Romney repeatedly cites Obama's supposedly private comments to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, in which Obama said he would have "more flexibility" to deal with missile defense after the election.

http://www.freep.com/article/20120407/BUSINESS07/120407008/Jobs-report-leaves-Obama-Romney-campaigns-wary?odyssey=nav%7Chead

"He does not want to share his real plans before the election, either with the public or with the press," Romney told newspaper editors and publishers Wednesday. "By flexibility, he means that 'what the American public doesn't know won't hurt him.'"

"On what other issues will he state his true position only after the election is over?" Romney said.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/02/fraudulent-fears-of-a-second-term

Portege,

Romney's allowed to listen in on Obama's private conversations, since the two of them are best of friends, so I'm sure he has a completely accurate assessment of their content.

You're such a fucking nitwit. Do you really believe campaign rhetoric?

Speaking of true positions...given that Romney has taken two or three positions on every issue imaginable, do you have any sense which position might be his "true position?"

I have no idea what Romney's true positions might be. In fact, we neither know Romney or Obama's true positions. However, what we do know is that Romney was the founder and CEO of a prestigious successful firm for 20 years. A firm that most people would jump at the chance to work for. Keep in mind, Romney also has an MBA from Harvard and the corporate world is all about negotiating from one situation to the next. Romney is very wealthy as a result of his personal success. I am of the opinion that we want to elect successful people to these high positions rather then people with doubtful records and who couldnt make dime one in the real world.

The reason why Obama is a weak negotiatior is because he never had to negotiate in any of his previous positions. He taught law, he organized a community and was a Senator. None of these positions involve any sort of high level negotiating. However, as a CEO, Romney did that all the time.

We know the results of Obama's economic policies as we are living through them right now. The results are mediocre. Sure, the gold market and the stock market may love Obama, but somehow the situation with the average American has gotten worse. In a recent Gallup poll, 45% of Americans report they approve of Obama, 64% state the country is on the "wrong track", 18% identify themselves as "underemployed", 64% report they actually participate in the workforce, 49% report they are happy and 43% report they are struggling.

Now please tell me honestly if Obama truly deserves a 2nd term? Please tell me that its a bad idea to give someone with extensive qualifications a chance at bat? Obama has had his time at bat and he struck out. Now its time for him to move over and give someone else a shot. The majority of Americans are simply NOT HAPPY with the way things are going.

Ah, rewrite time is here again!

I have no idea what Romney's true positions might be, but because he's a Republican I'll jump in line and salute on command. We know that Romney was the founder and CEO of a prestigious successful firm for 20 years. A firm that most people would love to work for but be terrified should he ever acquire the company you worked for. Keep in mind, Romney also has an MBA from Harvard, the same school where Obama got a mutherfuckin' PhD, and the corporate world is all about negotiating from one situation to the next, unlike lawyers who know nothing about negotiation. Romney is very wealthy as a result of his daddy. I am of the opinion that we want to elect elite people to these high positions rather then people who became successful on their own.

Obama isn't so much a weak negotiator as he is a closet Republican. He never investigated the Cheney administration, continued spying on US citizens, approved assassinations and drone strikes on allied countries, lowered taxes, cut services and instituted a Republican health-care plan. None of these positions involve any sort of Democratic party policies. However, as a CEO, Romney took over organizations, sold off their most valuable assets then sold those companies down the river.

We know the results of Obama's economic policies because taxes are at record low levels and the economy hasn't taken off like the Republicans keep promising. In a recent Gallup poll, we learn that we're not nearly as well off as when Clinton was in charge.

Isn't it time to give a member of the 1% a chance at bat? Obama has had his time at bat and the Republican congress stood on the mound and never threw the ball. Now its time for Obama to walk to the mound and punch the pitcher in the nuts. The majority of Americans are simply NOT HAPPY with the 1% running the country.

You can say what you want Wombat, but you are most certainly in no position to criticize folks who have been A LOT more successful then yourself.

