At the end of the day, Romney worked in finance in a field where it really isn’t about helping the country or doing good - the bottom line is making money.
People either seek to look down on this or seek to promote Romney due to his apparent business acumen.
Working in private equity doesn’t have any transfer to being a good president in my opinion.
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
At the end of the day, Romney worked in finance in a field where it really isn’t about helping the country or doing good - the bottom line is making money.[/quote]
Things brought to you by private equity:
Cell phones
Cell phone service
facebook
the dark knight movies
pension funding
surgical equipment that saves lives
robotics that save lives and improve quality of life
Cable & broadband internet
affordable housing
Should I go on?
[quote]
Working in private equity doesn’t have any transfer to being a good president in my opinion.[/quote]
No, but being a decent governor does…
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
At the end of the day, Romney worked in finance in a field where it really isn’t about helping the country or doing good - the bottom line is making money.
People either seek to look down on this or seek to promote Romney due to his apparent business acumen.
Working in private equity doesn’t have any transfer to being a good president in my opinion.[/quote]
Someone who understands the way to economy works vs. a career politician
I hope you dont vote, or have children
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
At the end of the day, Romney worked in finance in a field where it really isn’t about helping the country or doing good - the bottom line is making money.
People either seek to look down on this or seek to promote Romney due to his apparent business acumen.
Working in private equity doesn’t have any transfer to being a good president in my opinion.[/quote]
Aside from the previous two posts which explain why private equity is good for the country, what’s wrong with just making money? When someone starts a business …just to make money…they employ people who are then empowered by that job to add back to the economy instead of taking from it. In addition to that both the business person and his employees are now on the tax rolls which also helps the economy.
If all Romney did was…just make money…that would be fine with me (although he’s done much, much more). If he is elected President he will have an excellent base of knowledge to draw from in order to get us out of the economic mess that we’re in.
You should consider voting for Romney I think he’d be a breath of fresh air after four years of Obama and his lack of expertise in just about every area of the job.
“It wasn’t until I was in my 2nd term as Mayor (keep in mind he has been in politics for over 20 yrs total), that I truly understood signing the front of the check versus signing the back of it…”
The point I am trying to make is, politicians who have NO business experience almost always fuck up the economy they are responsible for. In our case, big labor elected a moron who got accepted into UCLA with a 1.4 GPA, and admits he was admitted due to Affirmative Action. We now have a $260 Million debt, and a $27 Billion unfunded pension liability for the City of LA. This very same shit-head have out 25% raises at the beginning of the recession, for ALL public workers.
How many of you got a 25% raise when the recession hit ?
Most people have a basic understanding of balancing a checkbook, and making it worth with that you have.
But when you have politicians who think money is an unlimited thing, you run yourself off a cliff.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
At the end of the day, Romney worked in finance in a field where it really isn’t about helping the country or doing good - the bottom line is making money.
People either seek to look down on this or seek to promote Romney due to his apparent business acumen.
Working in private equity doesn’t have any transfer to being a good president in my opinion.[/quote]
Aside from the previous two posts which explain why private equity is good for the country, what’s wrong with just making money? When someone starts a business …just to make money…they employ people who are then empowered by that job to add back to the economy instead of taking from it. In addition to that both the business person and his employees are now on the tax rolls which also helps the economy.
If all Romney did was…just make money…that would be fine with me (although he’s done much, much more). If he is elected President he will have an excellent base of knowledge to draw from in order to get us out of the economic mess that we’re in.
You should consider voting for Romney I think he’d be a breath of fresh air after four years of Obama and his lack of expertise in just about every area of the job.[/quote]
So as I expected, my post is met with strong disagreement.
You can argue that Obama did not have much experience in running the country beforehand too. I am not arguing that he did.
My point is that the big picture shows that neither what Obama did beforehand and what Romney has been doing beforehand are really all that relevant to being a “good” president.
I can’t take someone seriously who has a foreign policy that clearly states that “Russia is our number 1 geopolitical enemy” for example. That is a clear example of a complete out of touch point of view that is clearly one dimensional; i.e. he is going to be another puppet for the military industrial complex.
