It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Calling It Now: Romney/Cain 2012 Ticket

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


Ron Paul had to go with the republican party. Many people aren't understanding that we have a two party system, and that's the unfortunate way it is set up right now. He wanted to avoid another 2008. Going with the republican party is his best chance. Remember Ross Perot? Independents get shut out every time, it's not fair but that's how it is.
edit on 29-9-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)


Then the system is broken and the populace should demand a change and demand that all corporate money be banned from politics, and if a politician is caught accepting money/bribes from the banks and corps, they should be charged with treason and hung in a public execution.

Sitting here, and cheerleading behind candidates who have no chance, or supporting the lesser of two evils has gotten us nowhere. The system needs to be brought down and purged of all current criminals parading around as public servants.

Not to worry though, the populace has been pillaged. The system will bring itself down now. Sit back and enjoy the dog and pony show.
edit on 29-9-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


I definitely understand and I agree with you for the most part. Unfortunately, Americans are still sold on our current system. In the mean time, I'm not really sure what you suggest we do. I guess I could shout from the rooftops "Change the system!!" but that won't do any good.

ETA: I also agree with the choosing of "lesser evils". In November of 2008, I didn't vote because of that very reason.

Ron Paul does not fit in that category at all IMO so I'll be voting for him till he drops out, or I'm told he won't be on the ballot.


edit on 29-9-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


I definitely understand and I agree with you for the most part. Unfortunately, Americans are still sold on our current system. In the mean time, I'm not really sure what you suggest we do. I guess I could shout from the rooftops "Change the system" but that won't do any good.



Nope. No need. The system is collapsing as we speak, which is why you had a Barack Obama elected(because the populace wanted something different from corporate politics and were shammed), and now Ron Paul.

The people can only take so much more of bull# from our government before blood will be spilled. Stay safe.

Edit: I also did not vote for Obama in '08. It took 5 minutes of simple research into who his backers were to decide that I would no longer support this sham called the US presidential elections.
edit on 29-9-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


What we need are extreme measures for extreme times. Something tells me you aren't versed on Ron Paul's policies.

Anyway, if your scenario is correct, who will be spilling this blood? Democrats? Republicans? Non-voters? Independents?

Who will you vote in once that blood is spilled? Will the process start all over again?
edit on 29-9-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


What we need are extreme measures for extreme times. Something tells me you aren't versed on Ron Paul's policies.

Anyway, if your scenario is correct, who will be spilling this blood? Democrats? Republicans? Non-voters? Independents?

Who will you vote in once that blood is spilled? Will the process start all over again?
edit on 29-9-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)


I am versed on Paul's policies, and I do not agree with him in several areas. I do support his positions on foreign policy and drugs.

You won't be able to put a label on who is spilling blood. All of the labels will go poof! when SHTF and the rule of law breaks down on this country due to inequality, theft, and criminal activity from our so called public servants.

Who will I vote for after that? Who knows. I hope I'm still around to see something new.
edit on 29-9-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
As long as the none of the runners drop out, they will be on the first round of ballets so if you want Rep. Ron Paul (R) for President in 2012, simply click his name on your voting machine and see what happens.

Current Top 4 i believe in order

Former Mass. Gov Mitt Romney

Texas Gov. Rick Perry

Former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain

Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachman


I wouldnt mind seeing a combination of Cain/Paul/Johnson/Huntsman/Bachman

Romeny to me is another Obama
Perry, I dont know just a feeling he is also a Former Democrat so who knows ugh



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I've been saying for years that Romney is the man that America needs. He can reach across the aisle. He's a businessman and if a businessman was EVER needed in America now is the time. If he wins the nomination, which is a big if todays political climate, the GOP are falling all over themselves, he has a shot to beat Obama. There is no other candidate that can. That's the bottom line. You have to put aside the little things. Look at the big picture. Or would you prefer another 4 years of Obama?

Would Romney be different? Somewhat imo. He can align disparate ideologies. Will the PTB allow him enough latitude to do that? Unseen. The GOP has to stop the infighting though.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I've been saying for years that Romney is the man that America needs. He can reach across the aisle. He's a businessman and if a businessman was EVER needed in America now is the time.


Yes, because businessmen have done nothing to bring us to this point of despair and uncertainty.

Give me a goddamn break



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


GIVE ME A BREAK

at the non businessman sitting in the oval office who thinks money grows on trees



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatislave
Yes, because businessmen have done nothing to bring us to this point of despair and uncertainty.

