Mitt Romney exploring 2012 presidential run

[layoutshooter]

Taft? FDR? LOL!! Gee Greg, I know I am old but not THAT old. I know what you mean though. I liked Kennedy when I was a KID. Once I became an adult and learned more I did not find him all that impressive. I contend that in MY lifetime (60 years) we have not had a real leader in office. IF you consider my VOTING lifetime we have not even had a reasonable candidate run for president, let alone a REAL leader.

 

[Letzboogie]

The MARRIAGE oath requires it. IF a person BREAKS that oath they are JUST as likely to break ANY oath. Dishonest is dishonest.

Leaders? Name one. ANYONE can get weak minded people to follow them. It takes a LEADER to get the strong to follow. IF we had LEADERS we would NOT be in debt, Social Security would NOT be broke, so on and so forth. EVERYONE in that office in my lifetime was more worried about getting re-elected or getting the particular party they belong to re-elected than truly working on the challenges that we face.

A leader would INSPIRE people to solve their OWN problems not force solutions on them.

A leader does not assume that people are NOT capable of handling life's problems and then "FIX" things for them.

Those are qualities that I see in a leader. What do you think a leader is?

Protecting the Constitution does NOT mean finding ways to "get around it" like so many of our "leaders" do today.

The Marriage Oath? Ridiculous. Marriage is a concept created by the Catholics some hundreds of years ago to protect assets and ultimately control the masses. An oath of celibacy or faithfulness to one individual diametrically opposes the animal instincts of human behavior. I don't buy it. Marriage is an outdated institution.


It doesn't matter what I think a good leader is any more than what you think a good leader is. What is important is what they get done in their position over time. it is almost entirely opinion.

Protecting the Constitution, as the oath clearly states, is to be done to the "best ability" of the President. We don't get to determine what their best ability is.

 

[greg334]

Marriage oath goes back before Jesus roamed the earth.

 

[layoutshooter]

The Marriage Oath? Ridiculous. Marriage is a concept created by the Catholics some hundreds of years ago to protect assets and ultimately control the masses. An oath of celibacy or faithfulness to one individual diametrically opposes the animal instincts of human behavior. I don't buy it. Marriage is an outdated institution.


It doesn't matter what I think a good leader is any more than what you think a good leader is. What is important is what they get done in their position over time. it is almost entirely opinion.

Protecting the Constitution, as the oath clearly states, is to be done to the "best ability" of the President. We don't get to determine what their best ability is.

Marriage has been around LONG before the Catholic Church.

We surly have the right to determine if a president is living up to that oath and working to their best ability. ALL employers do that with their employees and the PUTZ in Washington works FOR us. He is NOT the ruler. He is there ONLY at OUR will.

What a person does and how that person does it IS what determines the difference between a leader, a ruler and a thug.

A leader inspires greatness in others.

A ruler in more concerned with their own legacy.

A ruler assumes that only they have the power and rules.

A leader assumes that each individual can fend better for themselves and expects the individual to do so.

Like Obama. He ASSUMES that NO ONE can provide for themselves so he uses FORCE to insure health care. IF his programs were SO good he would NOT have to pass a law the REQUIRES compliance.

Does that law enhance freedom? Not if it is REQUIRED. Does it follow the Constitution? Not likely. Was it passed in a open manner? Nope. Sounds like a ruler to me.

He BELIEVES that we are unable to fend for our selves, too stupid to know what is best for ourselves. That is NOT a leader.

A leader is NOT judged by THEIR accomplishments but they are judged by the accomplishments of those whom they lead.


A thug uses FORCE to accomplish their will. Like an ARMED Internal Revenue Service to ENFORCE the health care law.

 

[Letzboogie]

Marriage has been around LONG before the Catholic Church.

We surly have the right to determine if a president is living up to that oath and working to their best ability. ALL employers do that with their employees and the PUTZ in Washington works FOR us. He is NOT the ruler. He is there ONLY at OUR will.