Exploit the soon to be gone baby boomers mistrust of the “big bad commies” that is still prevalent from Cold War times to build military bases in Europe and the anti-missile defense system which is clearly not necessary at all. Why would this occur? To enrich contractors who make money off of military spending. There is no other explanation for his view, as it has been laughed at by many geopolitical experts (Zbigniew Brzezinski is one, for example, and he served as the National Security Administration head during the Cold War, so this isn’t some lightweight).
Me not voting for Romney has nothing to do with him having lots of money, just like voting for Obama has nothing to do with him not having all that much money.
In today’s politics, it’s about voting for who will do the least harm long term for me.
In today’s volatile economic environment and political instability in places such as the Middle East, Romney easily will be worse than Bush if elected to office.
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
At the end of the day, Romney worked in finance in a field where it really isn’t about helping the country or doing good - the bottom line is making money.
[/quote]
Dude, at the end of the day Obama is a career politician.
The bottom line is herding people at gunpoint.
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Why would this occur? To enrich contractors who make money off of military spending. There is no other explanation for his view, [/quote]
No one works for those companies, nope.
And no one fears a strong military, nope.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
At the end of the day, Romney worked in finance in a field where it really isn’t about helping the country or doing good - the bottom line is making money.
People either seek to look down on this or seek to promote Romney due to his apparent business acumen.
Working in private equity doesn’t have any transfer to being a good president in my opinion.[/quote]
Someone who understands the way to economy works vs. a career politician
I hope you dont vote, or have children [/quote]
Despite your clear inability to filter the propaganda perpetuated by your party, I’ll actually give a good response to your post.
I wonder how much economic knowledge you have yourself.
There is no “secret” that Romney knows about the economy that Obama doesn’t. Bernanke, who is a career PhD economist from Princeton knows much more than both of them, and he does not know the answer.
That is because, long term, there really is no answer. Right now, the one thing propping up the US economy is the fact that we can employ strong Quantitative Easing (aka QE aka printing money). The reason that we can do this is because of the Bretton Woods agreement.
The Bretton Woods agreement designated the US dollar as the world currency essentially. This gives our currency great value. The unspoken/unsigned agreement that allowed other countries to accept this agreement (they really didn’t have much of a choice, US politicians bullied it into existence after WWII and otherwise threatened to not help rebuild Europe if not accepted) is because the US gave a gentleman’s agreement that it would limit the printing of money.
In 2008 during the financial crisis, the only thing possible to “save the economy” and the dollar for that matter is the fact that we can print money like no one in the world can. Our dollar is also backed by the value of oil, giving rise to the meaning of petro-dollar, giving the US a distinct economic advantage over really any other country in the world.
If you take a look at the conflicts over the past decade or so in the Middle East (or Latin America such as Ecuador for example) the main point is that the US supremacy in the world is dependent upon oil still being traded in dollars. If a country tries to step out of line and trade it in Euros, or for gold (or another commodity/currency), this essentially spells the end to the US as we know it. Obviously this is not an overnight process, and it would take at least a decade, but no one wants this to happen.
Now, taking this very limited view into mind, how in the hell is Romney working for Bain Capital in private equity going to give him an upper hand over Obama in running the US. How is trying to create an enemy out of Russia (essentially a ‘western’ country), a huge oil and natural resources producer that could be a very long term beneficial ally to the US, going to help the US.
It’s not. There is a whole lot of ‘reading between the lines’ in politics and world affairs. What you see is not even close to what you get. What the media tells you is not even close to what is really going on.
It’s like steroids. If you listen to what CNN tells you, you’d think that I would have dropped dead because I ran steroids and broke out in roid rage while trying to kill people. But because I (and many of you) do/did proper research, we can make informed decisions.
This takes reading books and delving deeper into topics. In world affairs in the US today, the military industrial complex has a huge bearing on international issues. The pharmaceutical industry has a huge bearing on national issues. The oil lobby is extremely powerful and determines a lot of our foreign policy as well. Special interests really rule politics nowadays. Except, instead of being crass about it and calling it for what it really is, corruption, it has been given a nice pc name: lobbying.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Why would this occur? To enrich contractors who make money off of military spending. There is no other explanation for his view, [/quote]
No one works for those companies, nope.
