“The only real difference was that Jobs was less of a man of character than the loyal family man, Romney.”

You mean Jobs was more like Reagan than Romney is?

I think it’s funny when supposed “conservatives” keep forgetting that their political gods don’t meet today’s conservative standards. Heck, even the Republican standard bearer in the previous Presidential election didn’t meet the “One Wife” standard.

Get a clue.

“Entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs and Mitt Romney are held in high regard in China.”

So let me get this straight, China holds, in high regard, potential American Presidents who says things like:

“Romney has accused Obama of being too soft on the Asian nation, saying he would label China a currency manipulator on his first day in office and defend against the theft of intellectual property and job losses.”
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-challenges-romney-china-trade-043039778.html

I can see why.. China loves to be called a criminal who steals and a currency manipulator… I bet the chinese press just eats that up and it makes the headlines in chinese newspapers and the all the chinese stand on street corners applauding statements like that from Romney… because they hold him in such high regard.

“Both men took substantial risks with their own wealth. Both achieved spectacular success. In that they are similar.”

Windy it would actually be so refreshing if you kept yourself informed with facts rather than your fantasies.

Romney’s risk-free deal with Bain

“Bill Bain’s idea was simple. His firm, Bain & Co., was making lots of money by advising companies in exchange for fees. The fact that it was making money was proof that its staff understood what it took to make struggling companies successful. So why not eliminate the middleman? Rather than advising companies for a fee only to watch the current management reap the big profits, Bain Capital would take over troubled companies, manage them to profitability and reap the rewards itself. And Bill Bain knew exactly who he wanted to run this venture: Mitt Romney.

And then Romney stunned his boss by saying no.”

What? Romney told his boss no? Now why would Romney not want to run Bain?

“As Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, authors of “The Real Romney,” describe it, Romney “explained to Bain that he didn’t want to risk his position, earnings and reputation on an experiment. He found the offer appealing but didn’t want to make the decision in a ‘light or flippant manner.’ So Bain sweetened the pot. He guaranteed that if the experiment failed Romney would get his old job and salary back, plus any raises he would have earned during his absence. Still, Romney worried about the impact on his reputation if he proved unable to do the job. Again the pot was sweetened. Bain promised that, if necessary, he would craft a cover story saying that Romney’s return to Bain & Co. was needed because of his value as a consultant. ‘So,’ Bain explained, ‘there was no professional or financial risk.’ This time Romney said yes.”

Romney managed, in other words, that most unusual of career transitions: a move entirely without risk. And, as he tells it, he did the same thing when he left Bain Capital.”

So as the other posters stated. Romney was NOT a risk taker ….. AT ALL.

Come on windy, get with the program and at least read the news and stay current before you commit yourself to spouting more nonsense.

you wrote

No, I said they buy iPads, which refutes your ludicrous assertion.
||

But the Chinese do not buy IPADS without for the most part the subsidies of the government; which means that my point is correct.

As for Willad.. what did the Brits call him “Mitt the Twit” RGO

No, I said they buy iPads, which refutes your ludicrous assertion.

Associating Romney with Steve Jobs is an insult to all the entrepreneurs of this world and elsewhere

Both men took substantial risks with their own wealth. Both achieved spectacular success. In that they are similar. The only real difference was that Jobs was less of a man of character than the loyal family man, Romney.

because Obama should bring this up and ask Romney to explain why he stubbornly refuses to insist the richest of the rich should continue to be “rewarded” at a rate historically much lower than what it’s been in the past.

Hmm. I’d ask right back why Obama feels so stubbornly entitled to seizing half of a man’s wealth and property for a corrupt and incompetent state. You ought not dwell on the wealth that another man has. You should focus on creating your own. The Lord said, “Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” And you leftists are a covetous lot.

Maybe I’m having one of my rare pessimistic moments, but I’m starting to think sequestration is going to happen. I can’t see any scenario post-election where the Republicans back down from their stance refusing to consider any tax increases on anyone.>>

I think sequestration is going to happen for a wide variety of reasons; not the least of which is that I suspect it will be the main issue in the campaign for the last month or so…

Defense and other contractors (mostly defense) are already mailing to people in the industry “Prepare to get your 60 days notice to be laid off” notes…and the topic will only grow as events move toward election day.

This coupled with the two segments of the Bush tax cuts (the tax cuts for most Americans and then the ones for the very rich) are going to be the issue in the last month of the campaign…in large measure because the economy is going to continue sinking due to the intrasegence of the two political parties.

BUT it does matter who is elected in Nov. The bush tax cuts will expire no matter what (unless they are renewed) on Jan 1 but they can be “fixed” in some fashion shortly there after with little or no effect.

