RidinHighSpeeds

I was reading an article in a magazine..and they stated the key difference between Mitt and Bush, is that Bush sat in the back of every class, trying not to get called on. Mitt always sat in the front, always raising his hand and asking questions.

Here is a great video:

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eKIm6zrhp0"]Mitt Romney[/YOUTUBE]

__________________
Networked Web Sites
Jon-Kingsbury.com
DefendingTheTruth
UML Forums

Katczinsky

Damn, Ridin, do you work for his campaign or something?

Quote from video: "Mitt Romney is a businessman". He's also religious right.

We've had six years of a businessman president, and look where that got us. Businessman Republicans have been the worst thing that ever happened to the military and our security. The religious right was the worst thing that ever happened to the Republican party (they're not conservative in any sense of the word, and they overthrew the true libertarian-like conservatism of Goldwater). This would just be a better-looking more rhetorical version of Bush; which of coarse means he can just get away with more shit. No thanks.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

tristanrobin

I'm no fan of Romney's - but face it, our CURRENT president is the kind of businessman who can LOSE money owning an OIL company. You have to almost work at it to fuck up and lose money in oil.

__________________
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

"know this is EXACTLY why people think you shouldnt have equal rights" 2/11/08 Grace

RidinHighSpeeds

I can see your point..but Romney is nothing like Bush or the other Republicans. When it comes to money, this guy knows what he is doing. He saved the Olympics, he funded the idea of an "Office Superstore" which is now today, Staples; and finally look at what he did for Massachusetts!! These are key differences between himself and the other Republicans.

__________________
Networked Web Sites
Jon-Kingsbury.com
DefendingTheTruth
UML Forums

winston53660

Like Bush I'm afraid he would bring his religion to the office. And also like bush I think he believes his own PR. The second of these scares me more.

RidinHighSpeeds

So what everyone is trying to hint here in this thread is that a Republican should not be considered for Presidency in 2008 because of Bush...??

__________________
Networked Web Sites
Jon-Kingsbury.com
DefendingTheTruth
UML Forums

tyreay

I know Romney did good things for Mass. Being right next door to you I see him in the local news alot.
My problem is I don't agree with any candidate that thinks tax cuts, when we go a couple of million dollars futher in debt in the time it takes to write this, are the answer. This is my main complaint with most conservative ideals. I think shifting the tax burden and looking out for someone other than huge corporations and the very rich are going to be key. The national debt must be addressed and we must change directions for our economy to hold up in the future, even if this means a slight increase in taxes. We can't keep borrowing. It may even be starting to effect our ecomony now.

__________________
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour

There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle. ~Alexis de Tocqueville

Nightrider

Originally posted by RidinHighSpeeds:

On the contrary, I personally believe that Bush has done a good job keeping the fascist jihadists at bay. Look at his record: there have been no major terrorist attacks on US soil since Sept. 11, 2001. . .

Now, as far as a successor to Bush - I think that Rudy Giuliani would be a fine choice. In Giuliani, we have the ideal candidate: someone who will be tough on terror as well as compassionate on certain social issues.

Also, Giuliani is real and down to earth - what you see is what you get. It's refreshing that we have a candidate running for office that fits into that category. Doesn't everyone agree?

As far as Romney goes, I just don't think that he has the clout to beat Hillary. . . and we all know that is not a good thing. . .

KnightOfSappho

The terrorists are patient planners. The fact that there has been no attack on US soil is NOT a good criterion.

I lived in NYC during part of Guliani's administration. He is more about apprearances than actual work. For example: Everyone compliments him about getting the agressive panhandlers out of Times Square. What he did was pushed them into less affluent areas and then ignored the complaints of the citizens that lived there. I couldn't see a much worse option for our country than a person like that.

__________________

Katczinsky

Just because there hasn't been one doesn't mean he's been keeping them at bay. It's all speculation. In fact, security and local police in towns on the border with Mexico have been saying that terrorists are not only open to cross into the United States but have crossed. But Bush is too worried that increasing the security along the border with Mexico will lessen his chances of promoting his free-trade policies in Latin America that he and his corporate neo-liberal buddies are pushing for. And other Republicans want to focus our resources on getting rid of working immigrants rather than focusing on those who actually do harm (drug cartels, terrorist rings, etc.).

This administration has made us less safe by being the best thing that ever happened to recruiters for organizations like Al-Qaeda. The Iraq War, especially, has inflamed drastically these organizations and their global memberships to unprecedented levels. This administration has also sent our men and women in harms way to be their guinea pigs in their neo-conservative experiment that has horribly failed and they don't seem to be giving up on it despite.

This administration, despite all of it's rhetoric really hasn't done anything to 'support the troops'. In fact I think they've been the worst thing that has happened to the military. They send them into harms way to do their own bidding, without armor, they privatize many of their jobs (of which these corporations are doing a much more horrible job and is one of the main causes of this war's failure), and when the troops come back they are given inexcusable treatment. It's all because of the Republicans' businessman and corporate mentality; tax cuts for the rich, middle class in the crapper, and privatize everything (even if it means at the expense of the health and lives of American soldiers).

All of this privatization bullshit, I've had about enough of it. This administration doesn't want to lift a finger for sick and injured troops in places like Walter Reed, so what do they do? They privatize, and it goes even further down in quality. When will they ever learn? Corporations are efficient at making profit, I will give them that; but what conservatives don't understand is that they are only good at that, and to put the health and safety of our military into the hands of people who are only interested in the bottom line, in profit margins, is not only completely stupid but criminal. Not only has things like Walter Reed happened, but corporations like Halliburton are profiteering off of this war, and they are exploiting the dollars of the average American tax payer (when something goes wrong with a transport vehicle, for example, they demolish the whole thing knowing the government will pay for a new one; or they ride in luxury vehicles armored to the teeth with better armor than our own soldiers' vehicles and with ten times the pay. The second largest armed force in Iraq isn't the United Kingdom: it's private contractors.

And then they have the nerve to say they support the troops, when they don't do anything further than slap a ribbon on the back of their huge multi-ton SUV that is burning up oil our soldiers have been sent in to be killed for.

If this administration truly supported the troops they would do more than just slap ribbons on their SUV's. There's a war going on, Bush hikes up spending at unprecedented levels, and then has the nerve to give out hand-outs to corporations and huge unprecedented tax cuts (mainly for the rich). People have been so disconnected; they hear about that distant war (oh and the one that's still going on in Afghanistan that people seem to have forgotten about) and slap on a ribbon on their car and just go shopping. In world war II, Roosevelt (whether you like him or not) organized the country to actually contribute to our troops and to our soldiers. He didn't cut taxes. People sacrificed.

The only thing this administration has asked us to sacrifice in this war is our liberties; and that's just plain wrong.

And don't get me started with Giuliani. He was simply at the right place in the right time, and you know it. After the first bombing of the World Trade Center he was required to move the city's Emergency Crisis Operations Center for emergencies and acts of terrorism like these. He was told not to put them in the World Trade Center, obviously since it was a past and present target for terrorism. Guess what he did. He put the Emergency Crisis Operations Center in the World Trade Center, and it went down with it on September 11. Giuliani is like most Republicans; they might have rhetoric, and use it at the right place in the right time, but when it really comes down to it they shouldn't be trusted in positions that are responsible for peoples' lives. Disasters have happened and some almost have happened because of these businessmen in these positions all throughout this administration (Bush's bud in FEMA and the disaster of Katrina, almost selling our ports to Dubai, etc.). And with Giuliani and Romney it will all be the same.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72