http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TKCwSVH7Bw&feature=youtu.be


Home Depot founder lays it out there.

Well, his last line says "We can do much better than Barrack Obama."

And while I also believe that, I feel that we can do much better than Mitt Romney, also.

CenterBHSFan;1299374 wrote: And while I also believe that, I feel that we can do much better than Mitt Romney, also.

Myself and other have been saying this for a long time. People who actually run businesses are scared to death of Obama. They see the damage he has done to the economy.

That said, it's kind of funny to see the founder of Home Depot - worth hundreds of millions, probably more - talking about being concerned for his children and their children. I suspect they will be just fine (unless Obama passes a 99% inheritance tax).

I'm sure we could do better than Romney. But those people never run.

CenterBHSFan;1299374 wrote:Well, his last line says "We can do much better than Barrack Obama."

And while I also believe that, I feel that we can do much better than Mitt Romney, also.

Absolutely but like it or not (and now enter the teary eyed "We hate the Repubs because they didn't vote for our guy" libertarians) the only realistic choices we have in our tried and true two-party system is 4 more years of verified Obama failure...or Willard.

Mitt wouldn't have been my top Repub choice (and wasn't) but I have no doubt in my eeeeeevil neo-con mind that we'll be far better off under Mitt than 4 more years of dope & strange.

We're not teary eyed, its just ridiculous seeing two people who are the same bitch at each other and claim their different. They will both overspend, go to wars, and add more laws that infringe on our rights.

elitesmithie05;1299468 wrote:We're not teary eyed, its just ridiculous seeing two people who are the same bitch at each other and claim their different. They will both overspend, go to wars, and add more laws that infringe on our rights.

Oh I agree....but if you think Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or even Rosanne Barr would be any different if they were fortunate enough to make it all the way to the White House you'd be sadly mistaken. Foreign and domestic political realities remain the same regardless of who occupies the WH.

If you think these two are remotely similar you are really, really not paying attention.

I'm not sure what scares me more - 4 more years of Obama, or an electorate that re-ups based on THAT record and THAT agenda (???).

He's running the exact same campaign as 2008 which, for an incumbent, is kind of bizarre. He has somehow escaped explaining his failures or providing an agenda for a 2nd term, which is dumfounding. If one didn't know better, you'd think Romney is actually the incumbent running for re-election and Obama was a challenger campaigning on generalities and platitudes (as he did in 2008).

believer;1299492 wrote:Oh I agree....but if you think Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or even Rosanne Barr would be any different if they were fortunate enough to make it all the way to the White House you'd be sadly mistaken. Foreign and domestic political realities remain the same regardless of who occupies the WH.

There are many people who, inexplicably, align more with ideals rather than an ability to lead and execute. The perfect agenda is wasted on a candidate incapable of implementing even part of it.

Many successful business leaders, like Romney, simply don't understand or don't accept "I can't....You can't...It can't be done". But such a defeatist/victimization attitude is really a core foundation of Obama's (and liberals') philosophy. They are very, very different candidates.

gut;1300101 wrote:There are many people who, inexplicably, align more with ideals rather than an ability to lead and execute. The perfect agenda is wasted on a candidate incapable of implementing even part of it.

Many successful business leaders, like Romney, simply don't understand or don't accept "I can't....You can't...It can't be done". But such a defeatist/victimization attitude is really a core foundation of Obama's (and liberals') philosophy. They are very, very different candidates.

I would agree but the Paulists don't.

All I'm saying here is when realpolitik comes into play, almost all presidents base their decisions on the realities of the day tempered a bit by ideology.

For example, Barry promised to close Gitmo and begin steady withdrawal out of the Middle East. Gitmo is alive and well and while we have "officially" ended combat in Iraq, we still have plenty of troops on the ground in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

Nevertheless I still see Mitt as a far better alternative at least economically to BHO.

They're very different now that Romney has disavowed almost everything he ever said he believed in. They used to be much more similar.

2kool4skool;1300129 wrote:They're very different now that Romney has disavowed almost everything he ever said he believed in. They used to be much more similar.

They're philosophy, understanding and experience with regards to business/economics/fiscal are, and always have been, very different.

I would, however, agree that perhaps the faux/strawman Romney that Obama created to campaign against is not that different from the chosen one.

gut;1300141 wrote:They're philosophy

Their*

I would, however, agree that perhaps the faux/strawman Romney that Obama created to campaign against is not that different from the chosen one.

They have actually tried to portray Romney as some sort of extremist until recently, which was a mistake as he is about as extreme as wheat bread. A more accurate depiction would be an opportunist who is willing to be whatever he needs to be to gain power.

Not that it matters. Obie has it in the bag. :laugh:

fish82;1300230 wrote:Not that it matters. Obie has it in the bag. :laugh:

Your jimmies seem rustled. The last time this happened, you gave out your home address and challenged an anonymous forum member to a fight. Should I be nervous?

2kool4skool;1300221 wrote: They have actually tried to portray Romney as some sort of extremist until recently, which was a mistake as he is about as extreme as wheat bread. A more accurate depiction would be an opportunist who is willing to be whatever he needs to be to gain power.

Translation: You now reject their first characterization for the obvious fraud it was and happily accept the new fraud they are pushing.

2kool4skool;1300236 wrote:Your jimmies seem rustled. The last time this happened, you gave out your home address and challenged an anonymous forum member to a fight. Should I be nervous?

LOL. Relax, Greek. All is well. :rolleyes:

gut;1300285 wrote:Translation: You now reject their first characterization for the obvious fraud it was and happily accept the new fraud they are pushing.

You'll find my position to be quite consistent on this issue.

There is no need to "portray" anything. It is a fact that Romney has changed his position on climate change, health care, abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and the auto bailout.

