At Harvard, a Master’s in Problem Solving

Redress said:

So let us see what Obama actually said:



So what we learn is he is talking about his presidency, not his college life, and we learn that he said what information is withheld will be within the law. So whining about his college papers is a double fail.

Click to expand...

Looks like we are back to the clinton era, "depends what the meaning of "is" is". We can once again sit around and try to decipher what the pres actually means when he says something.

Redress said:

So even after I supplied the quote, you still have not read it.

Click to expand...

I knew what it said and that he said it since 2009. I love your dancing and avoiding everything I say though. Entertaining as hell.

Eager, driven and tremendously hardworking, he mastered the Harvard Business School method of literally looking at the world on a case-by-case basis, approaching each problem completely on its own terms and making recommendations based on data.

In the classrooms where Mr. Romney distinguished himself, there were no “right” answers — no right questions even, just a daily search for how to improve results. The Mitt Romney classmates knew then was a gifted fix-it man, attuned to the particulars of every situation he examined and eager to deliver what customers wanted.

Click to expand...

I would consider voting for that Mitt Romney.

Wonder where he went?

Redress said:

So let us see what Obama actually said:



So what we learn is he is talking about his presidency, not his college life, and we learn that he said what information is withheld will be within the law. So whining about his college papers is a double fail.

Click to expand...

But, if it were a Republican withholding his college transcripts, the Libbos would be squeeling like a pig under a fence.

Ockham said:

Ahh so now the WSJ is a liar... I guess anyone else who doesn't agree with your narrow application of the quote is also a liar. Reason and logic has exited the room and that's my cue to leave as well...

Click to expand...

Depends - I know you weren't too happy with the House caving in on a tax cut they didn't want, and the Wall Street Journal opened up a new orifice on House Republicans. Were you happy with THAT article too?

apdst said:

But, if it were a Republican withholding his college transcripts, the Libbos would be squeeling like a pig under a fence.

Click to expand...

If it was a republican not providing his college transcripts, I would not give a ****. How well some one did in school 20 + years ago is not going to matter to me. Nice try, but this fails too.

Ockham said:

I knew what it said and that he said it since 2009. I love your dancing and avoiding everything I say though. Entertaining as hell.

Click to expand...

So are you going to explain how saying the administration would provide all information they where legally required to has any bearing on his college transcripts, or are you going to keep up the stupid crap? You are right, it is entertaining as hell watching people keep on complaining about stuff that doesn't matter, and twisting comments to mean things they don't though. Don't forget to start in the the teleprompter.

Hatuey said:

TD - Don't you think Romney's problem is that there are a large amount of Conservatives who don't know where this guy really stands on anything?

Click to expand...

I think his biggest problem is that those who believe in a whole bunch of myths are mad that Romney's faith incorporates myths they don't find as credible as the ones their preachers spew

danarhea said:

Depends - I know you weren't too happy with the House caving in on a tax cut they didn't want, and the Wall Street Journal opened up a new orifice on House Republicans. Were you happy with THAT article too?

Click to expand...

I'm always happy about a tax cut being passed - too bad it wasn't attached with the Penn Pipeline at 1 year - sent to Obama to force him to veto it. That would have been better... but someone was asleep at the wheel. I'm still hoping for a budget to be passed in 1 of the 4 years of Obama's tenure.

But I have no problem criticizing House Republicans - if it's warranted. They pull a bone head move, they should be called on it and usually are. Now Democrats pulling bone head moves, well you only hear about it on Fox and then the droning on about how "Faux News" reported it becomes nauseating. Hell, Morning Joe ripped Gingrich for 3 weeks straight --- about 20 minutes per segment daily... the rest of MSNBC did the same. That the WSJ did it to Republicans probably means it's justified and not just more liberal media noise.

Redress said:

If it was a republican not providing his college transcripts, I would not give a ****. How well some one did in school 20 + years ago is not going to matter to me. Nice try, but this fails too.

Click to expand...

Hypothetically speaking of course.... since we cannot confirm nor refute.

Redress said:

So are you going to explain how saying the administration would provide all information they where legally required to has any bearing on his college transcripts, or are you going to keep up the stupid crap?

Click to expand...

Provide it? Why would they provide it? My college record is available to be reviewed so is yours. Why aren't all politician's college records available? Isn't that how government can be transparent? And what crap is that --- the crap you just happen to not agree with? Aww...

Redress said:

You are right, it is entertaining as hell watching people keep on complaining about stuff that doesn't matter, and twisting comments to mean things they don't though. Don't forget to start in the the teleprompter.

Click to expand...

Yes I know... it just doesn't matter with Obama... and you're just all above it all Redress.

