Pretty much nothing. Let the right winged OC residents here explain what will be different. Use history to support your claims.

O-Trap;1202991 wrote:Classic false dichotomy. Bush-supporters used the same fallacy when they said if a person was against the war in Iraq, they were supporters of the terrorists. Obama-sympathists did also, when they insisted that anyone who was against Obama's idiotic healthcare plan wanted poor people to be denied healthcare.

Not to split hairs here, but historically and mathematically, Presidential elections are a bit more dichotomous than the examples you mentioned. There were a half-dozen or so other options besides war in Iraq, and an infinite number of options besides Obamacare. The last 3rd party candidate to gain over 20% of the popular vote was a former presidential icon, Teddy Roosevelt. In other words, either the R or the D is going to win. That individual is going to head the executive branch for 4 years. I don't choose that battleground as the place for my protest vote and the guy who doesn't have a shot.

Anyway, presidential preferences aside, I still cannot fathom the argument that Romney and Obama are no different. I have a bit more faith that a Romney administration won't demonize and play class/gender/sexual preference-warfare games with a Republican Congress like Obama would. I have a bit more faith (actually a lot) that a Romney Justice Dept. won't interfere with the legitimate efforts of states to deal with voter fraud, or won't facilitate violence/lawlessness/illegal immigration on our southern border, etc.

I could go on and on, but I think Rand Paul already summed up best how I feel about it.

Footwedge;1203000 wrote: The doublespeak from the far righties here make me LOL. As the Bible states..."those in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones". The GOPers need to do a little soul searching and review the policies of Nixon, Ford, and the 2 Bushes. Collectively, they are no different than the D's...including Jimmy Carter and Obama.

Umm, you may want to double-check the bolded part.

Footwedge;1203015 wrote:Pretty much nothing. Let the right winged OC residents here explain what will be different. Use history to support your claims.

My only hope is that a Republican Congress influenced more by Tea Party-types than the establishment RINO's will obstruct Willard's wacky ideas and steer him in the right direction.

Its not about Dr Paul, even he admits this. Its about fixing this country. If Obama wins because the Republican party is a bunch of cowards, so be it. I would write in sleeper for president before voting for romney or obama.

gut;1202483 wrote:So you're going to vote for Obama, who's much more of a risk, or not vote at all? Part of being an adult is choosing between crappy alternatives. If everyone stayed home because they didn't really like their choices then we'd end-up with 10% of the country choosing the POTUS. You're esssentially advocating scrapping the primaries and just having a free for-all for POTUS which would only ensure that not the best candidate gets elected, but the one with the strongest voting contingent.

And the reality is, a lot of people just don't like Paul. I like some of his views, but some of his economic ideas are flat out nutty. But if he was the Republican candidate, I'd vote for him because he's much better than Obama. I wouldn't stay home or throw away my vote. Again, there's a reason we have primaries - it's part of the consensus building process.

There are a lot of things that libertarians can't stand about Obama. But IMO, there are more things that libertarians think Bush the 43rd stood for that are far worse. I'm one of them.

Romney has admitted that he knows very little about foreign policy. So what did he do? He signs up Armeggedonites John Bolton, Eliot Cohen, scumbag lying bastard Robert Joseph, Dan Senor, and Eric Edelman...among others.

Although 2/3 of Americans and a full 1/2 of American troops today believe that the Iraq war was not worth it, not one member of Romney's staff ever served in the military...and even more disgusting, not one member of his "war cabinet" believes Iraq wasn't worth it.

Vote for Mitt and you will have an even deeper expansion of wars in Whateveristan. Syria, Lybia, Yemen, Pakistan, Iran, Georgia/Russia...you name it. What Romney and his band of Neoarmeggedonites want...they will get.

So...get on board all you antiObomaites...enjoy your $6.00/gallon gas prices. The national debt? Since we always saddle the bill for wars on the grandkids, look for a national debt to top 25 trillion after 3 years of Romney's rule. But that's OK...he won't bow to a king.

