WorldTraveller

You're not understanding what I'm saying, let me try to be a little more clear. One invests in companies. The other invests in research Big difference between the two

What? No I'm not, re read it again

The reality is that mitt had the choice to live as a spoiled child, but he chose not too. It is well documented (for those interested in the truth) that he lived a modest life throughout college, that he and Ann Romney lived in a 700 sq ft one bedroom apt when he was at Harvard , and that the only capital that was voluntarily accessible was some stock his father gave him of the auto company he led. He could of lived the priveledged life, but made a very honorable and commendable decision not too. From time to time they sold some of that stock to make ends meet, but in no way shape or form did he live lavishly. In fact it was quite the opposite. Now some of the naysayers will say "yeah but he daddy's stock" Well, yeah, but most people would of opted for daddy's money, would of lived in a nice apt, had a nice car etc. but that's not what he did. He also didn't land any jobs because of George Romney either, Romney earned his money. And became one of the most successful private equity heads in the country. Not only did Bain capital make tremendous profits for themselves, retail investors but for pension and endowment funds, and as a result of their success and phenomenal profits, many net jobs were created. Once George Romney passed away he inherited his fortune and donated 100% of it to his church. When Romney was offered the opportunity to turn around the Olympics, which was rocked with scandal and a massive budget shortfall, he took the job on, succeeded and took a massive reduction in pay from Bain of. 100k a year and decided to forgo pay from the IOC This is a respectable man, made decisions that over 95% wouldn't have by not taking his fathers money and became a self-made man, which is even more impressive considering he had the choice to do it the easy way.

Well, it's not a false choice, there is a clear line of distinction in investing in xyz company and in investing in R&D I don't see how any sensible person can not see that there is a humongous difference between the two. Again, in choice A you invest in the company, regardless of whether it has a successful business model or not Choice B you invest in R&D, which in time leads to increased efficiency and feasability for all companies in xyz INDUSTRY Major difference between the two

I don't know what that means

That's just politics, I'm speaking more to the substance of the differentiation between tax credits vs R&D In politics the main objective is to create a clear contrast by destroying the oppositions plans while offering a sensible alternative

I disagree, by highlighting the failures of solyndra and other failed projects from this administration is actually very productive. It puts a spotlight on what not to do and offers the opportunity to communicate on other solutions that look to achieve the same results.

Oh, I thought this was from you

Anyone who says that mitt Romney doesn't have an energy policy is a highly misinformed individual. Not only does he have a comprehensive energy plan that includes regulatory reform and an expansion of energy drilling but rather than tax credits for alternative energies, he would invest in R&D, which I have always been a proponent of. We shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers, investing in technology to increase efficiency is the best path forward, once the technology reaches a cost effective and efficient level the markets will lead the way. If not, you get companies like solyndra. For those that have an interest in learning the facts of his plan rather than spouting misinformation I would recommend you visit www.mittromney.com/issues/energy

Projecting?

That's not what you said, you said he paid 0 in taxes, not "a very good chance he paid 0"you really shouldn't be telling other people to "try reading and comprehending for once" Just sayin' Looks like someone is getting a little hot under the collar. Relax bro, it's all good, no need to get all worked up

And if you make less than $500k, The GOP "hates you" Seriously, Even DiN would be envious of this post

So let me get this straight, in order for us to address our tax code more effectively, Mitt Romney should release more tax returns? You can't make this up

Do you really expect to get a rational response from someone who stated as fact that Romney paid "0" in taxes? The guy makes Conner look smart

Link? Mr. Reid.... There you go again, with your mindless talking points.You truly are a grade A moron.

Idiotic talking point # 1 "Romney has experience with money... HIS money. More accurately, his Daddy's money," Well, considering he donated all his money to the LDS, I guess that pretty much negates this one Lemming talking point # 2 "Id rather take financial advice from someone who came from nothing, than someone who has never had to earn it." So he never "earned" his money huh? Really? and you expect to be taken seriously? Parroted talking point #3 "He also has experience sheltering his money so it does not go to helping the US." It's called the US tax code doofus, if you want to blame anyone, then you blame the government for the insane tax code we have Red alert! Red alert! Debbie Wasserman Schultz special! Mindless DNC talking point #4 "He also has experience moving jobs out of the US and into China. That was great for the economy." Two little problems with this argument, outsourcing is an inevitability that has to do with market pressures, business survival and cost. The cost of labor is cheaper overseas, the responsibility of a company is to the owner, CEO and stockholders, you do what it takes to survive and be more profitable. Second, he wasn't in charge when the outsourcing occured, it has already been fact checked and debunked and Obama got 4 pinnochios in WAPO Moronic talking point #5 "But hey, since he's so good at screwing over the USA he'll definitely make a good president, since he knows all the tricks. " Extreme loony talking point #6 "I firmly believe he will sell us out just to pad his pockets."So you firmly believe he is doing this to enrich his own pockets? that takes the cake. Specially considering that Romney left Bain from 1999 to 2002 to save the Winter Olympics and took a total pay of $300,000 during that tenure and didn't receive a dimes worth of pay from the OIC. Man you make this too easy "Screwing over the USA" nice. Sounds like something a (*^*&%^$^#would say. I can go on and on, pretty much every post you've made has some idiotic element to it. Again, if you want to be taken seriously, then offer substance, if not, then you'll continue to get swatted.

You don't know **** about Romney's background other than what is spoon fed to you from the DNC or an Obama campaign ad. You proved it to us already, which is why you are mercilessly getting mocked, again, if you want to discuss politics on a substantive level, then try not parroting talking points, and maybe then you'll be taken a little more seriously.

The best way I respond towards idiocy is through mockery. If you want to put your big boy pants on and offer substance, then I'm more than happy to oblige in-kind, if not, well.....

Out of the big three states, Ohio, Florida and Virginia it appears to me that Ohio is the biggest uphill climb for Romney.

If Debbie Wasserman Schultz says it or if its on a TV campaign ad, it MUST be true.

What am I missing here?

Says the DNC walking talking point parrot

Wow, Dr Dareustein offers up nothing but DNC talking points, and the other bozo is dim witted race baiter. Welcome to the club ladies, you guys fit right in.

His daddy's money?oh boy, we got another lemming in the house.Try researching before you make an ass out of yourself....again

What would make it interesting is that a) he is a very popular war hero b) he is the CIA director appointed by who? He could be an appealing pick, definitely hard for the Obama attack machine to go after. Having said that, I don't believe he'd be the right pick.