The Romney's Horse

Cynthiann, do you deny that there were concerns about security at the Olympics and that those concerns were addressed in all the major newspapers and in the media on both sides of the Atlantic? And when asked about the Olympics, was it really so arrogant of Romney to say that he'd heard there were security issues and that was a concern? Come on, seriously? It's about being a bit too sensitive, I think. The press did castigate him, and Cameron and Johnson got off a few unseemly remarks themselves. But in the end, there were security issues, the security company couldn't supply the promised personnel. "LONDON—The head of Olympic security contractor G4S PLC told a panel of agitated British lawmakers that he only discovered his company would have problems delivering enough security guards on July 3, about three weeks before the event’s start. During a tense appearance before the Home Affairs Committee Tuesday, G4S Chief Executive Nick Buckles apologized for the company’s mishandling of the contract, which has forced the army and police to step in to fill the gap. He blamed the problems on scheduling systems that had failed to effectively register staff and acknowledged that his company’s reputation was in tatters." I guess it's like the wife who says "does this make my butt look big?". You damn well better not admit that it does. And when the security company is failing to meet its obligations for something as important as the Olympic games in a city that has already been the victim of terrorist attacks, you'd better not say that is a matter of concern. Otherwise, people will think your arrogant and contemptuous.

No, he was not showing arrogance and only those looking for him to be arrogant took it that way. Arrogance is Obama's bag. Rommey answered a question and he had the nerve to answer it honestly. He talked to UK leaders who said they didn't know if they were ready with the proper security measures, etc. There is no way to know whether something of the Olympics magnitude is ever fully prepared. The answers to his HONEST answer, which was based on the UK leaders' remarks was slung back at him by the press and those who had expressed doubts. He is not an arrogant man. He is a very modest man, who can be shy in personal situations, but tries to be as honest as is humanly possible when questioned. In business he shines. He is the type person who refused to take a salary as governor, who helps family, friends and strangers WITHOUT cameras filming it. He was the first to get to Isaac's victims because he thought them more important than the campaign; not so with our president. He waited two months to take care of the oil spill that almost destroyed our who southern coast and he's finally going to check out the flood victims today...maybe...if it doesn't interfere with his campaign, golfing, or partying. What I took from that particular situation was that no one really WANTS honesty; they prefer being fed pablum. So, because the people questioning him could not handle the truth (sound like a movie line?) he decided pablum was best. He's not in the habit of turning his back on our nations' friends. He would never send back a bust of Churchill to the queen or give her as their first traded gifts tapes of his own speeches on an IPOD that had the wrong voltage to work, or hug the queen when protocol says that's not proper. Our president and first lady do those things.

Thanks cythiann, I let these fine answers from Rollo and Maggie stand without comment. They express all there is to say on the matter.

Humor helps? As I see it, THIS is an issue, why? Obama is making this election about Romney being OUT OF TOUCH, Obama is making this about Romney being a 'rich guy'. Do you seriously think a liberal will come to my discussion if it is about how Obama has FAILED? NO, sometimes you have to get down to their level and 'speak' to their concerns, which at the moment is 'Romney's out of touch' and 'Romney is a rich guy' who cares little for Americans.

If thats Obama's plan it will backfire. In this country we dont look down on people for being successful. This is the land of opportunity. people can start with nothing and end up rich if they are smart and work hard. Obama better be careful how he does that tatic...last time i checked he was very rich himself. so i guess that makes him out of touch too huh?

EXACTLY.

http://blackhawkpartners.com/blog.aspx?id=42 [i]Socialist regimes try to guarantee the value of things rather than the ownership of them. Thus socialism tends to destroy the value, which depends on dedicated ownership. In the United States, on the other hand, the government normally guarantees only the right to property, not the worth of it. The belief that wealth consists not in ideas, attitudes, moral codes, and mental disciplines but in definable and static things that can be seized and redistributed is the materialist superstition. It stultified the works of Marx and other prophets of violence and envy. It betrays every person who seeks to redistribute wealth by coercion. It balks every socialist revolutionary who imagines that by seizing the so-called means of production he can capture the crucial capital of an economy. It baffles nearly all conglomerateurs, who believe they can safely enter new industries by buying rather than by learning them. Capitalist means of production are not land, labor, or capital but minds and hearts. The wealth of America isn't an inventory of goods; it's an organic, living entity, a fragile, pulsing fabric of ideas, expectations, loyalties, moral commitments, visions, and people. To vivisect it for redistribution would eventually kill it. As Mitterrand's French technocrats found early in the 1980s, the proud new socialist owners of complex systems of wealth soon learn they are administering an industrial corpse rather than a growing corporation. That is why the single most important economic issue of our time – and one that impacts the poor and middle class alike – will be how we treat the very rich among us.[/i]

Compare with this from SocialistWorker.org [i]Even those workers lucky enough to make a comfortable living from their wages are only employed because their labor, together with other workers, ultimately produces returns--or profits--for the capitalists. So "creating" jobs is hardly a charitable act. This is the most basic reason that the property and money of capitalists isn't really "theirs." It was produced by workers in the first place. THE CAPITALIST class earns profits because it owns and controls what Karl Marx called the means of production--from the factories, offices and stores, to the machines and technology, to the land and raw materials. The system of private property is the legal means for the tiny minority to ensure that it controls what is produced using the means of production, not the majority that does the work. More than being in a position to steal a portion of the workers' labor through profits, the capitalists are also able to dictate how and what is produced.[/i]

What is 'labor'? When we labor, we are given wages. Our labor is a commodity. We can sell it to the highest bidder on the job market. When we do this, we trade that labor for wages, money. It is ours no longer. It is the same with ideas. EXCEPT for one thing, a person with an idea can create something from that idea and sell it. Some folks don't (and I am not being mean) have saleable ideas. Many do, and they start businesses. Create jobs, and take risks that that idea will be useful and saleable.

Funny how no one wants to question the tax payer dollar spent on Romney, but they want to bash Michelle Obama. I am sure that has nothing to do with their political party!!!

Because the secret service protection was given to HIM not his horse and ok'd obviously by the current administration. And us right wingers don't think it is our right or our place to despise someone for their sucess. And Michelle Obama is SPENDING TAX PAYERS MONEY, not her own.

Such a funny response. I am surprised that your language was not censored

Touche. Keep up the good work.

The MSM has decided Romney and his wife are 'out of touch' with us folks who cannot afford a horse. The Democrat campaign has pushed this 'out of touch' meme as well. Sorry you did not find it 'stirring'. So much of what the liberals are pushing isn't. I felt the need to bring the stupidity of their thinking to light. I'm with cynthiann, someone must be asleep at the wheel at headquarters.

The Romney's have the horse because riding is therapy for Ann, who has MS.

And that pretty much sums up to what depths the Obama campaign is willing to sink to to discredit their opponent. They talk about the Romney/Ryan plan and why it is so wrong for America, and offer only what has been shown (by economy and history) not to work, same ol'same ol' as we say here in the Ozarks.

Me too!

ME TOO! We were so oppressed.

With private insurance!

Thank you blue65packer, I see you have not fallen for the 'us against them' mentality as many others have.

Which is why I say, life is not fair, deal with it. The role of government is to ensure that each American has equal opportunity to succeed in life, to pursue their happiness. It is NOT the role of government to ensure that all have equal success at doing so. It is a sad fact that many do not have equal opportunity, and the government insures they don't, by denying such things as school vouchers because the government favors the unions who don't want competition for their teachers.

And the amount of giving that Romney does, the help he give to those less fortunate is stagering. He takes his responsibility as his brother's keeper very seriously.