Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 67

Thread: 100 Reason To Vote For Mitt Romney Or Against Barack Obama

  1. -51
    TrojanFin's Avatar
    Make It Rain!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    166
    vCash:
    1118
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Getting back to the prior discussion. Apologize in advance for the long read.


    @ TheWalrus -
    LOL. Where'd you get this from? A vending machine at the RNC?
    You should be one to talk since most of your snarky comments could be found inside a fortune cookie. Even so, just know I respect you as a fellow finfan.


    @ dolphins9954 - If I was Glenn Beck, I would charge you for my opinions. So to answer your question, no.


    Hate to burst your bubble, but it is a two-party system. It has been for some time. Realizing that, you have to find the candidate that is most aligned with your views, and try to change the party from within. That's not Obama, and I don't see Progressivism as ever being compatible with Libertarianism.

    I'll tell you what, though, I will buy you a beer if ever a true Libertarian becomes POTUS.
    Just don't tell me how to "lean", because that wouldn't be very Libertarian of you.


    @ phins_4_ever -
    a) Obamacare is Romneycare and vice versa.
    There are differences. For starters, one was issued at a state-level and the other would be instituted on a national level. This is huge only in that Romneycare relied on Federal Support to help pay for it. Not exactly sure where the Federal Government is going to go to pay for it when Obamacare goes broke.


    Mitt was trying appease Democrats with the creation of Romneycare. The result was a bipartisan effort, which Mitt later admitted was a mistake. This is what he gets for reaching across the aisle.
    So why would the POTUS create a model of healthcare based on one that was admittedly flawed? Seems pretty dumb. At least Mitt learns from mistakes made, even if he did have the best intentions.


    Here's a quick overview contrasting the two as well from the guy running against Obamacare.

    http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/07...and-obamacare/


    b) Olympics: The Olympic ran about 390 Million dollars in the minus. Romeny lobbied and got between 400 Million and 600 Million from Congress - THE FEDERAL F****** GOVERNMENT.
    Nicely glossed over.


    If it was so easy to fix, why was it necessary to call in Romney to fix the problem? Anyone can simply ask for federal tax dollars especially for something like the Olympics right?
    Let's look at the situation.


    In the aftermath of a bribery scandal surrounding the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, an inquiry held in camera expelled several IOC members, but cleared Samaranch [President of the IOC] of wrongdoing. Samaranch set up a commission to investigate the corruption and introduced reform of the bid process as a result of the scandal.[8]
    In 2001, Samaranch did not apply for the presidency again.


    Interesting that the IOC President quit just before the Olympic Games. Maybe it was too much for him to handle. Again, a point of emphasis, the Olympics would likely have left the states if not for Mitt's intervention. He obviously new how to handle things with the IOC better than Obama bringing the Olympics to Chicago.


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


    The Games had also been damaged by allegations of bribery against top officials including prior committee president and CEO Frank Joklik. Joklik and committee vice president Dave Johnson were forced to resign.[144]


    Romney worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by coordinating a $300 million security budget.[140] Overall, he oversaw a $1.32 billion budget, 700 employees, and 26,000 volunteers.[142] The federal government provided between approximately $400 million[141][147][148] and $600 million[149][150] of that budget, much of it a result of Romney's having aggressively lobbied Congress and federal agencies.[150][151]


    So you conveniently leave out that $300 million were in part to help with security that resulted under the special circumstances of 9-11. It's odd there is no exact amount when it comes to millions of dollars provided by Uncle Sam, because to our Federal government that is small potatoes. However, when you look at the over all budget, that is in the billion column, again there was a lot money to be made up and millions of dollars given by the Fed does seem like that much especially when security made up half that.


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


    ******
    According to Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (despite this being a partisan source, the figures below are simply facts)


    When Mitt Romney came on board, the budget for the 2002 Olympics was $1.45 billion, but it was $380 million in deficit.
    To cut to the chase on the numbers, Romney cut $200 million out of the budget (a 15% cut) and finished $100 million in the black...


    How?


    For example, having a daily "Olympic Newspaper..." Why not let the papers in Salt Lake City handle that job? And so they did.
    No limos for VIPS. No lavish hotel suites or parties for the IOC or anyone else. All business.
    Romney also donated each of his three years' of salary - $275,000 per year - to charity? Additionally, he personally donated about $1,000,000 of his personal money to the Olympics.


    http://theredhunter.com/election_2012/


    c) Mitt as governor????

