a little more on what Romney brings to the ticket, remember, teh economy is NUMBER 1 on the biggest issues right now for voters......
1.In 1975, Romney graduated from a joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. He graduated cum laude from the law school and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class
2. Romney left Bain & Company to co-found a spin-off private equity investment firm, Bain Capital.During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital's average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent, making money primarily through leveraged buyouts
3. In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections
4.Romney served as president and CEO of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games held in Salt Lake City. In 1999, before Romney was hired, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks. Plans were being made to scale back the games in order to compensate for the fiscal crisis.[On February 11, 1999, Romney was hired as the new president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee.Romney revamped the organization's leadership and policies, reduced budgets and boosted fundraising. He also worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by coordinating a $300 million security budget. Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million, not counting the $224.5 million in

Pretty impressive, and this has nothing to do with political crap, these are results delivered by Romney. Not sitting on committees. remember, Senators dont lead, they represent. Very different skill sets, you can't deny Romney is a great leader, he produces results.

I have no defense for the Obama comment Jim. I do believe he has the forethought to surround himself with intelligent people with experience. But I do not think 1 run on the foreign relations commitee counts either. I'm not a sheep, I do realize he has flaws as a candidate and as a president! My first choice was Richardson in the earliest campaigns.

I think GWB surrounded himself primarily with people who agreed with (and in some cases pushed) their interests and ideals. I don't see that happening with B.O.,

As far as holding Biden responsible, he did vote for the war. I'm not crazy about that. I like the fact that he is opinionated, experienced and has enough backbone to no just toe the company line.

Bidens background - He has been in the Senate since he was 30....career politician, sounds like the same old government Obama is running against?
In 1969, Biden began practicing law in Wilmington, Delaware, and was soon elected to the New Castle County, County Council, where he served from 1970 to 1972.

The 1972 U.S. Senate election presented Biden with a unique opportunity. Popular Republican incumbent Senator J. Caleb Boggs was considering retirement, which would likely have left U.S. Representative Pete du Pont and Wilmington Mayor Harry G. Haskell, Jr. in a divisive primary fight. To avoid that, U.S. President Richard M. Nixon was invited to a meeting to convince Boggs to run again with full Republican support. Boggs ran, but Biden eventually won


whats Bidens take on Iraq? nothing too radical here....sounds a little like McCain?
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Biden was supportive of the Bush administration's efforts, calling for additional ground troops in Afghanistan and agreeing that Saddam Hussein was a threat that needed to be dealt with.[22] The Bush administration rejected an effort Biden undertook with Senator Richard Lugar to pass a resolution authorizing military action only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts. In October 2002, Biden voted for the final resolution to support the War in Iraq. He has long supported the appropriations to pay for the occupation, but has argued repeatedly that more soldiers are needed, the war should be internationalized, and the Bush administration should "level with the American people" about the cost and length of the conflict.[23]

Biden is a leading advocate for partitioning Iraq.[24] In November 2006, Biden and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, released a comprehensive strategy to end sectarian violence in Iraq. Rather than continuing the present approach or withdrawing, the plan calls for "a third way": federalizing Iraq and giving Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis "breathing room" in their own regions.[25] Senior military planners cautioned that a partition policy would require American military presence of 75,000 to 100,000 troops for years to come.[24]

Jimmy, the difference is that in business a leader makes tough decisions where people may loose thier jobs to keep the bottom line from going to far south (where thier jobs will probably go to keep the company afloat as in south of the border) but no one dies as a result and that is a decision, no matter how much business acumen you may have acquired since you left Harvard, ran the Olympics or whatever, that requires a different kind of knowledge which is a true understanding of the threats to our national security.

I might trust Romney to make a business decision but not a national policy one and McCain was born into a warrior cult, his old man an Admiral and the Naval Academy etc, but that kind of mentality will only lead to further trouble for our already overstretched military and budget defict. Our international standing is in the dumpster and like it or not we have to face that fact. It is time, indeed it's overdue yime to become a partner, a respected partner in the world community, for our national security and our nations economy.

International diplomacy is the only way to regain our proper place as the free worlds leader.

I appreciate and respect your thoughts on this, but I am of the mindset that this country has and will always be, disliked by other countries. We have been the envy of the world for generations and countries only "like" us when they need us.
Someone, maybe Churchill said it best and Im messing the quote up but -, Countries dont have friends, they have interests and they need to protect and further their interests.

I think the same applies in the business world and you cannot be succuesful, which Romney is, without diplomacy and relationship building.

Im in an odd place defending Romney, but how can you call him an empty suit? The results of his work are obvious, I mean he didnt inherit the 300 mil worth. He knows what he is doing, no?

