyn, the Twelve Decemvirals of Rome, the Laws of Draco and Solon, and the most famous Hammurabi's Code. Prior to these laws and systems of laws, Man relied on common customs, magic, and mysticism. It was the establishment of civil laws that replaced religious laws and freed religion to address the spiritual nature of Man.

History aside, both religion and modern philosophy (even French nihilism) look to raise Man up from instinctual behavior and provide a guideline for higher levels of thinking and rational thought.
August 2, 2012 5:16:39 PM

Studies and new findings show, before society, there was religious belief systems, and those things brought ealy civilisations together.
These familial beliefs acted on the coming together of other families.
So, God has always been with us, and disregarding someone who believes, or even discrediting them, saying they arent doing enough, and how much better things would be etc etc is again, a fools errand.
If someone seperates themselves from mans beliefs doesnt make them better, and all those basic questions such as how do birds fly etc have been answered long ago, and needing the knowledge to move things forwards arent attributed as a deterrent as simply, there is no need to supposedly waste so much time on someones beliefs that it interferes in their endeavors
August 2, 2012 6:13:17 PM

chunkymonster said:
Johnsonma, I'm not quite sure you have a full and complete grasp of reading comprehension as the links provided by jaydeejohn say exactly the same thing. Attempting to use the fact that there are differing version of the Christian Bible does not validate or prove your claim that "every Christian has their own version". The fact that there are so many versions of the Christian Bible that say the same thing actually proves the consistency and cohesion throughout the various Christian denominations.

If you want to split hairs, you can argue the differences in verbiage between one version of the Bible compared to another, but those differences in verbiage still do not change the message, purpose, and intent of the passage and of the Bible as a whole.


Nice quip there, wish I could quip like you. First off I said every christian has their own version of what is TRUE christianity. Every branch interprets the bible(s) in different ways. Not to mention that on top of this there might be variations within the individual member as well. If I asked a roman catholic to interpret a section of the bible for me and then asked a Lutheran to do the same would they match up?
!