Give me a goddamn break


Are you a conservative? We're talking about a Republican candidate here. If you aren't your point is nullified. Propaganda maybe. Maybe you should look into Mitt's record when it comes to business. He's taken businesses out of bankruptcy and made them viable. There's your "goddam break". Are you willing to take it? And for the record, so that you won't look stupid later, I'm Canadian. I'm looking at this from the outside.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 

Romney care is enough of a reason for me to vote against him. He is for socialized medicine. I despise socialism in all forms.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Romney care is enough of a reason for me to vote against him. He is for socialized medicine. I despise socialism in all forms.


2 points.

1- Do you know what socialism is?

2- Did he give his constituents what they wanted and are they happy with it? I'd Google before answering.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


GIVE ME A BREAK

at the non businessman sitting in the oval office who thinks money grows on trees


Hmmm...just like the businessman named George W. Bush?

You guys are nuts if you think these "businessmen" will get this country on track or give a damn about you, Joe. Q. Public!!!!



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by illuminatislave
Yes, because businessmen have done nothing to bring us to this point of despair and uncertainty.

Give me a goddamn break


Are you a conservative? We're talking about a Republican candidate here. If you aren't your point is nullified. Propaganda maybe. Maybe you should look into Mitt's record when it comes to business. He's taken businesses out of bankruptcy and made them viable. There's your "goddam break". Are you willing to take it? And for the record, so that you won't look stupid later, I'm Canadian. I'm looking at this from the outside.


You're Canadian and also quite sensitive, I see


Take this from an American perspective chum, who has watched businessmen take this country and destroy it: just because you can run a business does not mean that you are qualified to run a COUNTRY. Your belief is profoundly ignorant.

I could give a damn about Mitt Romney's record. Whose interests would he serve if he became president is the most important question, and I think we can safely say that it won't be the general public.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatislave
You're Canadian and also quite sensitive, I see


Yes but I've gotten a cream from my doctor that will make me less sensitive.



Your belief is profoundly ignorant.


Your insult is noticed. Not just by me but all the readers.


I could give a damn about Mitt Romney's record.


You would rather vote a president in because he's better at Dungeons and Dragons?


Whose interests would he serve if he became president is the most important question, and I think we can safely say that it won't be the general public.


Now we get to where the cheese binds. The president has limited powers. Congress is where law is made. Yes the Prez has a veto but a good one would make concessions. Has Obama? Would Romney? And of the 2, which would you trust?



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Romney care is enough of a reason for me to vote against him. He is for socialized medicine. I despise socialism in all forms.


2 points.

1- Do you know what socialism is?

2- Did he give his constituents what they wanted and are they happy with it? I'd Google before answering.
1)Socialism is where the government taxes the living crap out of you in order to give you "free" stuff you may or may not have wanted or needed. Synergistically, the government also gains more power and control over you by distributing these "freebies".
2) Considering that his constituents were the socialist republic of Massachusetts, they probably are happy. The followers of Jim Jones were happy with their kool aid; that doesn't mean I want any.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatislave
 



Take this from an American perspective chum, who has watched businessmen take this country and destroy it: just because you can run a business does not mean that you are qualified to run a COUNTRY. Your belief is profoundly ignorant.

OTOH, we now know for sure that being a community organizer does not qualify you for the position.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


i have a simpler definetion

socialism: the government gives you everything you have instead of earning it yourself



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
1)Socialism is where the government taxes the living crap out of you in order to give you "free" stuff you may or may not have wanted or needed.


Like Social Security? Everyone's waiting on that puppy. Are you not waiting on your retirement? That IS socialistic.


2) Considering that his constituents were the socialist republic of Massachusetts, they probably are happy. The followers of Jim Jones were happy with their kool aid; that doesn't mean I want any.


Cool, I get it. I'll respond to people that actually know political science and not those that are deluded.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid


Like Social Security? Everyone's waiting on that puppy. Are you not waiting on your retirement? That IS socialistic.
Correct. Socialistic and unconstitutional. It needs to be done away with.


2) Considering that his constituents were the socialist republic of Massachusetts, they probably are happy. The followers of Jim Jones were happy with their kool aid; that doesn't mean I want any.



Cool, I get it. I'll respond to people that actually know political science and not those that are deluded.
I see, I detest socialism, so you resort to an insult instead of trying to argue your position. I get that. Here, we would call people like that democrats. To democrats, if you disagree with their socialist agenda you are racist. I guess in Canada if someone disagrees with socialism they are "deluded".



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join