After the Past 8 years I'd vote for the Three Stooges. We need a change in the way this Country handles it's self and we need it now. We aren't the superpower we think we are and the whole worle knows it. If we keep up with the bluster and BS we're gonna get a smackdown royal. Russia just laughed in our faces this month. They know. New orleans sank like Atlantis, I think that was noticed aroud the globe. We have some serious work to do to regain our stature and trust on this planet. And that means a better way of doing business. I hear only one POSITIVE voice out there, saying YES we CAN.. My 2 cents..

Amen to all of that :uhuh:

-spence

Yes! We can! :jump1: :bounce::yak6:

Churchill was wise beyond his years and why he was put out of office as soon as the war was over I will never understand. I have several books in my modest library of his words, letters and writings, one of the most poignant was when he was told at just after 8 in the evening of December 7th, 1941 that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor, he went to bed and slept peacefully the whole night through, which he had not done since September 1939, knowing that the United States was now going to be declaring war on Japan and thus through the axis, Germany and by doing so England would now never be invaded and ultimately, with the United States help, the Alllied Powers would win the war.

Problem is, most Americans view themselves as being potential victims of people like Mr. Romney rather than find him admirable. They are afraid some guy with nice hair will head up a consortium, buy the place they work, and sh-t can them.
It's a matter of food-chain perspective: If you get the Wall St Journal, you're a professional, and you're making big bucks, he's admirable. If you lost your manufacturing job in Ohio or Pennsylvania and you've been out of work ever since - you see him as a snake.
More people admire someone who would pass up a fast-track career in business and work in outreach programs.

so tiring,,,,Katrina
Democratic Mayor, Democratic Governor........oh wait! Its a woman and a black man! Can't blame them.......Bush Sucks! Bush Sucks! Give it a rest and don't follow the media hype.

The BS of history FLap! Germany had NO sizable Navy, no ports to launch a large scale invasion on England, no way to transport troops to England and NO plans to build any. England was never in danger of German invasion. the air battle of Britian was purely to break the spirits of the British people and get them out of the war. Germany did not want a war with Biritan or the US.There would never have been a world war if England had not guaranteed Poland, whihc empowered the Poles to not negotoate with Hitler over Danzig and the Polish Corridor. We are only taught in school one side of the story

Do you think change is necessary?

-spence

Der Fuher saw the English people as Aryans, it's all there in Mein Kampf, man.

true. Hitler was after the Russians. How awesome would it have been for the "good" guys if Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other for a few years?

yeah.. that would have been awesome... Millions of more..... DEAD..

wrong.
Hitler did fight Stalin. Russia did 20X more to defeat Germany WHat it would have avoided is France, England, India, Australia,Canada and the US involvemnet in the War.
Nebe, everyone says the good guys won World War II. The reason is, no one asks Poland, The Balkans, Czeckoslavakia, etc. They were free countries prior to WWII, post WWII they were under the iron curtain where the horrors of Hitler were still practiced in secret. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler. Post WWII, Stalin gained more land than anyone. So who won?
The point is WWII costs the lives of 55 million people. Was it all just to defeat Hitler? Makes no sense. It was because of bad moves by England and France which created a path to a World War.
To Flap point above, Churchill could sleep easy once teh US joined teh War, same deal as WWI. Once we joined, Gremany knew there was NO way they could win, so what happened next. The Final Solution - extermination of teh Jews. Hitlers strategy was initially to drive the Jews out, but after the US joined, in desperation, we had the Holocasut. Its not to far fetched to say the Holocaust could have been avoided if England stayed out of the War. Food for thought

Change to what, from what?

One thing I know for certain is I will never, ever seek "inspiration" from a politician.

They don't care. They just want change, be it blind, reckless, uniformed, experimental....

I think that's exactly the point...

The leading conservative voices have become so focused on hating progressive policy that they have convinced themselves that the present trajectory of the USA is sound.

Any big picture problems that may ultimately require a Government backed long-term solution (and regulation) are instantly labeled "non-issues" because they can't reconcile reality with their idiology.

Instead, the "free market" is tasked with solving global challenges...and in return we get solutions to problems that are singularly focused on delivering short-term shareholder value.

This planet has big problems in terms of energy, climate and natural resources. Business as usual is very likely going to mean the death of the American dream this century, unless things change.

So before you identify the right change, you first must accept that things do indeed need to change.

Otherwise you're just going to spin your wheels.

-spence

A Senate Bill to recognize that the Surge has "worked".

I know the Dems have done similarly dumb things, but this is really stupid.

-spence

I think its just a ploy to corner Obama.

Ummm, duh :huh:

-spence

just saying.....jeez

You'll get no quarter from me bub :hihi:

Next we'll see a Senate resolution stating that "We have respect and honor for our fallen troops, and that the Iraq war was a brilliantly executed and fantastic idea and George Bush is wonderful".

-spence

now now, this ad was to benefit your guy.
Bush is past history