And no one fears a strong military, nope.[/quote]
You’re missing the bigger picture here.
The whole idea of “war is good” is a very limited and narrow world view. Sure, maybe in the extreme short term.
What is the long term consequence of bullying countries overseas for many years now, establishing hundreds of military bases all over the world and infuriating local populations there, and spending more on the military than the rest of the world COMBINED?
Sure, it allows a policy of essentially ‘strong arming’ countries. But, with nukes available to more than just the US, strong arming is not possible (at least in the literal term, economic sanctions still work) against countries like China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Iran (most likely soon), etc.
So I guess you can argue that really the US has no other choice at this point. Ensuring the global supremacy of the dollar through exploitation and military might is really the only way out. I would personally say this is my view.
But this is unsustainable. Because there is no clear way forward does not mean that the country should stop looking for one.
It’s quite frustrating that these types of elections are an example of how out of touch the public is in concern to what is really going on in the world. People are voting based on abortion, or gun laws, or all sorts of largely irrelevant issues in the scheme of things. There is somehow this huge disagreement over “entitlement programs” but there is/was no uproar over a trillion dollars spent on an illegal war in Iraq.
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Why would this occur? To enrich contractors who make money off of military spending. There is no other explanation for his view, [/quote]
No one works for those companies, nope.
And no one fears a strong military, nope.[/quote]
You’re missing the bigger picture here.
The whole idea of “war is good” is a very limited and narrow world view. Sure, maybe in the extreme short term.[/quote]
Who said you had start a war for people to have jobs making & designing new weapons?
Just taking the guy in Libya as a perfect example, he was loved by the people there…
You are quick to call out other’s for being blinded by propaganda.
As far as spending on Military, good. Thank Christ we do. I don’t have to worry about anyone flying over Hawaii and bombing us anytime soon if they fear.
So you don’t think that if we weren’t there in those countries, and “strong arming” them, those others you listed wouldn’t be?
So murder & the bill of rights are irrelevant?
I am starting to wonder who is really out of touch. You sound like a college professor who drank a little too much of the lefty kool-ade, no offense.
[quote]There is somehow this huge disagreement over “entitlement programs” but there is/was no uproar over a trillion dollars spent on an illegal war in Iraq.
[/quote]
Not sure what sand your head is in if you didn’t/don’t see how pissed people were/are about Iraq.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Why would this occur? To enrich contractors who make money off of military spending. There is no other explanation for his view, [/quote]
No one works for those companies, nope.
And no one fears a strong military, nope.[/quote]
You’re missing the bigger picture here.
The whole idea of “war is good” is a very limited and narrow world view. Sure, maybe in the extreme short term.[/quote]
Who said you had start a war for people to have jobs making & designing new weapons?
Just taking the guy in Libya as a perfect example, he was loved by the people there…
You are quick to call out other’s for being blinded by propaganda.
As far as spending on Military, good. Thank Christ we do. I don’t have to worry about anyone flying over Hawaii and bombing us anytime soon if they fear.
So you don’t think that if we weren’t there in those countries, and “strong arming” them, those others you listed wouldn’t be?
So murder & the bill of rights are irrelevant?
I am starting to wonder who is really out of touch. You sound like a college professor who drank a little too much of the lefty kool-ade, no offense.
[quote]There is somehow this huge disagreement over “entitlement programs” but there is/was no uproar over a trillion dollars spent on an illegal war in Iraq.
[/quote]
Not sure what sand your head is in if you didn’t/don’t see how pissed people were/are about Iraq. [/quote]
If you truly believe that the US is in danger of getting bombed, and the billions of dollars spent on the military alleviates this fear, then I guess there is not much to discuss.
An interesting tactic nowadays by a lot of people is to declare someone a “liberal” at the slightest disagreement of views, even when the original position was not “conservative” to begin with. And what’s more, this proclamation that some idea or someone is “liberal” is somehow perceived as an insult by the one saying it.
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
So as I expected, my post is met with strong disagreement.[/quote]
Sure was and you earned every word.
Don’t leave out the part where he did a lousy job over the past four years BECAUSE of his lack of experience.
Not true, history clearly demonstrates that they better Presidents have had some sort of executive experience. That’s one reason why Governors have been elected to the PResidency over most other elected offices.