I assumed he would be attacked as an opportunist from the start. I found the decision to portray him as an extremist both dishonest and poor political strategy.

gut;1300096 wrote:He's running the exact same campaign as 2008 which, for an incumbent, is kind of bizarre. He has somehow escaped explaining his failures or providing an agenda for a 2nd term, which is dumfounding. If one didn't know better, you'd think Romney is actually the incumbent running for re-election and Obama was a challenger campaigning on generalities and platitudes (as he did in 2008).

This is so true.

2kool4skool;1300324 wrote:You'll find my position to be quite consistent on this issue.

There is no need to "portray" anything. It is a fact that Romney has changed his position on climate change, health care, abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and the auto bailout.

I assumed he would be attacked as an opportunist from the start. I found the decision to portray him as an extremist both dishonest and poor political strategy.

What one person calls an opportunist, someone else may calls a realist governing one of the bluest of the blue states, and then seeking the nomination of a party fired up by conservatives and Tea Party types.

I mean, "I vetoed every bill that crossed my desk in Massachusetts" is hardly an inspiring record to run on.

2kool4skool;1300324 wrote: There is no need to "portray" anything. It is a fact that Romney has changed his position on climate change, health care, abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and the auto bailout.

I assumed he would be attacked as an opportunist from the start. I found the decision to portray him as an extremist both dishonest and poor political strategy.

Health care and auto bailout is debateable as anything more than refined positions. The rest are non-starters as BS talking points that have been discussed.

What you call an opportunist others might view as an eviable pragmatist. But, again, it's noteable that we sit here dissecting Romney while Obama's record is indefensible, and his 2nd term agenda non-existent.

jhay78;1300365 wrote:What one person calls an opportunist, someone else may calls a realist governing one of the bluest of the blue states, and then seeking the nomination of a party fired up by conservatives and Tea Party types.

Not all of those changes simply occured between when he was governor and when he ran for President. Many of them occurred between 08 and 12

gut;1300374 wrote:Health care and auto bailout is debateable[sic] as anything more than refined positions. The rest are non-starters as BS talking points that have been discussed.

Whether you care about the issues or not isn't really the point. The point being that it's an attack that has weight and evidence, and a criticism that holds weight historically with the American Electorate. Kerry's biggest downfall(other than having the personality of a doorknob) was being successfully framed as a flip-flopper by the Republicans.

What you call an opportunist others might view as an eviable pragmatist. But, again, it's noteable[sic] that we sit here dissecting Romney while Obama's record is indefensible, and his 2nd term agenda non-existent.

People tend to vote for familiarity. If Romney is going to win, he has to put forth some more concrete specifics as to what he'll do differently. Both candidates are running on the "Yeah, but at least I'm not HIM" platform, and that's generally a losing battle for the challenger.

It's clear you have a different standard for Romney than Obama. That's really the only explanation. In all honesty if Obama was a white Repub he's losing this election by 20 pts.

Ultimately, having a liberal in the WH is more important than having someone competent there...for many voters, apparently.

2kool4skool;1300381 wrote:Whether you care about the issues or not isn't really the point. The point being that it's an attack that has weight and evidence, and a criticism that holds weight historically with the American Electorate. Kerry's biggest downfall(other than having the personality of a doorknob) was being successfully framed as a flip-flopper by the Republicans.

Kerry was also famous for being more liberal than Ted Kennedy. Plus, having married into the Heinz fortune, he wasn't able to play the standard class-warfare, look-at-how-much-that-guy-has-and-how-much-you-don't-have argument like liberals usually do.

gut;1300386 wrote:It's clear you have a different standard for Romney than Obama. That's really the only explanation.

This makes no sense in the context of this thread but okay :laugh:

gut;1300386 wrote:In all honesty if Obama was a white Repub he's losing this election by 20 pts.

I don't know. Democrats tend not to care about the deficit period, while Republicans only care about it when the opposition is in power. I think he'd probably be winning a landslide if he were somehow a Republican, but that's a pretty silly hypothetical to pose.

jhay78;1300396 wrote:Kerry was also famous for being more liberal than Ted Kennedy. Plus, having married into the Heinz fortune, he wasn't able to play the standard class-warfare, look-at-how-much-that-guy-has-and-how-much-you-don't-have argument like liberals usually do.

I don't disagree with any of that, but the point of my post was the "flip flopper" portrayal historically holding weight with the American Electorate. Dems were pretty fired up about getting Bush out in 04, so it's not as if he lost the Liberal vote due to his wealth. He lost the independent vote and thereby the election because he looks like a dog, is as exciting as dried paint, and was the target of a highly successful attack on his credibility re: flip-flopping.

" I think he'd probably be winning a landslide if he were somehow a Republican, but that's a pretty silly hypothetical to pose."

Absolutely no part of this comment made sense.

2kool4skool;1300399 wrote:This makes no sense in the context of this thread but okay :laugh:

No, it' s perfect. You drove that point home. When pressed, you deflect form the real issues just like Obama. He's teflon to you - there's no excuse or justification you won't make for him, real or imagined.

2kool4skool;1300399 wrote: I don't know. Democrats tend not to care about the deficit period, while Republicans only care about it when the opposition is in power. I think he'd probably be winning a landslide if he were somehow a Republican, but that's a pretty silly hypothetical to pose.

This is also not true. Many people were complaining about deficits during Bush, not sure what you were reading or hearing. Even then, the defiits were much lower. Let us not forget that Obama campaigned - loudly - how he would cut the deficitis in half. But he's doubled it, and all we hear are crickets.

Again, because Obama is a liberal he's beyond criticism. That's actually compounded by being black, in the typical sort of "reverse racism" we observe many time. People refuse to be critical for fear of being labeled a racist.

No one with that record has an objective chance of being remotely in this race.