2/3rds of Americans think the war in Iraq was bullshit. Romney's foreign policy team has 0% that think Iraq wasn't worth it. Think Bush was bad? Romney will be worse...much worse...

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet

jhay78;1203023 wrote:Umm, you may want to double-check the bolded part.

.

How about "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged". Exact same meaning as the phrase I used up above. The glass houses reference comes directly from this Bible quote.

Footwedge;1203030 wrote:There are a lot of things that libertarians can't stand about Obama. But IMO, there are more things that libertarians think Bush the 43rd stood for that are far worse. I'm one of them.

And see, this Libertarian disagrees. I'd put them on pretty equal footing, and that's not a compliment to either.

Footwedge;1203030 wrote:Romney has admitted that he knows very little about foreign policy. So what did he do? He signs up Armeggedonites John Bolton, Eliot Cohen, scumbag lying bastard Robert Joseph, Dan Senor, and Eric Edelman...among others.

Although 2/3 of Americans and a full 1/2 of American troops today believe that the Iraq war was not worth it, not one member of Romney's staff ever served in the military...and even more disgusting, not one member of his "war cabinet" believes Iraq wasn't worth it.

And yet people see this as a strength over the non-interventionist view ... boggles my mind.

Footwedge;1203030 wrote:Vote for Mitt and you will have an even deeper expansion of wars in Whateveristan. Syria, Lybia, Yemen, Pakistan, Iran, Georgia/Russia...you name it. What Romney and his band of Neoarmeggedonites want...they will get.

So...get on board all you antiObomaites...enjoy your $6.00/gallon gas prices. The national debt? Since we always saddle the bill for wars on the grandkids, look for a national debt to top 25 trillion after 3 years of Romney's rule. But that's OK...he won't bow to a king.

You forgot. His middle name isn't Hussein either.

Footwedge;1203030 wrote:2/3rds of Americans think the war in Iraq was bullshit. Romney's foreign policy team has 0% that think Iraq wasn't worth it. Think Bush was bad? Romney will be worse...much worse...

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet

Based on his track record, it's looking that way.

Footwedge;1203030 wrote: Vote for Mitt and you will have an even deeper expansion of wars in Whateveristan. Syria, Lybia, Yemen, Pakistan, Iran, Georgia/Russia...you name it. What Romney and his band of Neoarmeggedonites want...they will get.

So...get on board all you antiObomaites...enjoy your $6.00/gallon gas prices. The national debt? Since we always saddle the bill for wars on the grandkids, look for a national debt to top 25 trillion after 3 years of Romney's rule. But that's OK...he won't bow to a king.

A) How is that different from Obama? What were Obama's foreign policy experience and qualifications?

B) $6 gas is far more likely under Obama. In fact, his energy czar is rather infamously on record of wanting it even higher.

I'm not anti-Obama. I'm anti-failure. Successful people fire the incompetent without fear of the alternative.

gut;1203612 wrote:A) How is that different from Obama? What were Obama's foreign policy experience and qualifications?

B) $6 gas is far more likely under Obama. In fact, his energy czar is rather infamously on record of wanting it even higher.

I'm not anti-Obama. I'm anti-failure. Successful people fire the incompetent without fear of the alternative.

Mitt will fix it, eh?

Footwedge;1203671 wrote:Mitt will fix it, eh?

Obama will fix his own failures?

Shocking, the GOP candidate surrounding himself with people who haven't met a war or conflict they didn't like.

believer;1203807 wrote:Obama will fix his own failures?

I don't think ANYONE is saying he will. I think they're saying to bring someone in who will actually FIX something, and that Romney isn't that (or at least I have yet to hear someone show how he has any track record indicating that he would do so).

Rest assured, B, that many of us who thinks a Romney presidency is futile don't want the current pud back in office, either.

Footwedge;1203671 wrote:Mitt will fix it, eh?

He hasn't failed, has he?

Like I said, when someone is incompetent you stop the bleeding first. You don't let them run things into the ground while you waffle over finding a good replacement.

Footwedge;1203671 wrote:Mitt will fix it, eh?

Probably not, be we know for certain that the current officeholder will and can not.

gut;1204405 wrote:He hasn't failed, has he?