    So he got lucky because of his predecessor implemented a capital gains tax and he himself enacted additional fees and removed corporate tax loopholes.

    Just clicked on a random citation from your "wiki" research to come up with these nuggets.


    Romney attempted to do good:


    Every annual budget Romney proposed contained the income tax cut, but the Legislature failed each time to give it any serious consideration.
    The failed proposals included civil service reform and cutting bureaucracy in transportation, higher education and the courts. Romney pegged the waste and inefficiency at $1 billion.


    However...


    Democrats controlled more than 80 percent of seats in the house and senate, far more than the two-thirds majority needed to override a Romney veto.
    James Nuzzo, a Massachusetts Republican analyst, said it's an academic argument because no amount of grandstanding or sure-handed politicking by Romney would have made a difference.


    "He never gave up on trying for an income tax rollback. They just wouldn't cooperate," said Anderson, a member of the Romney campaign's fiscal advisory board. "He talked about it often and not just as an economic issue but one that showed respect for the voters."


    There's more widespread agreement that Romney was an effective check on the free-spending desires of lawmakers. The four budgets Romney had control over proposed spending 7 percent more during those four years, which is less than the rate of inflation; however his budget was amended in the legislature and ended up increasing spending 9 percent, still less than the rate inflation.


    "Anyone familiar with Massachusetts government would acknowledge it's a pretty difficult place for a fiscal conservative to thrive," said Donohue, an adviser with the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College.


    Despite more than 20 successful years of turning around troubled private companies, however, Romney got the legislature to accept little of his efficiency/reorganization agenda.


    Sounds like obstructionism on part of the state-legislative Democrats if you ask me. Here I thought the Republicans were the only ones that did that according to what I read online.

    Despite such objections by Mitt's oppenents, however, he was able to:


    The state of Massachusetts took in about $18 billion in revenue in Romney's final year in office.


    At any event, Massachusetts' ranking on state tax burden improved during that period from sixth highest the year Romney took office to 11th when he left.


    At the height of the capital gains tax battle, Romney's office sent notices to all the affected residents about the impending increase, which clogged the legislative switchboard with hundreds of irate callers.


    "Due to the public pressure applied, Governor Romney was able to get the legislature to back down. That was a huge political victory for him," said Romney Communications Director Erik Fehrnstrom.


    http://web.archive.org/web/200712210...0115/-1/news08


    Regarding Unemployment (going back to the original wiki):


    Why bold?:
    the state lagged behind the rest of the nation in job growth and employment.[37]

    Only to have it negated by the following line in your list of damning facts and figures.


    Economists note that governors generally have relatively little impact on their states' employment numbers, good or bad, as these are dominated by forces beyond their control.


    As for Romney's popularity:


    A. Massachusetts = Blue State
    B. Romney was seen as an outsider, and sadly not one of the Boston cronies.
    The frequent out-of-state travel contributed to a decline in Romney's approval rating towards the end of his term;
    C. The economy was starting to take a turn for the worst nationally. Usually those in power get blamed.

    Lastly Bain:

    It's a business. What about it? (again from wiki)

    In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found the spin-off private equity investment firm, Bain Capital.[67]
    Romney was an entrepreneur and started a business. Good for him.

    The firm's first significant success was a 1986 investment to help start Staples Inc.
    That company has done alright, and has helped to created jobs. They have this little arena in Los Angeles if I recall.

    The firm invested in or acquired Accuride, Brookstone,Domino's Pizza, Sealy Corporation, Sports Authority, and Artisan Entertainment, as well as some lesser-known companies in the industrial and medical sectors.[54][63][78]

    Looks like I can thank Mitt for making my high school summer job at Domino's possible.

    In 1990, facing financial collapse, Bain & Company asked Romney to return.[67] He was announced as its new CEO in January 1991,[71][72] drawing a symbolic salary of one dollar[67] (he remained managing general partner of Bain Capital during this time).[71][72] He managed an effort to restructure Bain & Company's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while rallying the firm's one thousand employees, imposing a new governing structure that included Bain and the other founding partners giving up control, and increasing fiscal transparency.[54][57][67]

    Mitt to the rescue, yet again. Not seeing the problem.

    I know what the counter-argument is. What about all those people that got laid off? Honestly, show me a company that has never laid off people. As for some unscrupulous companies that they did business with. A company of Bain's size is bound to make some bad decisions, but none of it directly reflects on Mitt Romney.


