Posted on 07/17/2012 5:44:36 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
” - - - Virginia Attorney Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II said Mr. Romney’s temperament may be a factor and described the candidate’s change in attitude as not necessarily “tougher” per se, but smarter.”
Thanks, Kenneth C. for making my main point: Romney is campaigning to lose to Obama, while the RINOs say: “Our RINO Romney, right or wrong.”
D U M P R O M N E Y.
Darn, that's good. I don't understand a word you said but it sounds good and I'm impressed.............really impressed....... ;-)
Thank you for pointing out that to you and Brit Hume
that exposing the truth about Mitt Romney
is “worthless”, and that fighting against STATISM,
and DEATH PANELS and gov’t-run Socialized Medicine,
and gov’t mandates for ROMNEYCARE/ObamaCARE
is “worthless”.
Clearly, to attack conservatives and to lie
and mislead the public are elements of the highest
value TO YOU.
Sorry, no sale on Romney, DeathPANELs, or
those who support them.
Whatever happened to Newt? These are the times when I miss his candor. He would have responded to 0bama’s remark with something like:
“That’s the most un-serious, fundamentally Stupid thing I’ve ever heard a President say”
If only Mitt had it in him to tell it like it is.
.. candor and eloquence and vitality.
The Speaker — and any other conservative WOULD BE THERE
day after day criticizing the Tyrant.
Mr. RomneyCARE is on vacation and cashing checks.
His goal is only to help himself.
This guy needs to be the VP choice...
Paul Ryan rips Obama’s comment that ‘if you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen’
Your analysis is spot on and well said.
didn't realize there was a contest! Why doesn't anyone ever tell me about these things?
I never win anything!
This may be a minor quibble, but the government takes a lot of tax dollars from marginal and unsuccessful businesses, too -- pushing many into insolvency because of an excessive tax & regulatory bill. In that sense government doesn't give a rat's patootie if a business is successful (ie. survives to pay the next quarterly tax bill) because they act as if the private sector "goose" is going to lay an infinite supply of "golden eggs."
Then I’ll try to clarify. (Kinda enjoying kicking this idea around.)
A bucket of paint is about $10. A large canvas is about the same. Nothing about either is typically any different than any other bucket of paint or sheet of canvas. The sum of the parts is worth $20. The paint salesman gets $10, the canvas salesman gets $10, both get their fair market value asking price.
Having put the two together, what’s the value?
If I dribble the paint on the canvas, the result will be pretty much worthless, maybe worth $5 to someone needing a used dropcloth. The whole is worth less than the sum of the parts, as neither component can be used any more. I’ve wasted $15.
If Jackson Pollock picks up the can of paint and dribbles it on the canvas, the result will be worth about $10,000,000. The whole is worth more than the sum of the parts, as the union of the parts (assembled with talent) is worthy of a museum wall. He just created $9,999,980.
The Obama’s idiocy is looking at the latter example, and saying “hey! three people were involved in this - the paint retailer and the canvas salesman and you - so you need to divide this up three ways and ‘give back’ to the people who helped you make this happen! you didn’t do it yourself, ya know!” No, the salesmen got their fair value for what they sold and their involvement ends there. The call to “give back” is just greed.
The Obama’s other idiocy is looking at the former example, and NOT - in consistency with his own stupid Marxist notions - telling the salesmen to give me $7.50 each so they can share in the loss.
The Obama’s third idiocy is not applying the principle backwards thru the chain of purchases: the paint salesman charged me $10, but bought the paint for $6, so by Marxist principles he should pay the paint manufacturer another $2 to split the $4 profit ... but then the paint manufacturer got the ingredients from others for $3 so he should split the $3 profit with them ... and so on backwards forever, where everyone should “play fair” and share their profits with anyone & everyone who ever had anything to do with anything they did to create value. This is, of course, stupid - and pure Marxism where nobody owns anything, and everyone shares a fraction of all wealth created just because they exist and therefore are somehow considered part of it all ... and nobody wants to do anything useful because there is, well, no profit in it.
I’m amused by this topic too much.
i’m sure diogenesis supports Obama over Romney, because romney is horror of horrors: a mormon! these mormon-hating freepers would prefer a Muslim hiding in plain sight over a patriotic American who happens to not be their flavor of Christianity. funny how Christ welcomed those who did not believe in him, but there are some freepers who claim to be Christian but are not very welcoming to a mormon candidate for president. you would think they would see this as an opportunity to convert Romney to their brand of Christianity.
Obama has it backwards.
People don't "give back" because they used the bridge, the bridge is the government "give back" to the people for taking their wealth as taxes.
It's only if you believe that the government owns all the money and that they let you keep some of it for yourself that the idea of "giving back" to the government makes sense.
-PJ
Your posts lacks courtesy which you demand, does it not.
Once again YOU support the LEGION OF RomneyBOTs,
as you backstab again, putting down FReepers
-— while not pinging them.
How like nasty Romney and his FOX protectors you are.
Perhaps you should seriously consider going
back to DU and the Democrats and your home with Myth.
The guy’s wearing out my “Page Down” key with the pictures of Romney signing RomneyCare. Uh, I saw the picture the 50th time.
I know who Lenin is. You originally said “Lenon”. As in John. Who was also a communist ;-)
Obama is even dumber than that. DoD didn’t invenet the internet so companies can make money, they invented it to protect their computer systems and data control.
The government didn’t create the interstate highway system so we would have places to drive our cars. It was built to insure our military could move freely around the country if necessary during war.
We didn’t put a man on the moon to spur research in things that companies now sell like microwave ovens, teflon and Sudafed. The race to the moon was a race to build the best ICBM missile.
Most of all government “investments” that “benefited” private enterprise have been national security related.
Thank You!
I've actually had the opportunity to ask just that. You get funny looks like "huh?"
Thank you again! Your vote for Bowbama isn’t appreciated here! Go back to DU or wherever it is you hang your hat!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.