It was not the questioning, it was the way it was done, parroting the arguments of the "Occupy" crowed. That is, making money is bad because it's always done by screwing someone over and is just greedy.
But I wasn't' going to vote for Mitt or Newt anyway. But as in 2008, it looks like my choices will be eliminated way before the Texas primary. The choice by then was MaCain, or McCain, except the others were still on the ballot. So I voted for one of them.
Now that doesn't' mean I didn't vote for McCain in the general election, I did, and if it's Mitt or Newt verses Obama, I'll vote for Mitt or Newt in the general election.
Getting statism light is still better than statism heavy.
DING DING DING: we have a winner El Gato! In fact, I'd say the manner it was done obliterated any chance of debating what is potentially a reasonable point - that much of what happens on Wall Street is NOT free market stuff in the first place. But that horse is long gone now, buried under ominous music and dramatic black and white photos.
So you think that raking in millions and letting government pick up the tab is true capitalism.
Yet you don't have to support the Occupy movement to know that the playing field is pro-business, not pro-market. So it is disingenuous on Romney's part to decry welfare dependency as a poison to be fought when he has been more than happy to go before the government, role up his sleeve and have another form of poison injected into his arm and then come back for more. Romney is equally disingenuous to suggest that any criticism of his tenure at Bain Capital is an attack on free enterprise itself especially when he never practiced free enterprise in the first place. Mitt Romney is what I would call a corporate welfare bum.