Take Romney for example, he has been a Governor, headed up the Olympics and also made over 300 million dollars in the private sector as an executive. THAT is the kind of experience that I want in the White House and it’s what we need right now.
Many of our enemies are in fact armed by Russia. Didn’t know that did you? Mitt did.
[quote]Exploit the soon to be gone baby boomers mistrust of the “big bad commies” that is
Me not voting for Romney has nothing to do with him having lots of money, just like voting for Obama has nothing to do with him not having all that much money.
In today’s politics, it’s about voting for who will do the least harm long term for me.[/quote]
Then you are voting for Romney huh?
Because Obama has done so much harm to us economically and in the Mid East that it is practically irreparable.
You blame Bush but a recent poll shows that those in the Middle East hate us more now than they did when Bush was President!
You blame Bush but it took Obama only four years to raise the debt more than Bush did in eight years!
You blame Bush but the unemployment rate has been higher since Obama took office 43 straight months of unemployment over 8%. When Bush left office it was in the 7’s.
You blame Bush but he actually created over 4 million jobs (his first term in office) with the Bush tax cuts (A 5% across the board tax cut for all tax payers)
Ha ha you don’t like Bush because the main stream liberal media told you not to…Funny stuff!
Anyway…Romney would be a far, far better President than Obama. Someday people like you will look back and wish you had not voted for Obama…if he is reelected.
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
If you truly believe that the US is in danger of getting bombed, and the billions of dollars spent on the military alleviates this fear, then I guess there is not much to discuss.[/quote]
If you truly believe the US is just big evil bully that the rest of the world hates, and domestic issues don’t actully matter, I guess there is not much to discuss.
[quote]An interesting tactic nowadays by a lot of people is to declare someone a “liberal” at the slightest disagreement of views, even when the original position was not “conservative” to begin with. And what’s more, this proclamation that some idea or someone is “liberal” is somehow perceived as an insult by the one saying it.
[/quote]
An interesting tactic nowadays is to run away from a conversation when met head on with someone with rational reasons to disagree with the initial idea put forth, even when the orginal idea put forth may not be based 100% on reality, or is made out to be more important than many othr factors that weigh into a choice such as who would be a better leader. But don’t worry, when they stop talking about the topic they will make some irrelevant post about how the topic ‘isn’t worth their time’ and some other red herring mixed in for good measure, particularly after they insulted someone else for being blinded by propagnda.
See how easy that is?
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
In today’s politics, it’s about voting for who will do the least harm long term for me.
In today’s volatile economic environment and political instability in places such as the Middle East, Romney easily will be worse than Bush if elected to office.[/quote]
Yeah well, ME terrorists are not going to sink your country.
Entitlements will.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Many of our enemies are in fact armed by Russia. Didn’t know that did you? Mitt did.
[/quote]
The idea that the Middle East is one gaint proxy war that replaced the cold one has some merit…
But no, America is a big giant bully that the world hates, and who’s sole mission is the ‘military industrial complex’.
[quote]orion wrote:
In today’s volatile economic environment and political instability in places such as the Middle East, Romney easily will be worse than Bush if elected to office [/quote]
Well, lets look at this shall we:
Obama has proven over the last 4 years, he isn’t able to solve the problem, bring the country together in its time of need, or take responsibility for his record.
There is zero confidence right now, as evidenced by the massive cash reserves and sluggish velocity of money. Hmmm. I’m sure all these firms are just still worried about those evil Bush years and how they are still killing us 1,461 days later. Yeah that’s it.
Oh the middle east… The place that while our POTUS and SOS lied about the reason one of our citizens, loved by the people in that nation, was murdered for polictical gain, that same POTUS had srious aboligations to fufill at home and couldn’t make it to meet with PM’s or other countries or attend intel meetings. I mean POTUS had to attend such important things as speaking in Vegas, Hanging out with JAy-Z, going on Letterman and The Veiw. I mean shit, yeah Romney will do such a bad job… He reacted to the Libya murders instantly, while the POTUS laughed up lying to the American people about the murder on Letterman.
That is the ticket.