Redress said:

So let us see what Obama actually said:



So what we learn is he is talking about his presidency, not his college life, and we learn that he said what information is withheld will be within the law. So whining about his college papers is a double fail.

Click to expand...

So in other words, if Obama doesn't want to reveal anything and the AG and/or the White House Counsel agree, then that is A-OK in your book??? You do realize that both of these people work for Obama and are accountable to him for their jobs and livelihood ??

Another empty campaign slogan, nothing more.

Gill said:

So in other words, if Obama doesn't want to reveal anything and the AG and/or the White House Counsel agree, then that is A-OK in your book??? You do realize that both of these people work for Obama and are accountable to him for their jobs and livelihood ??

Another empty campaign slogan, nothing more.

Click to expand...

He will act within the law as to what he will reveal or not. Damn, how controversial...

The problem is so many on the right have been lied to as to what Obama actually said you expect something he never claimed.

Redress said:

He will act within the law as to what he will reveal or not. Damn, how controversial...

The problem is so many on the right have been lied to as to what Obama actually said you expect something he never claimed.

Click to expand...

As usual, you failed to read my post, or perhaps to comprehend it.

The problem is that, in this case, the fox is guarding the hen house. All of the people that you claim are guarding the rights and privileges of the U.S. citizenry were hired by Obama and work at his pleasure.

THAT was my point.

Gill said:

As usual, you failed to read my post, or perhaps to comprehend it.

The problem is that, in this case, the fox is guarding the hen house. All of the people that you claim are guarding the rights and privileges of the U.S. citizenry were hired by Obama and work at his pleasure.

THAT was my point.

Click to expand...

Which would be a problem with any president. Why was it not a problem under Bush, but now is?

Redress said:

Which would be a problem with any president. Why was it not a problem under Bush, but now is?

Click to expand...

Why do you think I did not find it a problem under Bush??

ASSuming again I see.

Gill said:

Why do you think I did not find it a problem under Bush??

ASSuming again I see.

Click to expand...

Because no one was making a big deal out of it. I am sorry, but what this is about is people twisting what Obama said to mean something he did not say.

donsutherland1 said:

For those who are interested, The New York Times has a profile on Mitt Romney (under the title that is this thread's heading) that concerns his studies at Harvard and provides insight on his analytical approach. The article does not discuss ideology.

The newspaper writes:



The piece can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/u...aped-mitt-romney.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

Click to expand...

Thanks for this - I hadn't seen it and honestly didn't know much about Romney's path other than his work at Bain. Seems like a pretty relevant background.

Not that I have a vote, but while I don't like Obama I had never really seen Romney as a guy I would want to see win. To me at least this changes things a bit, and I would expect that Romney, if he doesn't deviate too far to the right during the primary, should be able to peel off a lot of independents and various others who are tired of Obama's incompetence.

The problem Mitt Romney has is that he doesn't actually BELIEVE in anything. I can say that as someone from the Communistwealth of Massachusetts, who lived here while he was the Governor of this State. He RAN as a Republican, and while a Massachusetts Republican can't generally be separated from a Democrat in probably 40 of the other 49 states, we do generally see at least a small amount of difference at this distance. In Romney's case there was no way to separate the two. He gave us our ludicrous RomneyCare bill, Homosexual Marriage, and didn't even make any attempt to moderate or soften these blows at all. Mitt Romney's opinion on anything depends on who he's talking to at that exact moment. His RECORD shows him as nothing more than a Moderate at best and a closeted Liberal most of the time.

Solving a problem is only useful when you come up with the right answer. 2 + 2 DOES NOT equal 22; no matter how many different ways you want to compute it. Romney is great at coming up with AN answer. The problem is that most of the time he comes up with THE WRONG Answer.

I'll take an Ideologue who has trouble getting things done over a linguini-spined coward like Mitt every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Tigger said:

The problem Mitt Romney has is that he doesn't actually BELIEVE in anything. I can say that as someone from the Communistwealth of Massachusetts, who lived here while he was the Governor of this State. He RAN as a Republican, and while a Massachusetts Republican can't generally be separated from a Democrat in probably 40 of the other 49 states, we do generally see at least a small amount of difference at this distance. In Romney's case there was no way to separate the two. He gave us our ludicrous RomneyCare bill, Homosexual Marriage, and didn't even make any attempt to moderate or soften these blows at all. Mitt Romney's opinion on anything depends on who he's talking to at that exact moment. His RECORD shows him as nothing more than a Moderate at best and a closeted Liberal most of the time.

