Romney Didn't Make the Sale

He didn't mention the 20% because it's because it's just another Romney fabrication.

Ryan and Romney have an act but they are not together.

Rubio, like Christie and Jeb Bush, is simply laying the groundwork for the 2016 Republican presidential campaign.

None of these guys liked Romney, anyone remember?

During the debates, Romney fought dirty and every Republican nominee charged Romney with lying, flip flopping, and buying the nomination by outspending and playing dirty.

Remember when Romney got into it with Perry? Put his hands on him and sputtered in indignation.

How could anyone see those debates and believe Romney has what it takes to be President?

They're backing him because he outspent and fought dirty enough to be their nominee.

He is no President. He is what he says he is, a business man. More interested in the product than the people.

What's the favorite expression of the 'business man'?
"Don't take this personally."

"It's not personal, it's business. "

That's what they'll tell us right before they ruin us.

My very specific concern is Romneys position on the Dodd Frank legislation. It appears that many smaller banks, credit unions (from watching the committe meeting review on the Dodd Frank Legislation) have issue with this 2300 page monstrosity. From compliance questions to compliance issues this legislation only helps to employ compliance officers or lawyers that only largest institutions can afford to hire.
If he repeals this legislation what is his position on the volker rule and does he intend to re implement the Glass Steagel act?
Effective regulation and preventing commerical banks from gambling money will do a great deal to strengthen confidence and help rebuild the economy.
Fear is the possibility of setting us all up for another great fall from economic pinnacle in another decade. Fool us once (1999 ) then fool us twice (2008) then shame on us for believing this crap again and not providing sufficient and effective protection. Too big too fail? Too big to exist and we might consider seperating banks from politics as we do church and state. Any powerful institution will compete for power. We the people pay the price again and again.

Given a choice between romney and obama it is the choice between either continued subversion and double talk by the incumbent who has zero business experience but experience as a comminty organizer whose opinion of government is that its corrupt and never bothers to refute this notion even capitalizing on it.
I hope all who vote spend some time struggling on this issue because the consequences will be severe given the default of increased government growth. I hope people realize there is a point at which the cost to dismantle government is immensely costly for decades after the point when voters wish to dismantle it.
procuring government jobs is not the same as private sector jobs.
hate based envy of the rich and corporations is no reason to vote against romney.
New york times , npr huff and other media outlets have admitted to allowing demo vetting of their material. This makes such propoganda and therefore a lie or distortion at best

"Subversion?" "Double Talk"?

Now there's some subversive double talk for you. Do you even know what you're talking about?
Seems you've taken these little phrases right from the Republican playbook or Fox News

I agree with Obama, Government is corrupt. We all know it is. It was corrupt before he was a Senator and it will continue to be corrupt until money and religion are taken out of it. How's that an Obama problem?
Hell two, no three...of the biggest crooks in government were Republicans...Nixon, little Bush and little dick Cheney.
I know community organizers and it's damn hard work and takes a wide variety of skill sets to be an effective organizer. You not only must be a great communicator and facilitator, but you must help empower people to help themselves with their own knowledge through teaching and action. I like and respect them. Organizers have done a damn fine job for this country but for some reason Republicans want us to look down on them. Maybe it's because it's not a very high paying job. Guess they think a Harvard grad should have chosen a more lucrative or prestigious career.

It's not and never has been unusual for the press and politicians to have special, sometimes protective relationships. Been going on for many, many years. They didn't print stories they thought might reflect badly on the president or their families, and gave them a heads up if they were going to get bad press. Nothing new or unusual there.

"hate based envy"? You've got to be kidding. That's right out of the Republican play book.

Don't worry about the costs of dismantling the government. The cost of a government that doesn't work is far greater. Let it be the worry of the politicians and their wealthy sponsors. We the people don't have that worry and will do whatever is necessary including dismantling a non functioning government.

Lies, distortions, propaganda. Welcome to American politics. Check your history books bro. It's always been like this.
But maybe that's Obama's fault, too? Surely he could have fixed it instead of taking a break and playing a game of golf. But then maybe little Bush should have fixed it, or Clinton, or Bush daddy?

I digress and am off point. Where was I? Oh yeah, it's all Obama's fault, and yes, I'm still going to vote for him.

Going back and rereading my post, I need to clarify my comment re: dismantling government. Although Ryan has his own dastardly plan to essentially dismantle our government (which will most assuredly result in disaster causing thousands of government workers to lose their jobs and result in Republican and Democrat alike wishing Obama was still in office) but it was not Ryan's "dismantling" plan I was referencing.

To clarify, we have a government that no longer works. What that means to us is we end up electing the wrong people and compounding the problems. Electing Romney/Ryan would be a big mistake. It is time for the people, not Paul Ryan, to dismantle our government and our government servants and the sooner the better.

Re: philip young;... Government has done far more historically to protect business from the people and from their government than it has ever done to protect the people... A lot of great fortunes were made in business by people who only understood enough about the business they were in to make profit... They were not particularly talented in other respects or in economics generally... Given the fact that much of our law, and much of the history of our law involves property and business, I do not think it possible for a person to be an attorney and not have a grasp of business, and if he ever did it for money he most certainly understands the bottom line...
My guess is that you do not understand business... If the product you were to produce actually injures society, or leaves a great mess or damage to the environment that did not figure into the cost of your product which was reasonable or the value of it, or the usefulness of it; then you might be a success, and still be playing a losing game where your success comes at an extreme cost to society... If we take the freedom of the individual as a predicate for the larger freedom of society, and this has seldom been the case, but only the general economic freedom essential to business, then we might well err on the side of licence and latitude for people in their day to day affairs...
You should remember that we all came out of societies that were tightly controlled, where ethics had the force of law, where democracy governed almost all human activity and where people were generally left free, and more than free, were protected from enemies... If freedom from government was not likely, neither was progress fast, but only certain... Now progress is fast, but uncertain... There are many housholds which do not have computers or internet access while others have great capacity in both...And our technology abd trade, which is always making environmental problems is short on solutions... We are in constant conflict with other nations, and when we say the rule of law we mean the rule of Western Law which is very favorable to business freedom even when that freedom is destructive of institutions that have served a certain people well, and kept them safe... Business demands government because without government it will govern the people and unjustly so...
It would be great if we only elected business people to government, but often when we have done so they have been terrible leaders, and because they did not really understand economics in spite of their success, they did great damage...So; understanding what works short term in a certain business is not the same as a good grasp of macro economics in a political situation... Imagine if Mr. Romney were to do with the U.S. what he did with the businesses he took over and liquidated...I do not disagree with those who think he would ruin us, but to be ruined while still moral enough to fight back and revolt might lead us to a better society... To have the help of a government while seeing the whole society and our liberty slip away to the rich is demoralizing and leads to slavery... It is a choice... It is not a good choice...
Thanks...Sweeney