Countingbeans: To my previous post about the taxes, unless he releases his taxes or directly addresses why he is not, we will never know what is there. I have heard from the other side theories (with merit) that he benefitted from the tax evasion amnesty program a few years ago. I personally don’t think either theory is right, but again, I really don’t care. I’m just saying that there is a reason: a statement we both agree with. I believe we can close this topic on this note.
On the victim in Libya-if 95% of the people around me love me, and 5% want me dead because God tells them I should be, chances are I am going to be dead shortly. Furthermore, in regards to Romney’s reaction to Libya, reacting quickly does not equate to reacting properly. He poorly addressed a situation without all the facts and without any tact. That is just my opinion, but I did not like his reaction any more than the president’s.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
In today’s volatile economic environment and political instability in places such as the Middle East, Romney easily will be worse than Bush if elected to office [/quote]
Well, lets look at this shall we:
Obama has proven over the last 4 years, he isn’t able to solve the problem, bring the country together in its time of need, or take responsibility for his record.
There is zero confidence right now, as evidenced by the massive cash reserves and sluggish velocity of money. Hmmm. I’m sure all these firms are just still worried about those evil Bush years and how they are still killing us 1,461 days later. Yeah that’s it.
Oh the middle east… The place that while our POTUS and SOS lied about the reason one of our citizens, loved by the people in that nation, was murdered for polictical gain, that same POTUS had srious aboligations to fufill at home and couldn’t make it to meet with PM’s or other countries or attend intel meetings. I mean POTUS had to attend such important things as speaking in Vegas, Hanging out with JAy-Z, going on Letterman and The Veiw. I mean shit, yeah Romney will do such a bad job… He reacted to the Libya murders instantly, while the POTUS laughed up lying to the American people about the murder on Letterman.
That is the ticket.[/quote]
Between you and the other guy, laughable terms like “Main Street Media” (you could have typed MSM I would have known you’re a die hard ‘conservative’ either way), and the idea that Bush’s war criminal status is somehow abated by the fact that the economy did ok under him for a little while, I don’t really know where to start. Just as a thought, do you know who put Saddam Hussein into power and then supported his regime? And then when Saddam didn’t want to let in US companies to come in and get major contracting jobs building electro-power plants and infrastructure and have access to oil, who decided that he had had enough, and decided to invade his country (Gulf War) only to put him back into power AGAIN because we liked the fact that he led the country under an iron grip and suppressed all religious extremism?
Isn’t it funny that the US supported all of this, and then all of a sudden he becomes a “big bad terrorist”. And to give an excuse for this invasion, the President, well actually Dick Cheney former CEO of Halliburton, great businessman who has “great business experience, just what this country needs”, who stood to give his former firm billions of dollars in contracts, invaded Iraq under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction.
100 years from now, people will be laughing and saying, holy fuck, how did these people really believe their government and not call them out on such bullshit? Well, the words “freedom” and “democracy” and “patriotism” come to mind. In fact, look at how people who stand up against wars are demonized as “unpatriotic”. Very democratic society we have, eh?
Look, it’s clear that you want to see the US as a bringer of “democracy” world wide. As they say, “we’re going to free the SHIT out of you”. There is some cognitive dissonance that people run into here. Either you truly believe in American exceptionalism and believe that we (the US) are the best nation in the world and we not only can but it is our right AND duty to impose this on other countries and consequently view ourselves as superior and at the same time view people in other countries who suffer from these policies as subhuman; OR, you view the US as a player on a world stage that should ultimately strive for cooperation and not topping various Latin American regimes that had popular support (Panama, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Venezuela (tried, succeeded for 72 hours and then failed), Peru, etc, etc) and in the Middle East (just open your daily paper). So, if you view things from the first side, then you don’t have any problems. But, when you think to yourself, well they’re people too, why am I enabling this exploitation, well then cognitive dissonance sets in. Very few people can think one thing and say another and still remain sane. Those kinds of people are politicians and executives at places like oil companies and major investment banks and engineering firms. But even then, most of those people truly believe that they are doing a good thing. It takes a true cynic, or sociopath, to believe one thing and say/act on another consistently.