What a person does and how that person does it IS what determines the difference between a leader, a ruler and a thug.

A leader inspires greatness in others.

A ruler in more concerned with their own legacy.

A ruler assumes that only they have the power and rules.

A leader assumes that each individual can fend better for themselves and expects the individual to do so.

Like Obama. He ASSUMES that NO ONE can provide for themselves so he uses FORCE to insure health care. IF his programs were SO good he would NOT have to pass a law the REQUIRES compliance.

Does that law enhance freedom? Not if it is REQUIRED. Does it follow the Constitution? Not likely. Was it passed in a open manner? Nope. Sounds like a ruler to me.

He BELIEVES that we are unable to fend for our selves, too stupid to know what is best for ourselves. That is NOT a leader.

A leader is NOT judged by THEIR accomplishments but they are judged by the accomplishments of those whom they lead.


A thug.

I find it difficult to follow your logic. You seem to view the world in simple black and white terms. There is a lot of gray area between a "ruler" and a "thug". It isn't simply one way or the other. Who is the PUTZ? Are you refering to the President? What do you mean he believes we are unable to fend for ourselves? Your interpretation of what he is or is not doing is purely a matter of opinion. He has inspired many, though apparently not you.

 

[purgoose10]

Romney will lose against Gingrich if they go against each other. I will vote for Gingrich. I do think somebody like Herman Cain or somebody like him would have a good chance of winning in this current political climate. We need another Reagan moment.

I'd pay to see a Cain/Obama debate....That would be epic!

Your right. Man I would volunteer if another Reagan were out there.
I think we need someone who will also get us out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bring all the B-52's back in service and make little rocks out of big rocks. We need a new practice bombing range.

 

[greg334]

I'm trying to figure out what he is inspiring people to do other than be more divisive along the lines of race and class.

 

[Letzboogie]

I'm trying to figure out what he is inspiring people to do other than be more divisive along the lines of race and class.

It isn't anything that is necessarily tangible. Many of his supporters come from an environment where advancement is often a pipe dream. He has shown them that with a big picture mentality an indivdual can accomplish big things and attain a lofty position if willing to exert some effort.

 

[cheri1122]

The Marriage Oath? Ridiculous. An oath of celibacy or faithfulness to one individual diametrically opposes the animal instincts of human behavior. I don't buy it. Marriage is an outdated institution.
.

Agree 100% that a vow of celibacy is simply a means to control, but disagree on marriage.
It protects the good of the many [society] by creating a stable family to raise children to be good citizens in their turn. Kids need two parents, if at all possible.
That said, I don't believe everyone who 'cheats' should be considered a scumbag [except by their spouse] automatically - depends on the circumstances. Because there are some spouses who don't care, and who are we to say otherwise?

 

[jpalmer]

The bond of a Family is extremely important in the health of a society. And I am not coming from a religious standpoint. strong families help support morality in a society. When people just aimlessly wonder not attaching to anything. They become targets to be taken advantage of. If you stand for nothing you'll believe everything..........

I am single, I haven't been into religion at all up until recently. I've noticed how important family and marriage is to a society. If society excepts that it is ok to have 15 sex partners and no morals. Society will collapse on itself....It isn't healthy. We are not animals. We are humans. Bonding and building a strong foundation in family is extremely important.......

The oath of office isn't up for interpretation...It is black and white........

 

[greg334]

TOO many people have come out of real ghettos during truly unimaginable hard times that no one in the last four generations can even comprehend and to think that this man inspires anyone is puzzling let alone sad.

He has been handed a false victory, one where it appears it was his talent and hard work that got him where he is today but the rather sad thing is that others who came before him in more important roles and who came from nothing at all, are ignored by the same people who this man inspires.

 

[layoutshooter]

I find it difficult to follow your logic. You seem to view the world in simple black and white terms. There is a lot of gray area between a "ruler" and a "thug". It isn't simply one way or the other. Who is the PUTZ? Are you refering to the President? What do you mean he believes we are unable to fend for ourselves? Your interpretation of what he is or is not doing is purely a matter of opinion. He has inspired many, though apparently not you.