I think if the economy were better then we would be seeing more trip reports out of you. Seems to me you stopped taking trips back in 2009 and now just stay close to home in Canada. I wouldnt call that a successful economy.

Well, if thats what you want, a mediocre lifestyle and economic ruin, then vote for Obama.

No position to criticize people more successful than me? By your logic, the colonists were in no position to criticize King George! That make you a royalist, Portege. That's understandable, because the Republican party is bent on bringing back the feudal state.

According to my count, I have more than ten times the number of trip reports as you, so uh, you can't criticize me, ha, ha, ha!

Instead of talking opinion, lets talk facts. More then likely according to polls and expert analystss, the Republicans will probably take the house and the Senate which would be nightmarish.

I am confident we are headed into another recession. In the past, since the government is 40% of the GDP, they would increase spending to help us through the recession and then later on make cuts.



So we need a House which will be able to increase spending but we wont get that. So the other solution is a highly flexible President who is able to negotiate and can find another solution or maybe even convince the Republican Congress to increase spending. We all know Obama isnt going to be able to do that.

So while Obama and most everyone in DC lives a good life, we go flapping into the wind.

So, really, the best scenario is for Mitt Romney to win. We dont need activism especially seeing how equal and fair things are nowadays. I see female construction workers and female officers on a daily basis. We are as equal here as its going to get. What we need is someone who knows their way around business and can negotiate.

Otherwise, quite honestly, both you and me get the stick. Whatever happens in 6 months I know that Obama will be back out on the course or in Hawaii on vacation. Meanwhile, you and me try to figure out how to make a dime the best way we can in this economy and our vacation wont be in a nice place like Hawaii.

I say we change the rules and let Bill Clinton run again. Never happen, but I am surprised you dont hear a lot more dems talking about the good ole Clinton days that much. Clinton rocked, unlike the guys we have had since then.

I think part of Clinton's success was Newt Gingrich. Somehow it was a good combination of a moderate Democratic President and conservative Republican Congress which seemed ideal. I think if Clinton a Democrat controlled Congress then he wouldnt have been as successful.

Bill Clinton really knows how to talk to people. He basically got his dick sucked in the middle of the White House and not only convinced his wife not to divorce him but also convinced the American people to back him.

So the ideal President would probably be someone who knows how to negotiate and how to make friends even in the worst situations i.e. Monica Lewinsky. Someone who is moderate in their approach and thinking. Lets face it, forcing an all Americans to buy a product or receive a fine is very radical thinking.

In tort law, you are not obligated to help or provide for anyone. So by saying that all people need insurance and the government should provide it is basically changing all that. Its saying that we are obligated to help other people which is a slippery slope. It sounds all well and good, but not something which can be very well put into practice.

Portege,

Are you now pretending to know something about law? What's this completely bogus reference to "tort law?" Tort law does not remotely mean what you suggest. The issue at hand is the interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

You've offered the most shallow, simple-minded interpretation of what is being debated around the HCR law that I've seen, and that's saying something.

You appear to know zero about state health care laws, which all have "indigent care" statutes. What these laws mean in practice is that we are already obligated to help one another. That care is paid for through taxes, higher costs to those who are insured, etc. In other words, we have a mandated "insurance" system already, but the insured paid the "premiums " (cost of care) for the uninsured, and because it is a highly disorganized and inefficient system, it is remarkably expensive. The point of requiring people to buy insurance is to prevent some who can afford insurance but choose not to get it for whatever reasons from freeloading off those who do buy insurance. It is a very Republican idea, which is why Romney backed it, and why Orrin Hatch and many other Republican leaders pushed the same idea until Obama had the nerve to propose a law built around a Republican idea.

So, all the poor people will just go away and die? They won't riot? They won't storm hospitals demanding care? They won't kidnap doctors and nurses from their homes and offices and demand they help out themselves or their kids or something?

In the 21st century, saying suck it up or go beg to a church or charity is the best society can offer? 3rd world economic society, including health care?

Portege, you say "I am of the opinion that we want to elect successful people to these high positions rather then people with doubtful records and who couldnt make dime one in the real world."