Is it possible for the US to change (at least right now)? No
Our dependence for oil is unmatched and there is nothing that can ultimately stand in the way of it. I live in the US and am a citizen and reap the benefits of the exploitation of the third world as a result. It is hypocritical for me to condemn the system. However, I am simply stating the reality, which is available to anyone else who decides to look for it.
Here’s an important point:
Looking for the truth and stating it isn’t liberal. There is nothing liberal about that. I truly despise both words liberal and conservative, just like all the bullshit that you hear today like MSM (hint, the media isn’t as liberal as you think, and it doesn’t make you ‘aware’ to state that it is).
Now, concerning the points you made:
An ambassador died in a politically volatile nation. It happens, they know the risks. What is a proper response? “Hey, we’re invading guys, common lets go, time to bring democracy”.
Looking at the point the other guy made, that the US goal is the “military industrial complex”, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t even know what that means and heard this words for the first time in his life. That’s not a goal, that’s a system.
The goal is to create regimes in other countries that are sympathetic to the US, who really have no choice but to exploit their local people because the US needs cheap labor or it needs land/resources virtually for free.
Here’s how it works:
Look, here’s the bottom line:
You are very passionate towards this perceived “Republican” cause. You have created this world in your head, and not just you but millions of others, where there are millions of big bad liberals coming to steal all your money in the form of welfare. Here’s a hint: no one likes being on welfare, and the those who abuse it aren’t a reason to eliminate it for those who don’t.
Final thought: The reason I typed out all of this stuff in my previous 3 or 4 posts is to highlight my view that there is literally no way that Romney can handle this situation in a “better” fashion than Obama, which is what you guys have been trying to perpetuate. There won’t be this epiphany, and “the South will rise again” type of shit; what will happen is the Romney gets the US into a war or two, increases military spending SUBSTANTIALLY (as he has clearly said he would), and the US is even more fucked 4 years out. Then the blame is forked over onto Obama, saying he left Romney a “mess to clean up”.
Obama isn’t making economic policies. PhD economists are. Economics can’t really be called a science, more like a collection of weakly (and many largely unsubstantiated) theories. Nothing about Mitt Romney working in PE will be any sort of help or even matter. At all. If you really think that Romney is going to come in and say “Hey guys, don’t worry, I worked for Bain capital and made a shit ton of money, I got this” and then fucking poof, everything is “good” again (whatever that means) then you are delusional.
And before you claim that this isn’t a claim, take another look. Romney hasn’t given ANY definitive economic plan. He’s said a bunch of shit about lowering taxes for the middle class. At least he showed his real idea (whole 47% thing) and then didn’t back down from it. First thing he hasn’t flip flopped on, because if he did goodbye campaign, and all of those people in that room who donated 50k a piece wouldn’t be too happy with their money going down the drain now would they?
The US under Obama or Romney will keep printing money indefinitely. It’s not like there is some major change in economic thought even from economist to economist, MUCH LESS between two parties.
Foreign policy is the major game changer, and Romney has a catastrophic one (from the little we’ve seen already).
I probably just wasted 5 minutes of my time, because arguing with someone (not the post quoted) that will justify Bush as being a good president and blaming the “MSM” as perpetuating the idea that he is bad instead of looking at the fact that he is responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths will not try and look at the big picture anyways.
Once again, there is nothing liberal with looking at the truth. And there is nothing ‘conservative’ or ‘republican’ when attempting to say “well your president sucks too” or ignoring straight facts.
[quote]Explosiv wrote:
Final thought: The reason I typed out all of this stuff in my previous 3 or 4 posts is to highlight my view that there is literally no way that Romney can handle this situation in a “better” fashion than Obama, which is what you guys have been trying to perpetuate. There won’t be this epiphany, and “the South will rise again” type of shit; what will happen is the Romney gets the US into a war or two,[/quote]
Liberals like yourself usually don’t fully understand that it is “weakness that is provocative.” Obama reducing our military, as he’s promised to do if given a second term, can only encourage our enemies to rise up against us.
The best way to prevent a war is to be ready and able to fight. That is human nature from the big guy down the street that no one picks on to having a large and capable military.
Obama is out to lunch on this and just about every other sound policy that has made America great. And I do think Romney would be far better than Obama. But quite honestly I think that just about anyone with average intelligence who actually believes in America would be better than Obama.