Weak men do NOT inspire strong men. Yes I DO think Obama is a PUTZ but just the current PUTZ. They have ALL been Putzs in my life time. Why to I THINK he is a thug? Armed force to insure health care. That's why. If it were a GOOD idea there would be NO need for a law, NO need for a ARMED Internal Revenue service to ENFORCE it. I wonder, will those who REFUSE to comply be killed? I think so.

Why do I think that he feels that we are unable to fend for our selves? The health care law for one. HE, and many others believe, that ONLY government can solve this problem. That it is just too big a NUT to crack for the average guy. NOT true. Almost ANYONE can solve just about every problem they face. Even health care.

He believes that the States and parents should NOT have control over education, ONLY the Feds should.

Yes, he has inspired the weak to ask for more freebies. More Obama phones. More handouts. etc.

 

[layoutshooter]

It isn't anything that is necessarily tangible. Many of his supporters come from an environment where advancement is often a pipe dream. He has shown them that with a big picture mentality an indivdual can accomplish big things and attain a lofty position if willing to exert some effort.

First off, the is absolutely NO environment where advancement is just a pipe dream. The is the United States. You, and anyone else, can do what ever they chose. They only hold back themselves. I have seen far too many drag themselves out of holes that everyone said could NOT be done. All he tells them is that government will bail them out.

BY the way, I forgot to welcome you to our forums!! I try to welcome new people.

Who do you drive for? Owner/Operator or drive for an owner? T/T, S/T, van/sprinter? Hope to see you soon in other forums. We are ALWAYS looking for more help out there!

 

[Falligator]

Sorry, but Ron Paul already has my vote if he's the one going against Obama

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[witness23]

If it were a GOOD idea there would be NO need for a law, NO need for a ARMED Internal Revenue service to ENFORCE it. I wonder, will those who REFUSE to comply be killed? I think so.

How can I be nice about this.......? Let's try this. When you make statements like the one above, you no longer hold any credibility in my book. If you truly believe (which you do, since you stated it) that the IRS, our federal government, will shoot you, murder someone if they do not comply with the health care system, then in my opinion there is no way that you can have a rational discussion with you.

More Obama phones. More handouts. etc.

Oh.....you mean these Obama phones? Did you get the same e-mail I did? Why do you call them Obama phones?

I am not defending this program, I am simply pointing out your ignorance of the program, its origins, and who implemented the program.

link: snopes.com: Free Cell Phones for Welfare Recipients

[Collected via e-mail, October 2009]

Here's another Obama program that we taxpayers are footing the bill for.

I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his "Obama phone." I asked him what an "Obama phone" was and he went on to say that welfare recipients are now eligible to receive (1) a FREE new phone and (2) approx 70 minutes of FREE minutes every month. I was a little skeptical so I Googled it and low and behold he was telling the truth. TAX PAYER MONEY IS BEING REDISTRIBUTED TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR FREE CELL PHONES. This program was started earlier this year. Enough is enough, the ship is sinking and it's sinking fast. The very foundations that this country was built on are being shaken. The age old concepts of God, family, and hard work have flown out the window and are being replaced with "Hope and Change" and "Change we can believe in."

False:
Also contrary to what is suggested in the example quoted above, the LifeLine program is not an "Obama program" (i.e., one that was initiated by or during the Obama administration). LifeLine was implemented by Congress well before the advent of the Obama administration, and the SafeLink Wireless service was launched by TracFone in Tennessee in August 2008 and in Florida in September 2008, months before the election that put Barack Obama in the White House.

 

[Letzboogie]

TOO many people have come out of real ghettos during truly unimaginable hard times that no one in the last four generations can even comprehend and to think that this man inspires anyone is puzzling let alone sad.