Now certainly Romney is vastly more successful than any recent president in history in terms of riches he's acquired but if you're implying Obama couldn't make a dime in the real world, that's just not the case. Even if you discount college professor (college is not the real world for many people, especially right-leaning folks), he is a successful book author. You might not think much of his books (I don't), but last I checked, writing a book that sells is a hard thing to do, most wanna-be writers never make it, and anyway in capitalism the quality of the product may have absolutely nothing to do with its ability to generate a profit. 100% true in socialism lol, but yes that can be the case as well in a capitalist profit-oriented framework.

As for Romney's negotiating abilities, in many cases, his firm already had the upper hand since they were often working with failing/failed companies. How exactly do you think that will translate over with Romney vis-a-vis Putin/Medvedev? Also Romney comes across as someone that sees or uses people as a means to an end (profit). Certainly the Russian leadership treat their people this way. So I would say if Romney and Medvedev were to negotiate, you could have BOTH sides treating their citizens as means to an end. I think the results could be bad for both Russians AND Americans!

I dont claim any special knowledge on tort law. I was more or less repeating what some of the justices were saying during the case in the Supreme Court. I believe that is an inaccurate statement to say I know "zero". Those type of all or nothing Obama-like statements are not good conversational points nor do they encourage negotation.

Believe me, I want every single one of you to be wealthy and have healthcare. However, I dont think its as easy as waving a magic wand and giving it to you. These types of socialist policies have been tried in places like Britain, Greece, etc. with horrible results. Look at how Europe has been struggling these last few years. There has been no recovery over there and it just seems to be getting worse every day as if its an ongoing depression. Riots in the streets, people throwing gasoline bombs and the populace very angry. So obviously giving away healthcare is not the answer.

Come on Catocony. If you really honestly believe that healthcare to the masses is going to stop them from dieing, then you are probably a very young man who doesnt know any better. There have been lots of people who I have watched die who had all the healthcare one could have but they still died. Look at Steve Jobs...prime example. Look at Kennedy. Look at Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson. Healthcare isnt going to stop you from dieing. I think you should probably focus more on your habits, diet and getting in daily exercise then focusing on what healthcare policy you have.

Saying suck it up is actually the best policy. There have been a few times in my life which I was dirt broke and poor where I had a few dollars in the bank. You know what I did? I got a job, learned new skills and worked harder. No one ever gave me a handout. There is nothing wrong with "tough love" because you work harder. If someone gave me charity during those hard times I would have never gotten a job or worked harder.

In my case, I got the dirtiest job one could find and that was out in the ocean on the middle of an oil rig. It was the only job available and they offered training. A decade later I became a VP at that same oil company managing these rigs. It was a lot of hard work, I did get injured. I was on one rig when it literally exploded and a few of my coworkers killed. However, I got through it and am a better person today. I am happy no one gave me any charity back then and damned proud.

I do think Obama can make a few dimes out in the public. Hey, he can probably go teach at Harvard. However, as for running a real company I dont think he could do it. Romney did a fine job with Bain and Company and he turned himself into a very wealthy man as a result.

Let me tell you something phunluv. There was once a time when an employee's child was lost in New York City. Romney declared a company wide emergency, shut down Bain, formed a command center, flew all employees to NYC and found that child. I dont know of anyone else in the world who would have done that for their employees. So dont sit there making shit up and telling us how Romney is this person who uses other people for profit. Obviously, the man cares and he probably has a much warmer heart then you will ever have.

So what if he bought some failing companies and turned them into stars? So what if he shut down a few companies because they were just not worth keeping? Lots of people do things like buy houses and flip them after some repairs and cleaning up. Same concept and there is nothing wrong with that. If Romney was successful, where people like yourself were not so successful, then god bless him.

I want a successful man in the White House who has managed employees, managed departments and held something together for a time. Someone who has negotiated something a little more then someone's grade on a term paper. I dont want unsuccessful men who lack experience or accomplishment. Thats like telling me you want some loser managing your finances. Who wants that?

(Message edited by Portege on April 13, 2012)