    At this point I don't expect to change anyone's mind. It seems like they are made up at this point. I enjoyed doing a little more reading on the Mitt concerning his drawbacks and strengths. I know a lot of people that think Obama and Romney are one of the same. I like to think even if the candidates are not "ideal" that there is still one that is superior.

    Again I like to play the role of the contrarian, and after the effort put into this post, I may just stick to the football forums for awhile.
    Last edited by TrojanFin; 10-01-2012 at 07:47 AM.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -52
    Rookie

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2012
    Posts:
    15
    vCash:
    1045
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Candidate Romney who has actual experience creating real public sector jobs or Candidate Obama who knows how to spend more stimulus money and never created a real job in his life?
    Is this really that hard to figure out?
    Candidate A is superior and why would I want four more years of Obama failure and no new plan.
    Vote Romney and lets get this country in forward motion and out of the ditch that Obama still has America in!
    Quote Quote  

  3. -53
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,509
    vCash:
    24751
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    @ TheWalrus -
    You should be one to talk since most of your snarky comments could be found inside a fortune cookie. Even so, just know I respect you as a fellow finfan.
    I save my well thought out posts for threads and posters that deserve it. Neither you nor this thread qualify.

    Again I like to play the role of the contrarian, and after the effort put into this post, I may just stick to the football forums for awhile.
    How is it being a contrarian when you're just repeating Republican talking points -- to the point of just copy and pasting them -- ad naseum? That's like the least contrarian thing a person can do.
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 10-01-2012 at 11:20 AM.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -54
    JackFinfan's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2010
    Posts:
    444
    vCash:
    2281
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    Hate to burst your bubble, but it is a two-party system. It has been for some time. Realizing that, you have to find the candidate that is most aligned with your views, and try to change the party from within. That's not Obama, and I don't see Progressivism as ever being compatible with Libertarianism.

    I'll tell you what, though, I will buy you a beer if ever a true Libertarian becomes POTUS.
    Just don't tell me how to "lean", because that wouldn't be very Libertarian of you.
    Yes we currently have a 2 party system, but there's no reason to why we can't change that. Especially if both parties keep giving us candidates like Kerry, Obama, Bush, and Romney. I've voted in 2 general elections, once for the GOP and once for the Dems. I've been disappointed both times. I'm tired of voting for a candidate because he's less horrible than the other guy. A vote for 3rd party is a vote against the 2 party system, and I can't think of a better election to vote against this horrible system.

    As for which of the two parties is more Libertarian. The GOP lines up with Libertarians more than the Dems in regards to fiscal issues, and the progressives line up with Libertarians more than the GOP in regards to social issues. At least when you go by their platforms. In reality (practice), they both are far and away from Libertarians in all areas.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -55
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    Perennial All-Pro

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    3,491
    vCash:
    7067
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    .....
    Great another Statler on our hand.
    When are you people understand that selective quoting is simply crap? You not only selectively quoted me but also some of your links.

    Not playing that game. This is so right-stupid.
    Last edited by phins_4_ever; 10-01-2012 at 09:48 PM.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -56
    Awsi Dooger's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    6,391
    vCash:
    8914
    Loc:
    Las Vegas
    Thanks / No Thanks
    In this situational climate -- trying to oust an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term -- Republicans needed a candidate to passionately support, regardless of the opponent. But I don't think that's in the conservative DNA right now. They are more comfortable believing the presidency is a right wing birthright, that anyone on the other side is evil and deserves to be twisted. I didn't fully grasp how far it went until reading David Brock's excellent, "Blinded By The Right." Read that book and birtherism is easily understood. It's merely the adaptation toward Obama.

    In 2003 and 2004, liberal sites were flooded with Bush hatred, the so-called ABB or Anyone But Bush attitude. It was pathetic, and led to false impression that the majority of the country was in your camp, and that the negativity was broadening your base all the time. I was ripped on liberal sites for denouncing the approach. When the GOP succeeded with the "Party of No" theme in 2010 I thought they might realize it was a one-shot deal and heavily influenced by situation, that Democrats never show up in the midterm immediately following a successful presidential takeover, i.e. 1978 and 1994. I predicted on liberal sites that Republicans would never follow the masochistic 2004 lead from Democrats and nominate bland Mitt Romney, someone the base had already rejected once, in 2008. Granted, I never correctly predict the GOP nominee. I obviously don't know how they think. But this time I was certain it would be a conservative champion. I expected Mitch Daniels. Chris Christie is too easily provoked and error prone.

