The Real Mitt Romney

[Adak]

Here's a fun fact:

Shortly after becoming governor of Mass., Mitt Romney was asked by a women's group, to hire more women for his administration. He didn't personally know any more that were qualified, but the women's groups had info on several qualified candidates.

And Mitt did - wound up with a high of 42% of his administration filled with women - which was the highest percentage in any state, at that time.

He didn't talk about it, he didn't canvass and run it by test voters, he didn't wait for some law to be passed to require it.

He just did it. Done!

What would you guess Obama's hiring rate for women in his administration is?

About 8%.

Now you know why smart women, are changing their preference for President, to Mitt Romney.

You haters can hate all you want, but if were a woman who needs a job, or one looking to move up and break into upper management.

Then you'd be voting for Mitt Romney, no doubt about it.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

Here's a fun fact:

Shortly after becoming governor of Mass., Mitt Romney was asked by a women's group, to hire more women for his administration.

That's accurate, and also the opposite of his claim during the debate, where he said that he had noticed the lack of women, and approached the women's groups to get his binders.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

<snip>
You haters can hate all you want, ...

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by Adak

Now you know why smart women, are changing their preference for President, to Mitt Romney.

You haters can hate all you want, but if were a woman who needs a job, or one looking to move up and break into upper management.

Then you'd be voting for Mitt Romney, no doubt about it.

Here's another fun fact:

This smart woman will not be changing her preference and voting MR. In fact, plenty of other smart women feel the same. Actually, MR did more harm than good as far as the women's votes are concerned, during the debate.

Undoing gains

Never fails to astound me how different people can see the same thing so completely differently.

[Lamplighter]

[Adak]

Obama for another four years, would not be good - he's promised us more of the same policies that have not been effective at improving the economy. Also, he's burdened us with over a Trillion of dollars of debt, every year he's been in office.

You can't keep that up, I don't care WHAT. A monetary crisis the likes of which we have never seen, WILL be the sure result if we keep it up.

Mitt Romney will change things, and he knows business, and how to get it going. One thing he mentioned in the debate was supporting an eVerify hiring system, so illegals will not be drawn here to get a job. Living in a border city and state, that will be a BIG help for us.

Mitt will fix this problem, when many other politicians wouldn't, afraid it might hurt their popularity, and companies like the cheap labor illegals offer, and lobby to have it kept this way.

Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc. Nobody would implement eVerify, but Mitt Romney will - and that's the kind of positive change that we need to help limit this on-going illegal traffic across the border.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

Obama for another four years, would not be good - he's promised us more of the same policies that have not been effective at improving the economy.
--snip

This is factually wrong.

Obama's policies, to the extent that he's been able to enact them, have been effective at improving our economy.

I don't know where in the world you could come up with such an utterly wrong assessment of what has happened in this country for the last few years. In the immortal words of President Obama "Governor, that's just not correct."

Stop lying.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

This is factually wrong.

Obama's policies, to the extent that he's been able to enact them, have been effective at improving our economy.

I don't know where in the world you could come up with such an utterly wrong assessment of what has happened in this country for the last few years. In the immortal words of President Obama "Governor, that's just not correct."

Stop lying.

When you overspend by a Trillion dollars in EVERY YEAR, and still can't restore a robust economy.

Time for you to go. You've done all the good you could do, clearly.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

Actually, the executive branch DOES make the bills, into laws, by signing them (normally).

But you're quite right that we do need a Conservative House of Rep. and Senate, to help him.

Or you can listen to the mad ravings of Nancy Pelosi!

Hm. The Force is strong with this one.

I accept your challenge to discuss this issue by using factual realities.

Originally Posted by Adak

When you [Obama ed. by BigV] overspend by a Trillion dollars in EVERY YEAR, and still can't restore a robust economy.

Time for you to go. You've done all the good you could do, clearly.

In light of the first quote here, please explain the second quote.

Hm.

[Cyber Wolf]

Edited for accuracy, in bold...

Originally Posted by Adak

Mitt Romney will attempt to tell Congress to change things, and he knows business, and how to get it going. One thing he mentioned in the debate was supporting an eVerify hiring system, so illegals will not be drawn here to get a job. Living in a border city and state, that will be a BIG help for us.

