Your retarded, please explain what he has done, let's go I'll wait.
.
At least Romney has governed a state, where he had to work with allies across party lines to effect policies and programs; and he started and managed businesses where he renews confidence in economic recovery by people who are in similar positions to create jobs. (there is an email going around, about Romney's credits in public service, including unpaid)
However, if investors are afraid that Obama as President believes in taxing productive companies to fund govt, they have no incentive to invest if they are going to be penalized.
The work to fix govt and turn around the economy is not done by Obama or Romney.
If you look at the work done by followers of Obama and followers of Romney, I would rather the independent types who support Romney be in charge, not the dependent types who sit around and wait for govt.*
I am more concerned about "leadership style," and adhering to the Constitution in order to protect and include all interests of all Americans from all parties and views. Since Romney is moderate, he is better able to cover the range of conservatives while also including many liberals by not being too far right-wing. However, Obama is not conservative or centrist enough as a liberal to do the same thing, and to cover as wide a range of the population *especially the key sectors with the capacity to invest and create jobs.*
Obama getting elected depends on getting the lower educated populations to come out in numbers with promises to help the minority interests by using govt (instead of promoting independent programs that would be self-sustainaing but won't get him elected to office); while Romney getting elected depends on staying centered in the middle so he doesn't turn away other moderate or liberal voters by being hijacked by right-wing conservative agenda.
He has to stick to the Constitution to satisfy both conservatives and liberals, and I believe he can do a better job of enforcing "rule of law" than Obama who puts party agenda first.
We can either elect a President who inspires people to DEPEND on the Democrat Party and the govt instead of doing the work OURSELVES (as I believe and try to help fellow Democrats/Republicans etc. to implement independent and sustainable solutions to stop govt waste and abuses), or a President like Romney who represents independent business people who have successfully applied the abundance mentality, where the more you encourage investment, the more it pays off and generates more jobs and more revenue for the govt and the economy.
=================================================
* Maybe I am talking to the wrong people - but it seems that most of the people I know voting for Obama want to depend on govt to "fix things for them." While the people who want to get involved THEMSELVES in fixing the economy and health care system directly tend to support Romney (or the Greens or other parties where you fix things yourself).
Most of the people I know who are active in fixing things themselves have COMPLAINTS against the Democrats for not helping but only focused on getting elected (including Democrats complaining about Party leaders being exclusive). The people I know most active in reforming things THEMSELVES, either support Romney or they are Greens or Occupy or Tea Party. I only know a few Democrats who work independently to fix things themselves, and I am one of them and I don't support Obama because he doesn't encourage this.
Last election, I supported my fellow Democrats in helping nominate the leader they wanted even though I voted for McCain as the stronger Constitutionalist. And I watched as these same followers of Obama did NOTHING to implement change but waited on HIM to do it!
I believe his style of leadership and representation would work best in educational and corganizational outreach and community development of programs, but not through govt.
One program I think he could implement would involve assessing restitution owed to taxpayers for govt or corporate fraud/corruption, issuing federal bonds against those debts and damages, and investing that into affected communities to rebuild jobs and the economy.
No one has ever figured out a plan for assessing or implementing reparations, and I believe Obama could organize the resources and leadership to do this; not as President because there are too many other responsibilities, but I thought he could do this as Vice President.
I was hoping to work with fellow Democrats to implement this model for restitution and reforming the Fed based on localized debts paid back by the actual wrongdoers responsible for unauthorized or illicit costs to taxpayers. But I've had no luck working on this because the Democrat Party and followers mainly focus resources on elections and not in investing in solutions directly. So I have more success working with independent Green, Occupy, and even Republicans than Fellow Democrats.
So whatever leadership style Romney has that represents the citizens who believe in free enterprise to fix problems directly yourself, that is the spirit and attitude that is going to turn this country around. Not the attitude of waiting on Party or electing people to govt to fix things from DC.
I believe in a lot of the same ideals as Obama, but have enough experience working with constituents to know this takes a lot more groundwork to set up and build per community.
There are no shortcuts by dictating such programs from the top down; it has to be per state, per city, per community or the politics gets so messed up, that's why people feel they are hopeless victims and start depending on govt or party to lobby for them. This type of leadership Obama has can work on the grassroots level where people take responsibility locally, but it is DISASTROUS on the federal level to try to build things on social relations.
That belongs on the local levels where programs can be built and implemented directly!
==================================================
We need leadership that will stick to rule of law, and enforcing Constitutional values that unite the country, not partisan bias that divides people by party. Under Constitutional govt, we would have equal protection to organize and direct our local resources to solve our own problems democratically, NOT depend on govt programs or federal mandates.
NOTE: I am a Democrat and support fellow Democrat and Obama votters to enact these ideals of the party by local leadership and programs based on EXERCISING Constitutional principles, instead of depending on govt. It should be the other way around, where the people lead and the govt reflects what works -- NOT electing people to dictate or promise policies. So I am certainly not against Democrats or Obama, but find the best way to implement the goals of the Party are to work locally first: enforce the Constitution, hold corporations/govt/citizens equally to uphold the same Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment, and Code of Ethics for Govt service, and work together to develop and replicate cost-effective programs OURSELVES without depending on govt or party to "impose" anything. If solutions are truly effective, they would be supported across the board, without having to play party politics. The parties help to organize people around issues, but should never be used to bully or coerce by majority-rule, much less to overrule the Constitutional protection of opposing interests by putting partisan agenda above the interests of the entire population.
He would've died before 18 in some other crime....that is my bet.
at you for even remotely trying to say that these churches haven't crossed the line. But, it's okay when it's for your 'cause' of the day. 