Like I said, when someone is incompetent you stop the bleeding first. You don't let them run things into the ground while you waffle over finding a good replacement.

You STOP the bleeding, though. You don't take out the wooden spike from the wound and shove a new wooden spike into the wound simply because that one hasn't gouged you yet.

Footwedge;1203030 wrote:Romney's foreign policy team has 0% that think Iraq wasn't worth it. Think Bush was bad? Romney will be worse...much worse...

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet

Unfortunately I agree with you. Romney will be worse than Bush.

However, in my opinion he won't be as bad as Obama...which is sadly what this election has come down to.

O-Trap;1204452 wrote:You STOP the bleeding, though. You don't take out the wooden spike from the wound and shove a new wooden spike into the wound simply because that one hasn't gouged you yet.

That's a presumption. You're projecting that Obama and Romney are the same, when in reality there's no evidence of that. Romney has business experience, understands the purpose and needs of budgets, and has an actual track record of balancing the budget and cutting costs, in MA as well as in business. He's infinitely more capable and likely to do what's needed than Obama. Just because Romney is not a true conservative doesn't mean he's going to implement and prolong programs we can't afford. Spending what you can afford and being liberal/progressive don't actually have to be mutually exclusive.

Really, calling Romney Obama-lite is just Paulbot sour grapes.

gut;1204798 wrote:That's a presumption. You're projecting that Obama and Romney are the same, when in reality there's no evidence of that.

Only if you don't consider his time as Governor or his own words describing his positions as evidence.

gut;1204798 wrote:Romney has business experience ...

Reagan didn't. Seems like he did pretty well.
Hoover had plenty of business experience. Dubya had a little as well. Not so keen when it came to budget.
The problem with viewing private sector success as THE plum line (NOTE: I do think it CAN be helpful) is that private sector successes can be achieved in ways other than "the responsible way." You have big gamblers (on ideas/products/etc.) who beat the odds. You have debt leveragers, who borrow like made and do what they can to turn that temporary capital into profit. Neither of these two are responsible, but both can wind up being successful.
Moreover, we live in a country and in a time where some companies can manipulate governmental intervention into profiting that way. Again, it's a private enterprise that made money, but I daresay I don't want that guy running the Executive branch.

gut;1204798 wrote:... understands the purpose and needs of budgets ...

The above examples don't understand this, yet they can be successful in business. It's a bit hasty to assume that someone who has been successful in business understands budget.

gut;1204798 wrote:... and has an actual track record of balancing the budget and cutting costs, in MA as well as in business.

Cutting costs in business are for self-profit as well as company health. At the end of the day, you run a business to make YOU money. I hope a president doesn't run the country that way.
Also, balancing the budget in Massachusetts was done via tax increase as well. I don't know about you, but that's a precident he has set that I'd prefer not see happen in the White House.

gut;1204798 wrote:He's infinitely more capable and likely to do what's needed than Obama.

Capable? Eh, maybe. Like I said, running a business successfully and running a business responsibly aren't always the same.
As for likely, if I may trust his ability more than Obama's (and I do), I don't trust his motives any more ... maybe less even, given his propensity for flipping on issues to suit his favor.

gut;1204798 wrote:Just because Romney is not a true conservative doesn't mean he's going to implement and prolong programs we can't afford.

Based on some of the things he has openly supported, it would seem that way, unless he taxes us to death to pay for it (thus "affording" it only in the technical sense).

gut;1204798 wrote:Spending what you can afford and being liberal/progressive don't actually have to be mutually exclusive.

True, but spending what you can afford and being successful aren't necessarily linked, either.

gut;1204798 wrote:Really, calling Romney Obama-lite is just Paulbot sour grapes.

Not at all. I'm not heart-broken if Paul doesn't run, and I won't pencil him in if he chooses not to. It's not about Paul, and again ... as I've said SEVERAL times now ... I wouldn't vote for Paul at other levels of government. Paul isn't God's gift to citizenry freedom. Liberty is. The Constitution is. He just supports it, but so do many others, so if he falls off, that doesn't devastate anything, really.