Mitt will attempt to tell Congress to fix this problem, when many other politicians of both parties couldn't get the bill past Congress, afraid it might hurt their popularity, and companies like the cheap labor illegals offer, and allow special interests and career preservation convince them to have it kept this way.

Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc. Nobody could get their relevant 2-party Congress to pass eVerify, but Mitt Romney will attempt to tell Congress to do it - and that's the kind of positive change that we need to help limit this on-going illegal traffic across the border.

Cuz... yknow... the Executive Branch doesn't actually make the laws. They just champion the ideas then signs/doesn't sign the paper once it gets to his desk.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Edited for accuracy, in bold...



Cuz... yknow... the Executive Branch doesn't actually make the laws. They just champion the ideas then signs/doesn't sign the paper once it gets to his desk.

Actually, the executive branch DOES make the bills, into laws, by signing them (normally).

But you're quite right that we do need a Conservative House of Rep. and Senate, to help him.

Or you can listen to the mad ravings of Nancy Pelosi!

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Adak

Actually, the executive branch DOES make the bills, into laws, by signing them (normally).

But you're quite right that we do need a Conservative House of Rep. and Senate, to help him.

Or you can listen to the mad ravings of Nancy Pelosi!

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about needing a "Conservative House of Rep. and Senate" to "help" anybody, nor is that relevant to the actual process of legislation.

That will not solve the problem of an inactive Congress either because there will always be varying degrees of everything, even Conservatives, and they will oppose each other for the sake of image and career. Plenty of times they've been too busy focused on calling each other out, posturing, blocking, and whining within their own ideology, trying to prove themselves More Conservative Than That Guy/Gal instead of putting that energy towards work that they actually support. Liberals do it too. Tea Partiers do it. Libertarians do it. They all do it. Even independents will argue with each other over how independent they are/aren't. If you take out the visceral need to one-up the other guy, Congress would get a lot more done, regardless who's sitting in the seat.

And if we're going to pick even smaller nits, the Executive Branch does not create any laws. It only signs off on(or not, if they don't sign) a final submission and that finalization turns it into law. It does none of the actual writing, scripting, lawyering, debating, pushing, blocking, etc. All of the making, all of the creating, all of the growth of a bill is done in Congress. Executive Branch is only a cheerleader here.

And for the record, I don't give Pelosi a second thought. Or a first one. Unless someone invokes her, like you did. Then I promptly forget about her. Until you invoke her again, which I'm sure won't take long.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about needing a "Conservative House of Rep. and Senate" to "help" anybody, nor is that relevant to the actual process of legislation.

WHAT?? The legislative branch of the federal government is NOT RELEVANT to the actual process of legislation??

Thanks for the laughs.

That will not solve the problem of an inactive Congress either because there will always be varying degrees of everything, even Conservatives, and they will oppose each other for the sake of image and career. Plenty of times they've been too busy focused on calling each other out, posturing, blocking, and whining within their own ideology, trying to prove themselves More Conservative Than That Guy/Gal instead of putting that energy towards work that they actually support. Liberals do it too. Tea Partiers do it. Libertarians do it. They all do it. Even independents will argue with each other over how independent they are/aren't. If you take out the visceral need to one-up the other guy, Congress would get a lot more done, regardless who's sitting in the seat.

Absolutely, I agree. We see it all the time, especially in the primaries.

And if we're going to pick even smaller nits, the Executive Branch does not create any laws. It only signs off on(or not, if they don't sign) a final submission and that finalization turns it into law. It does none of the actual writing, scripting, lawyering, debating, pushing, blocking, etc. All of the making, all of the creating, all of the growth of a bill is done in Congress. Executive Branch is only a cheerleader here.

The President will have input into legislation he will favor, but he does not write any of the bills for either legislative branch.

And for the record, I don't give Pelosi a second thought. Or a first one. Unless someone invokes her, like you did. Then I promptly forget about her. Until you invoke her again, which I'm sure won't take long.

Oh, we could torture you with the socialist Maxine Waters! Have you met Ms Waters? She's so far left, right has disappeared entirely from her universe.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

Here's a fun fact: snip

I guess you missed my post.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I guess you missed my post.

It shows that top management jobs in both business and government, are VERY largely held by males.

On every corporate board of directors I have every known, males have dominated. Perhaps one woman will be in charge of something like Human Resources (which is an increasingly important position).