Shared publicly  - 
"Hilarious and all-too apt analysis of Mitt Romney in terms of quantum physics (in contrast to the old Newt-onian physics):

"Before Mitt Romney, those seeking the presidency operated under the laws of so-called classical politics, laws still followed by traditional campaigners like Newt Gingrich. Under these Newtonian principles, a candidate’s position on an issue tends to stay at rest until an outside force — the Tea Party, say, or a six-figure credit line at Tiffany — compels him to alter his stance, at a speed commensurate with the size of the force (usually large) and in inverse proportion to the depth of his beliefs (invariably negligible). This alteration, framed as a positive by the candidate, then provokes an equal but opposite reaction among his rivals.

"But the Romney candidacy represents literally a quantum leap forward. It is governed by rules that are bizarre and appear to go against everyday experience and common sense...

"Nevertheless, close and repeated study of his campaign in real-world situations has yielded a standard model that has proved eerily accurate in predicting Mitt Romney’s behavior in debate after debate, speech after speech..."

Romney's behavior is then explained in terms of various aspects of quantum theory. Truly funny for physics nerds.
Glenn Snead's profile photoBrandon Clarke's profile photoTim O'Reilly's profile photoSean O'Reilly's profile photo
That is an interesting way to label the Mitt :)
Reminds me of a joke I heard:

A liberal, a moderate and a conservative walk into a bar. The bartender says "Hi Mitt!"
Here in Canada we used to have a winning party called the "Progessive Conservatives". It made sense to me (our first Prime Minister was one of them). Socially progressive and fiscally conservative.

I get that. I don't get Mitt Romney.
I don't defend Mitt, but the current administration also withers under the same scrutiny.
DAN DYAR^^^^^^ Y dont you defend Mitt And Just to tell you i argee with you!
it may be in the end the difference between those with a background in the legislature vs the executive - effective governance in a truly diverse society does not lend itself to simple (or simplistic depending on your spin) position statements, often it seems to me, from my narrow anecdotal experience that those running with prior executive branch experience are more easily painted with the 'flip-flop or issue-fuzzy brush' then from a purely legislative the end the exec's, assuming they tried to do a reasonable job for all the people IMO, had to deal with the proverbial buck landing on their desk, on their watch and have internalized the fact that in many issue driven decisions the reality and only final answer is - it depends. it screws with the head of basically honest people then trying to win highly partisan debates, which I would say the primaries are by definition... all that said - I like good writing and good wit, full stop.. thanks for that article reference, a great read.
hope and change, no hidden politics, everything done in the open, live on CNN, I voted for the wars in iraq and afghanistan, I don't want to raise taxes, yak, yak, yak. Barack Obama running for president
Hah ha! He's filled with aluminium powder! I knew it.
Thats Bullshit and I am a catholic
Seeing you in whats hot everyday is almost as big a boar as your unhidden liberal bias. I will chear the day you arent cluttering up the feed and we can see something of variety and substance.
Actually I'm a crazy christain that believes in haven't a good time but i am also a pretty serious MF that will express my opinion and enjoys it .... so what the hell am I',m typpin this
At least he knows how to spell. I am 13, and even I can read and write when I have to. Not to denigrate you, of course.
(Hint: Denigrate means I think you are stupid.)
Ha I believe in haven a good time but i'm also one of the most serious MF you'll ever meet so what can I say except hope all is wel
See I'm kindda new to this crap but now my phone is starting to talk to me also which is cool
I am A business man and I understand you are haven trouble gettin thing started , maybe I can help .Have been invovled in bus. 4 25ytrs and do know a thing are 2.
i m highly ifluenced by sir Roomney. please go ahead and hit the ground hard.
Ha I don't have a big head and am fighting my own body at this tims time but its just another thing and I like helpin people.
tell me how this can give me the latist stock info concerninging business
Why not ture your site in to a major business site and give 10 mins updates along with recent news for TW Price ,Rugerts, Bloomberg amd I have moore but its late.
This may be old news but what the heck..
+Neil Lebeau, I guess those liberals will be first on the pyres when the theocracy comes...? Santorum almost talks like a beardless Ahmedinejad at times.
does anybody have a link showing his inconsistency? I have not seen any yet.
Another ridiculous and very lame attempt at "bringing out" Mitt Romney's flaws. Why are people who have jobs as "professionals" allowed to publish such garbage? Aren't "professionals" supposed to be, you know, professionals in their field? Instead, we keep getting articles that look like they are written by some High School teenager attempting to attack someone running for Class President: immature, inaccurate, absurd, and written for the sole purpose of "looking cool".

Thankfully, there are many who can see beyond the idiocy of such attempts. For example, the Etch A Sketch comment. Every single politician completely changes their overall tactics depending on whom they are running against. Obviously, Mitt Romney's tactics in his run for the Presidency will change. Right now he's battling against two other Republicans. He would be a total idiot to keep the same tactics once he has the nomination and is running against a Democrat (President Obama). Why is that so hard to understand? Once again, "professional journalists" acting like High School kids trying to look popular...

How does one appear to be a Liberal and Conservative at the same time while running as a Conservative? Easy, they don't pander to the extremists on both sides. Take myself, for example, and the issue of abortion. I do not believe abortion should ever be considered except in very rare cases (rape/incest, mother's life in jeopardy, fetus will not survive due to major complications, etc.). However, I do believe that people can make their own choices. I do not believe in forcing others to accept one way of thinking. Therefore, I do support leaving the option of abortion open for those who do not believe as I do. The same can be said for smoking. I would never do it myself and the world would be a better place if no one did. However, that is a choice everyone must make for themselves. Therefore, I would never support a ban on cigarettes/cigars. People must make their own decisions and live with the consequences of their own actions.

Finally, for those who are against someone merely for the sake of religion...really? Are you that shallow? Are you that big of a bigot? Open your eyes, there are many wonderful and upstanding individuals in this world. To reject someone simply based on their personal beliefs with respect to God is plain idiotic. And people who think that way are not too far from the ideological thinking of extreme racists that allow their beliefs to carry them towards hate crimes. And to make the whole idea of rejecting someone based on religion even more ridiculous, the majority who refuse to vote for Mitt Romney solely based on his religion are "Christians". Yes, that's in quotes, because the people who claim to be Christians and reject a good person simply based on his religion are not governing themselves in a Christian manner. As I recall, Jesus taught to love everyone. Not to love everyone...except the gays or the lesbians or the Mormons or whatever group people seem to choose to exclude from "everyone".
There is a lot of truth to this but it cuts both ways. Note the libs quoting fossilized nonsense too
Much the same could be said about Obama. He is both a paternal liberal AND a corporate lackey conservative. Obama therefore occupies two states at the same time, only for some reason this doesn't produce a release of wealth only a special type of radiation which bathes his supporters in a kind of glow. Maybe Obama is the first political quantum singularity?
The "real" is divided into the actual and the possible. He is possible contender but not an actual candidate
This is pretty funny too--the book he is the author of: David Javerbaum is the author of “The Last Testament: A Memoir by God.” What a wag.
Add a comment...