O-Trap;1204853 wrote: The above examples don't understand this, yet they can be successful in business. It's a bit hasty to assume that someone who has been successful in business understands budget.

You have got to be joking. I GUARANTEE Romney understands it. You must not understand how PE works, because the CF forecast is king and it doesn't work without getting the budget right.

O-Trap;1204853 wrote:Cutting costs in business are for self-profit as well as company health. At the end of the day, you run a business to make YOU money. I hope a president doesn't run the country that way.

I just don't understand this logic. You don't lose money, you don't pay out more than what you take in. It's not a complicated concept.

O-Trap;1204853 wrote:Capable? Eh, maybe. Like I said, running a business successfully and running a business responsibly aren't always the same.

What's the difference? They are the same in the long-run. PE makes money by creating value. Successful businesses are healthy businesses. I think there's this idea that efficiency gains somehow aren't a responsible way to run a company, which is bullshit.

O-Trap;1204853 wrote:Based on some of the things he has openly supported, it would seem that way, unless he taxes us to death to pay for it (thus "affording" it only in the technical sense).

You want to stop the bleeding you have to start somewhere. Higher taxes may be necessary to change the attitudes of voters who want all these social programs so long as they don't have to pay.

O-Trap;1204853 wrote:True, but spending what you can afford and being successful aren't necessarily linked, either.

C'mon, man, this is garbage. You're trying to be cute getting all philosophical. And speculation, if that's what you are getting at, is irrelevant to a discussion about building and running a business.

gut;1204870 wrote:You have got to be joking. I GUARANTEE Romney understands it.

I didn't say he didn't. I said it shouldn't be assumed, just because he turned a coin.

gut;1204870 wrote:You must not understand how PE works, because the CF forecast is king and it doesn't work without getting the budget right.

I dunno. I seem to be pretty good at running my own business.

Forcast is king, but it's not a foregone conclusion. Projections about large-scale market potential and longevity are hardly foregone conclusions, even with introductory testing.

gut;1204870 wrote:I just don't understand this logic. You don't lose money, you don't pay out more than what you take in. It's not a complicated concept.

What I mean is that a business person may cut costs, not because he needs to, and not JUST because he can, but because it increases his own personal bottom line. It creates a leaner company, which is good (same profit with fewer employees) because it promotes competition. However, it is done for personal gain. Company owners and share holders make decisions based on what makes THEM money. That's not a bad thing in its place. I just don't think that mentality automatically validates one's economy savvy on a political level.

gut;1204870 wrote:What's the difference? They are the same in the long-run.

But with different frequencies of success. An irresponsibly run company can stumble onto a goldmine model or idea. Doesn't mean they are a good representation of how to run a business.

gut;1204870 wrote:PE makes money by creating value. Successful businesses are healthy businesses. I think there's this idea that efficiency gains somehow aren't a responsible way to run a company, which is bullshit.

Oh, they're a great way to run a company. They're even a great way to run a country! It's the motivation that doesn't translate. A leaner company is made leaner to pay the people in power more money. I'd rather that motivation not continue in the Executive branch.

gut;1204870 wrote:You want to stop the bleeding you have to start somewhere. Higher taxes may be necessary to change the attitudes of voters who want all these social programs so long as they don't have to pay.

This is little different than sleeper's hope that we sprint off the cliff so that those who helped it happen realize the error of their ways and we can begin rebuilding the right way. That we should enable ... even encourage ... things to get worse so that people "turn from their error" ...

Belts are already tighter. Taxes are already higher. The problem is that "voters who want all these social programs" aren't the ones paying them. If anything, all higher taxes will produce are more people who think they need them, because too much of their income is consumed in taxes.

gut;1204870 wrote:C'mon, man, this is garbage. You're trying to be cute getting all philosophical. And speculation, if that's what you are getting at, is irrelevant to a discussion about building and running a business.