    When Daniels passed and the remainder of the field was remarkably weak, it left no path other than Romney and belittling Obama. That still has a chance but it's a mind boggling ignorance of the gender gap and its implications. Women want to be cuddled. They won't be swayed by insulting the other potential boyfriend.

    The lousy GOP group of candidates can be traced to 2002, IMO. Democrats had a big year in gubernatorial races, including the major midwestern states. Those governors were handily re-elected in 2006. So instead of building a base the Republicans had to scramble. From 2002 their two major gains either did not run in 2006 or were rejected. Romney won in Massachusetts but in 2006 he realized it was a heavily pro-Democratic slant due to Iraq outrage, and he had no chance against Deval Patrick. So he skipped the race and pointed toward 2008. Bob Ehrlch won in Maryland in 2002 but was ousted rather routinely by Martin O'Malley in 2006.

    The Republicans have fared better in recent gubernatorial races so their bench should strengthen. It's ideal to have a two term governor with an indisputable track record, someone who can pursue the senate or presidency. That type of candidate would enable the GOP to throw full support and resist the Muslim nonsense and other regulatory themes from its base. But when a party is nominating the likes of Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle and Todd Akin without noticing there's a problem, I may have to ignore logical handicapping principles and sit back and behold. Going forward against the demographic tide, Republicans will increasingly require a vote-for nominee.

    Frankly, Democrats got lucky with Obama. I think the base was determined to punish Hillary for her vote in favor of the Iraq war and Obama just happened to show up. The base could have easily found excuse to support a disaster if Obama had stayed away. The alternative was John Edwards.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -57
    Bingit's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2011
    Posts:
    212
    vCash:
    34676
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    "Jumbo shrimp" is an oxymoron. The word you were looking for is "contradiction." The fact that you didn't know this is "irony."

    Nice try, though (that one's "sarcasm").
    "Jumbo shrimp" is an example of a paradoxical oxymoron. There are different types. I was using the term for rhetorical effect. "Intelligent liberal" is technically not an oxymoron, but can be claimed to be so for humorous effect. Sorry you missed it.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -58
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    7,509
    vCash:
    24751
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Bingit View Post
    "Jumbo shrimp" is an example of a paradoxical oxymoron. There are different types. I was using the term for rhetorical effect. "Intelligent liberal" is technically not an oxymoron, but can be claimed to be so for humorous effect. Sorry you missed it.
    You were using the term wrong. The statement you highlighted in Locke's post is not an oxymoron by any definition of the term (as it does not contain the phrase "intelligent liberal"). The only "effect" of which was to produce ironic laughter considering the joke you were making was that liberals are by definition not smart.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -59
    Rookie

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2012
    Posts:
    15
    vCash:
    1045
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Awsi Dooger View Post
    In this situational climate -- trying to oust an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term -- Republicans needed a candidate to passionately support, regardless of the opponent. But I don't think that's in the conservative DNA right now. They are more comfortable believing the presidency is a right wing birthright, that anyone on the other side is evil and deserves to be twisted. I didn't fully grasp how far it went until reading David Brock's excellent, "Blinded By The Right." Read that book and birtherism is easily understood. It's merely the adaptation toward Obama.

    In 2003 and 2004, liberal sites were flooded with Bush hatred, the so-called ABB or Anyone But Bush attitude. It was pathetic, and led to false impression that the majority of the country was in your camp, and that the negativity was broadening your base all the time. I was ripped on liberal sites for denouncing the approach. When the GOP succeeded with the "Party of No" theme in 2010 I thought they might realize it was a one-shot deal and heavily influenced by situation, that Democrats never show up in the midterm immediately following a successful presidential takeover, i.e. 1978 and 1994. I predicted on liberal sites that Republicans would never follow the masochistic 2004 lead from Democrats and nominate bland Mitt Romney, someone the base had already rejected once, in 2008. Granted, I never correctly predict the GOP nominee. I obviously don't know how they think. But this time I was certain it would be a conservative champion. I expected Mitch Daniels. Chris Christie is too easily provoked and error prone.