Who said anything about a ghetto? This comment speaks far more to your stereo-typical view than to any fact

He has been handed a false victory, one where it appears it was his talent and hard work that got him where he is today but the rather sad thing is that others who came before him in more important roles and who came from nothing at all, are ignored by the same people who this man inspires.

False victory? I don't think so. His talent and hard work in fact did get him to where he is today. He ran an incredibly solid, effective campaign, the envy of every political strategist. What he accomplished once he was elected is a different story. In fairness, I don't believe any one man ( or woman) had half a chance to endear themself to the american public, considering what Obama walked into on 1/20/2009.

 

[greg334]

Who said anything about a ghetto? This comment speaks far more to your stereo-typical view than to any fact

Call it what you want to call it but the issue is how people think and what inspires them to move up in life. We live in a society where we look at the past for any excuse to remain angry at what we are handed and not to the future. Too many times people feel they have no choice or hope while it is right in front of them if they want it. I would understand if this was the late 50's where there was actual issues that kept people down but not in today's society, where many move up the ladder to something better and without the limitations put on them by anyone.

False victory? I don't think so. His talent and hard work in fact did get him to where he is today. He ran an incredibly solid, effective campaign, the envy of every political strategist. What he accomplished once he was elected is a different story. In fairness, I don't believe any one man ( or woman) had half a chance to endear themself to the american public, considering what Obama walked into on 1/20/2009.

Yep false victory. He won not on his ability as a visionary or some special person but rather because he ran unopposed in all honesty. The surprising thing is that his campaign was assisted by the media and others with influence to ensure his message got out in a very unfair but convincing way. His campaign effectiveness wasn't as much as something that was great, but the opposition's effectiveness was so underperformed that it made his look great. I feel the political standards which we lived by say 50 or 60 years ago are long gone and we are near hitting rock bottom with our politically morals standards in this up coming election.

Others have done better, have gone farther than he has. He came from a selected background, groomed as an elite and moved up the ladder in a corrupt system of city/regional politics known for advancing those who help them stay in power. He has been connected with criminals and elitist alike which leaves many to question his faith in the people of the country - some of his friends don't think we the people need to be we the people.

 

[DannyD]

Ron Paul. Ron Paul. I said it twice because when I typed it once a message came up saying my reply needed to be 10 characters long & there's no one else I want, at least as of the time this Q was asked.

If you could choose "a line up" what would your choices be?

Who would you like to see in the big chair?

 

[DannyD]

I would not want Newt. Any man who will cheat on his wife will cheat on his country. He'd be just as bad as Obama, just in a different way.

Romney will lose against Gingrich if they go against each other. I will vote for Gingrich. I do think somebody like Herman Cain or somebody like him would have a good chance of winning in this current political climate. We need another Reagan moment.

I'd pay to see a Cain/Obama debate....That would be epic!

 

[greg334]

I would not want Newt. Any man who will cheat on his wife will cheat on his country. He'd be just as bad as Obama, just in a different way.

You know Gingrich's personal life is not the issue, his political life is. He left and floundered for a while than returned to the spot light not because of some revelation in political thought but rather to sell his books. The distrust for me is he is Reagan era republican with a track record of failing to deliver on the Contract with American, not that he cheated on his wife.

Romney is the same, a retread with the same ideas and in some cases ideas that others have. He has yet to explain how we can get out of the mess we are in other than bashing the sitting president.

The party line is presenting the administration's moves and ideas as something bad with absolutely no solutions being offered. Right now Paul Ryan's idea is being played up as some big deal but you know it isn't good enough to be considered. I mean look at the hype and then look at the plan and problem, saying Obama isn't doing this or that then presenting a plan that has nothing but changing things around under the guise of "reform" won't fix a thing but talking about reducing it, or eliminating things will.

Look it is simple, find someone who won't invoke the "Obama administration did this..." "or they talk about the tax cuts for the rich .... " but instead say "here is a fix for this ... " and you may have your guy or gal.