Solving a problem is only useful when you come up with the right answer. 2 + 2 DOES NOT equal 22; no matter how many different ways you want to compute it. Romney is great at coming up with AN answer. The problem is that most of the time he comes up with THE WRONG Answer.

I'll take an Ideologue who has trouble getting things done over a linguini-spined coward like Mitt every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Click to expand...

Sorry, help me out. While I certainly appreciate and as a general matter agree with your point that ideology matters for those who are responsible for making policy. But there are multiple axis to assess left wing-right wing.

So he was for gay marriage (I gather), which to me is a social issue which could be "left wing", but also could be libertarian. Same thing with abortion, which I gather he has been all over the map on.

On health care, being canadian I don't really want to get involved in the US debate and don't really understabnd all the different positions taken by various US pols, but to me a mandatory catastrophe insurance where absence of insurance would likely shunt a patient into a public system makes sense (although I don't actually know what happens to someone with no insurance and no money who needs an operation).

As for economic and tax matters, which are my most important "right wing" issues, would you have put him to the right of democrats or no real difference?

You see it as some narrow specific quote, I see transparency as a broad requirement of all government. It's the classic: Do as I say, not as I do. And when someone points that out, it's "whining". Perhaps if you could set aside your partisan hypocrisy for a moment you could look at the obvious hypocrisy as just that... obvious. But somehow you'd rather attempt to spin this ... It's you're credibility your flushing... no one else's.

Click to expand...

Then don't vote for Obama...since apparently you did in the first place based on the transparency promise. Problem solved right?

That may be the most extreme pump-piece I've ever read. I seriously doubt the NYTimes will be so totally awestruck by Romney if he becomes the Republican nominee.

A Romney candidacy would make it Harvard V. Harvard. Is that sickening or what?

CJ 2.0 said:

Sorry, help me out. While I certainly appreciate and as a general matter agree with your point that ideology matters for those who are responsible for making policy. But there are multiple axis to assess left wing-right wing.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are multiple axis for assessing Conservative vs. Liberal (I do not believe that Moderates exist. They're simply Liberals who are too cowardly to admit that they are such)

CJ 2.0 said:

So he was for gay marriage (I gather), which to me is a social issue which could be "left wing", but also could be libertarian. Same thing with abortion, which I gather he has been all over the map on.

Click to expand...

He failed to be AGAINST gay marriage. The issue was actually brought about by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts which demanded that the Legislature pass a Gay Marriage bill within a year of its ruling. Romney failed to veto that bill, thus placing himself firmly on that side of the debate (you're gonna catch on real quick that I'm a Black & White philosopher. There is no grey).

CJ 2.0 said:

On health care, being canadian I don't really want to get involved in the US debate and don't really understabnd all the different positions taken by various US pols, but to me a mandatory catastrophe insurance where absence of insurance would likely shunt a patient into a public system makes sense (although I don't actually know what happens to someone with no insurance and no money who needs an operation).

Click to expand...

Romneycare not only forces people to purchase insurance (whether they want it or not), but demands they purchase a certain level of insurance, and if they can't afford it forces the TAXPAYERS to subsidize the cost. Those who don't have it get penalized on their state income tax returns. A true Conservative understands that the very laws demanding that a hospital treat EVERYONE are improper to begin with, nevermind forcing people to purchase a product they don't necessarily want and cannot necessarily afford.

CJ 2.0 said:

As for economic and tax matters, which are my most important "right wing" issues, would you have put him to the right of democrats or no real difference?

Click to expand...

In terms of economy and tax matters, he did less than nothing to reduce the tax burden on Massachusetts residents. In fact RomneyCare increased the burden as we now have to pay for that failed system as well as everything else. The economy in MA was no better, and probably worse when Romney left office than when he arrived.

I'm of the opinion that SOCIAL Conservatism leads to FISCAL Conservatism and since Romney is anything BUT a Social Conservative, he has no chance of getting any support from me to be elected dog catcher or toilet scrubber, nevermind POTUS.

While I don't doubt that Romney is intelligent, and a good problem solver, I think it takes a lot more than that to be an effective President. A good President has to have a core set of beliefs and a plan to implement them. In that respect a tendency to want to be all things to all people is actually a hindrance.

AdamT said:

While I don't doubt that Romney is intelligent, and a good problem solver, I think it takes a lot more than that to be an effective President. A good President has to have a core set of beliefs and a plan to implement them. In that respect a tendency to want to be all things to all people is actually a hindrance.

Click to expand...

You must really hate Obama then.

Gill said:

You must really hate Obama then.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry...I never know where you guys on the right are in your views to Obama. Does he try to be everything to everyone or is a hardcore socialists/commie/muslim whatever?