Any business that can't compete within an industry, be it because of labor costs, outdated machinery, poor management or poor product quality, is by definition inefficient. Inefficiency results in financial failure and the classification no longer a going concern.

Are you a business person?

What part of business fundamentals is it that you fail to comprehend?

Actually, I called SOME of them incompetent. Stop dodging the question.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

What makes you say he's a whiner?

Um... because when he opens his mouth, he whines.

That was the first clue...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

It really bugs me how polluted George Bush has made the political environment. It's been polluted for far too long with cheap shots and personal attacks. You see it all over this thread.

I like Ron Paul because he gets down to some very basic Republican values that have been hijacked for so long that it never occured to me that I liked the traditional Republican platform of little gov't interference, trade with all, entanglements with none, no nation-building, living within our means, giving the states more power and the people more liberty.

Keep trashing the guy or me as much as you want, it only says that you're stuck having faith in a system that's been wasteful and lazy and arrogant for far too long.

We shouldn't have troops in Germany, Japan and elsewhere. It's a truth so fundamental and lost that it took Ron Paul to point it out to us to make us go, "so WHY are we there in the first place?". His big-picture view is so correct and adheres to such core American values that it's ok that I disagree with him on three or four other things.

Ron Paul remains the only truthful candidate for president in both parties.

How can a Republican who is for the wars win in 2008 with the polls the way they are right now? Apparently things have cooled off these last 4 months in Iraq, but Bush is still pulling in record low ratings of 32% job approval.

The polls in the primaries probably are accurate since they focus on calls that are made to registered Republicans who've voted for Bush two times. Other polls, as seen on YouTube, don't have Paul as an option or terminate the call if you choose him or Hunter or Tancredo. The polls do not include many Independents and Democrats who've switched parties to vote in the primaries.

A lot of things were said about Reagan when he ran. A lot of people tried to ignore him, he polled low throughout, and then rose up and won big.

I'm still not sure about what will happen next week, but I do know for sure that Ron Paul will do considerably better than the lousy poll numbers he's gotten so far.

Aside from your opinion, which is all you seem to be giving, can you give examples?

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, I just want to understand why you would think that.

I have been reading through the transcript from the October 11, 2000 Presidential debate and have found a lot of good quotes, here is one:

"[Somalia] Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either."

"I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before."

George W. Bush
10/11/2000

The very tone of his voice is whining. Watch any of the debates and, every time he opens his mouth, it sounds like to cats in a garbage can...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Looks like Ron Paul came in 5th in Iowa. Good job guys.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Well, Ron Paul didn't surprise anyone tonight, but at the same time, it is finally true that he is better than the 3 or 4% he gets in many polls. I'm glad he finished ahead of Rudy, was hoping he could edge out either Thompson or McCain.

Iowa was always going to be difficult for him, which is why he's put more focus on New Hampshire. McCain, too. NH is just a smarter state with more independent-minded voters and for Paul, 10% is a nice start, and now he has to build on it state by state. It's still a climb, but Paul is running hard all the way to Super Tuesday in February.

Yep. With 10% of the vote. Now all he needs is a miracle to get the Republican nomination. Nothing would make me happier than to see him as president, but I don't think he can do it as the Republican candidate. Maybe as an independent, though.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

I do see your point. He may even get fourth or even third in a state or two. How many delegates would that get him?

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Bill Clinton got 3% of the Iowa Caucus vote in 1992. Iowa is rarely an indicator.

Iowa is not a big indicator, that's true. My feeling is that it's going to come down to Huckabee, McCain, and Paul. In a few days, the story will continue, and we'll see Romney and Thompson faulter in NH since it's a much less religious and much more Independent-minded state. That will give Paul and McCain a bump.

I just don't know where that puts Huckabee and Giuliani. Huckabee is polling very low in NH, but he may continue to pick up the religious vote, which will spell the downfall of Romney and Thompson.

My predictions for Iowa were almost bang-on, with Huckabee winning, Romney 2nd, and McCain and Thompson 3rd. I felt that Edwards was going to do well, but he's still got a struggle ahead of him because Obama's showing might give him a very razor-thin edge in NH, and it will certainly improve his standing among black voter-heavy South Carolina after that. If Obama gets Independents to show up for him again on Tuesday, I predict it'll be the knockout blow. If Clinton hangs on and wins in NH, it completely changes things and ups the possibility of some kind of brokered convention scenario.

My feeling about Ron Paul is that scoring double digits in a "we vote for character and religion" state like Iowa bodes well for him. I think there is a much better chance for him to finish 3rd now in NH and really up his profile.

Establishment Republicans will go with McCain over Thompson, so Fred is on borrowed time.

The bottom line tonight is that when we heard Obama's speech and saw his crowd, you couldn't escape the feeling that there's something happening in the Obama campaign. He reminded me of Bobby Kennedy.

Why?

That suggests that Paul doesn't make a big deal out of religion, which is fine. But that statement also suggests that he might be lacking in character.

Way to support your favorite...

Everyone knows Mark Spitz won seven gold medals in Munich. Nobody remembers who took the bronze medals in those same races...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"