    When Daniels passed and the remainder of the field was remarkably weak, it left no path other than Romney and belittling Obama. That still has a chance but it's a mind boggling ignorance of the gender gap and its implications. Women want to be cuddled. They won't be swayed by insulting the other potential boyfriend.

    The lousy GOP group of candidates can be traced to 2002, IMO. Democrats had a big year in gubernatorial races, including the major midwestern states. Those governors were handily re-elected in 2006. So instead of building a base the Republicans had to scramble. From 2002 their two major gains either did not run in 2006 or were rejected. Romney won in Massachusetts but in 2006 he realized it was a heavily pro-Democratic slant due to Iraq outrage, and he had no chance against Deval Patrick. So he skipped the race and pointed toward 2008. Bob Ehrlch won in Maryland in 2002 but was ousted rather routinely by Martin O'Malley in 2006.

    The Republicans have fared better in recent gubernatorial races so their bench should strengthen. It's ideal to have a two term governor with an indisputable track record, someone who can pursue the senate or presidency. That type of candidate would enable the GOP to throw full support and resist the Muslim nonsense and other regulatory themes from its base. But when a party is nominating the likes of Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle and Todd Akin without noticing there's a problem, I may have to ignore logical handicapping principles and sit back and behold. Going forward against the demographic tide, Republicans will increasingly require a vote-for nominee.

    Frankly, Democrats got lucky with Obama. I think the base was determined to punish Hillary for her vote in favor of the Iraq war and Obama just happened to show up. The base could have easily found excuse to support a disaster if Obama had stayed away. The alternative was John Edwards.
    Not sure how stunted growth and mind boggling debt accumulation could ever be considered lucky. This guy has no clue and it is becoming more and more obvious everyday. Foreign policy? That debacle in Libya is just another example that he is clueless and not a leader and commander. You talk about Ireland and how he is a stiff. Well pot meet kettle. Freaking can't even throw a ball.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -60
    TrojanFin's Avatar
    Make It Rain!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    166
    vCash:
    1118
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    @ Walrus
    I save my well thought out posts for threads and posters that deserve it. Neither you nor this thread qualify.
    Well I am sure everyone looks forward to seeing them someday.

    @ Walrus
    How is it being a contrarian when you're just repeating Republican talking points -- to the point of just copy and pasting them -- ad naseum? That's like the least contrarian thing a person can do.
    How is presenting evidence that is "contrary" to what was previously presented on the thread not contrarian? Key word is contrary.

    I'll take my ad naseum over the many liberal ad hominems I have been seeing on this thread any day.

    @ phins_4_ever
    When are you people understand that selective quoting is simply crap? You not only selectively quoted me but also some of your links.
    I thought that's what you were doing. I know the media is notorious for doing it. That's why I tend to trust things I have see with my own eyes, and not necessarily randomly selected information cherry picked from a source.

    I can tell you that I live in Los Angeles, California and it's going into the crapper based on progressive politics. The difference here is that there no Republicans to blame for our city's and state's misfortune.

    If you don't believe it can be that bad in California... read this article and know that I have confirmed it with my own eyes.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...or-Instability

    Check out these other examples of Progressive politics in my state.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cali...igrants-1.html

    Does our state really need to be focusing on the needs of illegals when its losing money like it is? Why do they need drivers licenses again? So it can make it easier for them to commit voter fraud perhaps?

    Well we do have train that is going to cost millions and millions of dollars sitting in the middle of the desert to help keep various interest groups happy, namely unions, so I shouldn't be surprised. This is important to you because half of it was subsidized by federal tax dollars.

    So how does this relate to Obama? Allow me to make that connection...

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/ob...an-immigrants/

    Awesome! Let's feed people in Mexico when we have people that genuinely need assistance here in the States. The tax dollars for food stamps for non-citizens could be better spent elsewhere, like maybe helping Americans get back on their feet.

    For a long time, local Progressive policies have been bailed out by the Federal Government, but in the end who bails out Washington when find themselves in trouble?
    Last edited by TrojanFin; 10-02-2012 at 05:54 AM.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-04-2012, 07:05 PM
  2. Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama First Debate Preview
    By Dolphins9954 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-03-2012, 08:58 AM
  3. Mitt Romney on war powers......
    By Dolphins9954 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-25-2012, 05:37 PM
  4. Mitt Romney Will Not Run For Re-Election
    By Blitz in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-17-2005, 05:39 AM
  5. Who's Mitt Romney?
    By spydertl79 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-07-2005, 02:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •