Posted on 10/10/2007 2:34:34 PM PDT by colorcountry
The writer here is in error. Says Mitt was elected governor with 51% of the vote. Not so. According to Guide to US elections he got 49.8%. That is not a huge error but the reality is he did not muster an outright majority of the vote.
“I’ll remind you. He was a filthy venture capitalist. “
Spoken like a true Marxist.
Spoken like a true Marxist.
Spoken like a true idiot.
“Spoken like a true idiot.”
An idiot is a person who watches a movie and thinks he is seeing a univrsal judgement of a respected profession.
Romney built up every enterprise he led. Venture capitalism is the process of financing beginning businesses. Take that away and you don’t have the American dream. Your hatred of Romney is beginning to coud your thinking.
I would concur with your assessment. HOWEVER your statement is not reflective of MY understanding. I stated it was a liberal movie, but with as many viewers as it had, that is likely the most common rendition of venture capitalist that most Americans would know.
How is your reading comprehension coming along N00b?
Yeah I agree, Venture Capitalist are looked on poorly. They are viewed in the same class of lawyers, lobbyists, and politicains. However, reasonable people can look beyond someone’s choice of career. We have elected lawyers, and certainly politicians in the past.
“but with as many viewers as it had, that is likely the most common rendition of venture capitalist that most Americans would know.”
You, “fingers in the wind to know how to think” and “what does Hollywood say?” seem to be the one who needs to do a little more reading to comprehend real life.
Now...if you can follow for just one second, you will see that that is not MY rendition of a venture capitalist and so....now stay with me....I do not see venture capitalists in that way (and so I do NOT fit your accusation of being a "marxist.) But many movie goers have seen venture capitalists shown in that light and MAY assume that Mitt Romney acts like the Richard Gere character.
Now I understand this doesn't fit into your attempt at assasinating MY character, but I really wish you could see how stupid you look. AND that is the last I will say on the subject....it should have been clearly spelled out for you by now. Even a n00by like YOU should be able to understand.
You are the one into character assassination, by pointing out a despicable Hollywood character and suggesting it is related or will thought to be an assessment of Romney.
If I see a chain saw killer in a movie, should I suggest that maybe the local tree trimer is a mad killer?
We can appose candidates without trying to destroy them. The distinction is lost in many of your posts that I have been reading. Have you ever heard of Reagan's eleventh commandment?
Perhaps you haven't noticed? The Office of President of the United States is NOT an apprenticeship. "Wet behind the ears" "learn on the job" aren't job descriptions for the leader of the free world. There are candidates with more experience in governance that a one-term liberal governor has.
Good hair and teeth aren't enough.
Well, that is why Governors get elected president. Even 4 years as a Governor is a hundred times more relevant experience than being a Senator.
..I'm not sure, but it's a good tag...
>>>I’ll tell you who he is... he is a LIBERAL in a $2800.00 empty suit<<<
Do you really think your hyperbole somehow creates a cogent argument?
Mitt Romney ran on a conservative platform in 1994 aside from the issue of abortion. He ran on a more conservative platform in 2002. He governed even more conservatively. There’s a gradual development of his views to a more pro-life position, and he’s emerged more on the side of life than any other the candidates with enough funds to pull this race off.
Romney is one of the few people in this race with the personal accomplishments and personal lives to fill a suit. He walked the walk.
Hearing yet another incoherent burst of name-calling aimed at Romney as an emptysuit amuses me. Some of us judge a man by what he does in life and what he accomplishes. Others grill a man for changing his positions over a decade.
>>>Perhaps you haven’t noticed? The Office of President of the United States is NOT an apprenticeship. “Wet behind the ears” “learn on the job” aren’t job descriptions for the leader of the free world. There are candidates with more experience in governance that a one-term liberal governor has.<<<
Who? The only Republican with even remotely close to the amount of executive experience that Romney has is Giuliani. No one else is even close. Perhaps Huckabee, but he falls far, far short in terms of experience in the private sector.
Serving in the legislature is not the same thing as acting as a central hub in running of a government. It’s not even close.
I’ll take a man who has a history of leading free enterprise over a government cog. Why woulndn’t you? Or do you support Giuliani?
A little hyperbole there? A HUNDRED times more relevant experience than being a Senator? I don't know offhand what committees Thompson served on, but chances are he gained more experience relevant to the governance of the NATION. You're the one who stated Mitt is "wet behind the ears". ROTFL
You’re making quite a leap to say the American public has a negative perception of venture capitalists based upon a movie—and one made how many decades ago?
I’d venture to say that the average American is clueless what as to what a venture capitalist does.
And frankly, all a venture capitalist has to do is talk about how he turned flagging corporations into profit-making enterprises, and that alone wins respect.
Perhaps I’m in the minority, but I tend to associate America’s business executives with a sense of excitement and pride. They’re the ones who built this country upward. Who took free enterprise and turned a relatively unpopulated continent into a world superpower.
I have a hard time seeing why a venture capitalist wouldn’t be the perfection professional to put into a bloated federal government, anyway. The very essence of their job is to put up an initial loss on borrowed money and turn it into a profit by stripping away all the inefficiences, building up a model of success, and restructuring a promising though to-that-point lacking entity.
As a business owner, I would have to agree with you.
In what way does a committee practice executive decision-making? A committee investigates an area of interest and presents a report and recommendations.
This meets the job description of a chief executive how?
You seem to be equating being a part of the government with the position of acting as chief executive.
And why are you stressing legislative experience as executive qualifications? You support Thompson—the guy who got bored of serving on those committees, right??? So if serving on all of those committees qualifies as great experience towards being an executive, why are you using that as if it’s beneficial to your cause? Who wants a bored executive? Not exactly the guy you want setting the nation’s agenda—or more accurately, cast into the role of having to respond to the opposition party as it sets the agenda in the complete absennse of leadership from on high.
We’ve had enough of that with George W. Bush.
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.