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.
Romney says he wants to bring back US jobs. But while he ran Bain, he SPECIALIZED in financing the wholesale shipping of US jobs overseas, for PROFIT. In fact, Bain helped pioneer and perfect the practice:
Bain under Romney actually added to the nation's GDP and economic growth, this is a fact and the primary reason why some Democrats have asked Obama to lay off the nonsense.
Romney as a head of an investment group helped out investors - mostly people with pensions - that was his job. As president his role will be different.
I am beginning to think Romneyites are incapable of confronting a question straight on. They must take their lead from Mitt. Every time anyone brings up a criticism of Romney it is countered with some (often overblown) comparison to Obama who, they allege, is guilty of the same. The question arises, if Romney is not different from Obama, why should anyone vote for him? If he is just more of the same, why risk it?
I am beginning to think Romneyites are incapable of confronting a question straight on. They must take their lead from Mitt. Every time anyone brings up a criticism of Romney it is countered with some (often overblown) comparison to Obama who, they allege, is guilty of the same. The question arises, if Romney is not different from Obama, why should anyone vote for him? If he is just more of the same, why risk it?
This is exactly it.
As I said in my post, the seismic effects of globalization were probably inevitable. ESPECIALLY after US companies made the conscious decision that maximizing profits trumped all other considerations, including the health and well-being of American society, which made their initial success possible in the first place.
Yes, the die is set, and the trend has gotten worse under every president since Carter.
But, DON'T try to tell us that Romney, worse ONLY REAL JOB at Bain was maximizing profits for himself and his investors, is somehow suddenly The Answer to what has gone wrong in the US employment picture.
The Phoney tax dodger is, in fact, one of the architects of its downfall.
I am beginning to think Romneyites are incapable of confronting a question straight on. They must take their lead from Mitt. Every time anyone brings up a criticism of Romney it is countered with some (often overblown) comparison to Obama who, they allege, is guilty of the same. The question arises, if Romney is not different from Obama, why should anyone vote for him? If he is just more of the same, why risk it?
I am beginning to think that Obamaites are incapable of confronting the fact that Obama is a big flip flopper that has broken many promises. Every time it is pointed out that Obama has the exact same problem that they criticize Romney for they ignore or get upset. The question arises, if Obama has been such a failure as a leader why wouldn't someone want to elect a different person who may actually not be a failure?
I am beginning to think that Obamaites are incapable of confronting the fact that Obama is a big flip flopper that has broken many promises. Every time it is pointed out that Obama has the exact same problem that they criticize Romney for they ignore or get upset. The question arises, if Obama has been such a failure as a leader why wouldn't someone want to elect a different person who may actually not be a failure?
If It is obvious that Obama has been such a failure, shouldn't Romney be way ahead right now?
If It is obvious that Obama has been such a failure, shouldn't Romney be way ahead right now?
If Romney is such a weak, unpersonable, out of touch candidate - shouldn't Obama with the advantages of the incumbency be way out in front and not tied (or trailing according to Gallup)? Or has Obama been so dismal that he is running even against a weak candidate - due to his failures.
If Romney is such a weak, unpersonable, out of touch candidate - shouldn't Obama with the advantages of the incumbency be way out in front and not tied (or trailing according to Gallup)? Or has Obama been so dismal that he is running even against a weak candidate - due to his failures.
The problem Obama faces isn't Romney, but also the puppet masters, and the zombies.
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.
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.
