Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mr. Romney was not only displaying his hallmark brand of almost comically analytical reasoning but also returning to the place where he first absorbed it. From 1971 to 1975, he simultaneously earned business and law degrees from Harvard.
Romney has a vivid history of choosing which side to service. At the height of the Vietnam War, he publicly demonstrated in favor of the conflict. Of course, instead of serving in the American military during a conflict he strongly supported, he chose to serve his Mormon masters with a cushy 3 year mission in France.
Currently, he strongly supports the middle east quagmires his colleagues Bush and Cheney mismanaged so horribly and he's talking tough about action he'd take with Iran. Of course, not a single one of his five healthy sons has spent a single day in uniform.
If elected, who will Romney serve?
It's an open question because his history certainly hasn't been one of service to his country or to the public.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,865 posts, read 10,400,492 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
Two guys graduate from Harvard Law School with high marks.
One goes to Wall St and forms a company specializing in leveraged buy-outs that throw thousands of Americans out of work while he rakes in the cash.
One goes to Chicago to advocate on behalf of disadvantaged Americans.
Both are now campaigning for president.
Which one will better represent your interests? Which one will work harder for corporate interests?
Seems to be 2 competing memes here, and which one you "buy", kinda depends on your values and personality.
On the one hand there's Ponderosa's nicely articulated "Greed versus Service", which speaks to the more "empathetic" and "community-minded" among us... which naturally favors Obama.
And on the other side is the "survival of the fittest" point of view (aka Social Darwinism), which the more competitive and narcissistic folks ("its all about ME") relate to.... and which favors Romney.
But as linguistics professor George Lakoff points out, its all a matter of "framing", and from a strategic point of view, I think Obama's history could just as easily support a case that also appeals to the "second" set of values.
Seems to be 2 competing memes here, and which one you "buy", kinda depends on your values and personality.
On the one hand there's Ponderosa's nicely articulated "Greed versus Service", which speaks to the more "empathetic" and "community-minded" among us... which naturally favors Obama.
And on the other side is the "survival of the fittest" point of view (aka Social Darwinism), which the more competitive and narcissistic folks ("its all about ME") relate to.... and which favors Romney.
But as linguistics professor George Lakoff points out, its all a matter of "framing", and from a strategic point of view, I think Obama's history could just as easily support a case that also appeals to the "second" set of values.
Did Obama chase the money or did he work for the disadvantaged?
Did Romney chase the money or work for the disadvantaged?
Two guys graduate from Harvard Law School with high marks.
One goes to Wall St and forms a company specializing in leveraged buy-outs that throw thousands of Americans out of work while he rakes in the cash.
One goes to Chicago to advocate on behalf of disadvantaged Americans.
Both are now campaigning for president.
Which one will better represent your interests? Which one will work harder for corporate interests?
The contrast is stark. Romney went to Wall St and became a richer multi-millionaire. After all, he was already one when he was born. Obama went to the south side of Chicago to assist the working poor.
Two guys graduate from Harvard Law School with high marks.
One goes to Wall St and forms a company specializing in leveraged buy-outs that throw thousands of Americans out of work while he rakes in the cash.
One goes to Chicago to advocate on behalf of disadvantaged Americans.
Both are now campaigning for president.
Which one will better represent your interests? Which one will work harder for corporate interests?
One became successful using his own, private resources.
One has never made money of his own - he's always been paid on the government's dime.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.