Not speculation at all. I was actually thinking of a very specific example. People playing fast and free with the company funds, but things continued to "stick," because one of the bunch has a mind chock full of good ideas. Company was profitable (eight figures annually, for a company of less than 100 people, top to bottom), but not because the budget was managed well at all.

gut;1204798 wrote:Really, calling Romney Obama-lite is just Paulbot sour grapes.

Exactly. The Pauliban has had their feelings hurt because not enough Repubs agreed with them that St. Ron was the answer. So now they want to pack up all their marbles and run home to mommy for some milk and Oreos.

believer;1204996 wrote:Exactly. The Pauliban has had their feelings hurt because not enough Repubs agreed with them that St. Ron was the answer. So now they want to pack up all their marbles and run home to mommy for some milk and Oreos.

Again, not at all. I didn't expect Paul to win. Neither did most. Doesn't mean we didn't try, but it does mean that this wasn't something to get feelings hurt over. The notion is silly.

Calling Romney Obama Lite or Obamney is pointing out the stark number of similarities in policies they have supported during their tenure in the political limelight.

NOT noticing that could be either such blind distaste for Obama as to somehow be convinced that ANYTHING is better, or possibly it could be thoughtless loyalty to a party.

The guy's business record shows that he has run a successful business. The guy's POLITICAL record says that didn't translate into fiscal conservatism that well.

O-Trap;1204898 wrote:What I mean is that a business person may cut costs, not because he needs to, and not JUST because he can, but because it increases his own personal bottom line. It creates a leaner company, which is good (same profit with fewer employees) because it promotes competition. However, it is done for personal gain. Company owners and share holders make decisions based on what makes THEM money. That's not a bad thing in its place. I just don't think that mentality automatically validates one's economy savvy on a political level.

It's part of the process to remain competitive. Their are few companies that can rest on their laurels and ignore efficiency. It does not take long to find yourself uncompetitive and being forced to close the doors. Many of these comapnies are losing one large customer away from bleeding cash.

As for "running the country for profit", that's a non-sequitor. It doesn't even make sense. You run the country to maximize the entitlements you can pay for, with an eye on balancing economic growth. I don't know how anyone could perceive the job differently. Run the country like a for profit business? Makes no sense.

And you're bringing irrelevant points into the discussion. A PE exec at one of the biggest shops in the land is entirely different from someone running a mom & pop business operating on instinct. Companies are into the 10's of millions in revenues before they even get on the radar. Nor is it a one shot deal - he wasn't successful just once or a few times. You don't build a PE firm like that doing the sort of crap you're throwing out to diminish his resume, you do it by building and growing SUSTAINABLE companies. You don't repeat that success again and again without sound fundamental business management skills.

The difference between PE, VC and even the entrepreneur with the idea is generally various stages of the lifecycle of a company, with PE coming last ahead of an IPO or sale to a strategic buyer.

O-Trap;1205012 wrote:The guy's business record shows that he has run a successful business. The guy's POLITICAL record says that didn't translate into fiscal conservatism that well.

Agreed but I'm banking that Romney will be a tad more understanding and knowledgeable of what it takes to stimulate private sector growth than Obama's most-definite anti-free enterprise beliefs. In other words he's far more likely to say and do what a POTUS must to say and do to inspire Reagan-like confidence than Barry has dismally demonstrated.

believer;1205027 wrote:Agreed but I'm banking that Romney will be a tad more understanding and knowledgeable of what it takes to stimulate private sector growth than Obama's most-definite anti-free enterprise beliefs.

What ought a president do to stimulate private sector growth? How about "less?" Less intervention and regulation. Only Romney's POLITICAL track record isn't a shining example of this in the least.

believer;1205027 wrote:In other words he's far more likely to say and do what a POTUS must to say and do to inspire Reagan-like confidence than Barry has dismally demonstrated.

A president's actions and words mean little. A president freeing up businesses to act and speak ... THAT is a president that inspires confidence. A "get out of the way" president who isn't crippling those small and mid-sized businesses is what is needed.

The very things that Obama has done to hurt the economy so is to intervene. Romney's track record says he intervenes as well. The Massachusetts voters liked it, but I'm not sure I'd see that as a good thing.