What I foresee happening if Obama is reelected is that the tax cuts will both expire and very quickly the Congress will move to try on the GOP’s part to resurrect the entire package and the Dems will support only doing the middle class version. Where the momentem is in this will be determined by the election.

Same with how sequestration plays out. If Willard wins they will move quickly to cut domestic programs and shore up defense…Obama would be different. RGO

Calling Mitt Romney an entrepreneur is a farce on its own merit.

Associating Romney with Steve Jobs is an insult to all the entrepreneurs of this world and elsewhere. Jobs had more in common with Musk than with Romney.

You clearly are NOT a capitalist.

The Chinese government subsidizes the purhcases of certain goods for its people with enormous restrictions. But if you think that the Chinese version of capitalism is a success then I assume you have also decided being red is better then being dead! RGO

I wonder what Dr. Feynman would think about the laughable farce and humongous waste that is the ISS? Surely ISS has all of the trappings of an international laboratory, with out the slightest hope of ever achieving significant results.

the people who make IPADS and other devices simply cannot afford to own them or if they do do so with massive subsidies (and control) by the state.

Somebody’s buying them.

“Apple has previously said China has become the company’s second largest market after the U.S. Reflecting the country’s growing importance…”

Perhaps it is the Mongolians. Entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs and Mitt Romney are held in high regard in China. Strange that they should run into so much trouble with the socialists here in the States.

But here is the kicker…the person on unemployment…creates more jobs for the percentage of his spending; then Willard ever did.

Our resident Reagan Republican is channeling his Nancy Pelosi.

“It’s the same science community that is trying hard to understand what our universe really is…”

At what cost- who pays for this… not the science community… but the taxpayers… howzabout pitching Shell, Exxon, Apple, Google, Gates or Zuckerberg for finacing your toys, and not a government which has to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends. It’s the supercollider redux.

You crave satisfaction for a curiosity of a very elite ‘culture’ – a select few at the expense of the many who could care less if you see God blink and he blinks back, especially if they’ve been out of work for months or years. The answers you seek to those questions bantered about in the faculty lounge have waited eons for answers- waiting another another decade or three for better economic times won’t affect the science much, just cause consertnation to space science elitists desperate for government funding to finance their careerd as they can’t convince and secure funding in the private sector to buy new toys. Sober up and get witrh it- get witrh the rest of us and make do with what you have for a few years. Cause what you do just ain’t that special to the people you’re asking to foot the bill.

“We’re in one of the worst economic depressions in nearly a century and in need of big investments in very down-to-Earth necessities and infrastructure. Your toys are expensive luxuries. Nope.”

Uh yes, out here in the real world, beyond the realm of academia and ivory towered campuses of government financed ressearch grants, yes, it is. In the next few decades the U.S. needs new roads, bridges, electrical grids, etc., not a new space telescope for an elite few to play with, especially when they have one already just 20 years old- that works just fine. . The immediate needs are jobs for people, outting money in their pockets, food, etc. Necessities– not luxuries like a new, expensive space telescope. And whether you like it or not, BEO HSF ops are an iinvestment in the future for a broader base of commercial and government industries– ‘technical life insurance’ for the U.S. as Frank Borman called it. Space telescopes like the JWST, not so much- especially when you have the HST among others to play with already, and vastly improved ground based telesciopes, computer enhanced to null out atmospheric distortion. Savvy space scientists would push for a lunar base if only to establish a telescope and other BEO instrumentation installations on Luna. HSF is the friend of space science, not the enemy.

But you’ll get no argument over the ISS– it’s a turkey and would have better served anchored to the floor of the Ocean of Storms as an exploitation/exploration hub rather than doing in circles, doomed to a Pacific splash.

“Oh, but Richard Feynman was a scientist … myopic, self-serving and full of baloney, right? = smirk =” More times than you- or he would have liked to admit, yes, his eccentricities at times were the stuff of Oscar Meyer legend and well documented. And he’s been dead since the tail end of the Reagan administration, over two decades ago, and has no bearing on the political and economic realities of our times.

“I don’t think anyone likes projects that go over budget. It’s true that JWST has basically eaten the farm for NASA astrophysics…”

Which reaffirms the sloppy fiscal and project management of the space science community.

“It’s a perspective like yours that demonizes scientists and what they do that is spectacularly dumb.” No, in fact, they do it to themselves, simply by demostrating lousy bookkeeping so your pitch is decidely arrogant. The costs should be going down, not up. And in the Age of Austerity, denial of that reality by the space science community is pretty dumb indeed.