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.

 

Why I chose Mitt Romney over Ron Paul and Barack Huessein Obama II

page: 11
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Why did you decide to write Obama's middle name in your thread title, but not Ron Paul or Mitt Romney's??? Is is the Huessein? Are you trying to compare him to Sadaam or something? Just curious...Maybe Im reading too much into a title, but Obama's middle name didnt seem necessary...




posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
If we didn’t have the 2 party system then people like me would actually have a CONSERVATIVE to vote for rather than an old foolish libertarian and a fat cat RINO! We need more choices then let the chips fall where they may.


You obviously wouldn't know a true conservative if one bit you on the @ss!



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   


Don't have to imagine if there were no liberals all anyone has to do is look at China and see how well they are doing


Thank you, a republican finally admits what they really want for Americans (other than themselves and the wealthy of course). You want us to live on a dollar a day and get shot if we ever protest the government, thanks.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
With people posting threads like this, it's clear how GREAT a job the brainwash system is doing. Good job Illuminati!



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Whats the problem?

As long as Americans can get what they want their 8 weeks of vacations and their double time and their triple time the holiday pay etc to get the iphones and ipads.

That is the price that was paid there always is.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by no time
 



Seriously, as if being in all these countries with a military presence is what has protected us? What has it protected us from exactly?


Have any legit countries attacked us? As a matter of fact, have there ever been wars waged on US soil by a foreign country with boots on the ground??

Our bases are a projection of power and a serious deterrent to attack! It’s worked well so far. I’m not drinking the RP and OBAMA Kool Aid about blaming US presence overseas for all of the hatred of America. The hatred comes from the illegitimate wars. You buffoons apparently don’t know the difference between CAPABILITY to wage war and ACTUAL WAR.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
The good Hussein or the bad one the good Barack or the bad one....



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I'll stick with President Obama.

Romney = Bush Jr, Jr. Not to mention his latest Lyndon B. Johnson(esque) attempts at delegate stealing.

Ron Paul, I like him as a person. However, he's too old and we'd end up with his VP as president. Since he has not stated a preference for VP... it makes it harder to even consider him.

The real thing I am looking forwards to is the House and Senate elections. I have a list of folks I am voting -against.- Besides, what ever puppet you put in the White House, its the House and Senate that make or break the Country.

M.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Hrm. accidental double-post somehow.

edit on 6-5-2012 by Bakatono because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Bakatono
 



Cool. Then don't vote for any R's or D's anymore. Get your friends and family to vote for something other than R or D. The only reason we have a two party system is because we allow it.


Well the “L” is just as friggen bad.

I’ll cast my vote in November and there won’t be any “L” next to it. I’m tired of the system but not tired enough to throw it away!




Then you are not tired of the system. If you were, you would throw it away. Otherwise, you are just one of the blowhards who rants and raves but does absolutely nothing about it.

Welcome to the 99%



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


I'm pretty sure that this is what gogo was trying to get at on page 5:

Definitions:

Liberal- Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

Therefore, a liberal government is a big amount of policy, regulation, military, ect.

Conservative- Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

Therefore, a conservative government is a small amount of policy, regulation, military, ect.

Maybe someone already posted this but i didn't see it and It seemed to me there was some confusion over this on page 5.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
What this country needs is policies that encourage people to be more responsible.

A Big Government paid for with our tax dollars, allows Mega Corporations and Financial Institutions to enact policies favorable to them to the detriment of the rest of the nation.

The Open Border Policy with Mexico, the Trade Pacts, the giving Tax Breaks for companies to go overseas etc
and the subsidizing of welfare to keep cheap labor here all benefit the top elites and hurts the rest of America.

These are not liberal of conservative policies but fascists policies that help the elites in the Financial Industry and the Multi-National Corporations whom buy are politicians, or like Romney, become a politician to help out the same cronies.

In order to bring responsibility back to all involved, we need to shrink the government down to a constitutional level where everyone is at the same level of the game. It is irresponsible when Corporations or Financial Institutions can go into government or buy off politicians in their circles and be propped up with my tax dollars.

They need to sink or swim in the business world like all other business's.
It is the small business's also that employ most people of the people in this country.

That is why I support Ron Paul.
Bring back Responsibility to this country and all will flourish.



Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by jacobe001
 


I don’t believe in fascism either but voting RP is voting for anarchy and national suicide.

Big corporate men create JOBS, which we need MORE OF in this country. I do agree with you that we need less corporate interest in government. My biggest worry with Romney is more cronyism!
Agreed!


Couldn’t disagree more!





posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 



You obviously wouldn't know a true conservative if one bit you on the @ss!


I don’t even know where you’re coming from because your post lacked any substance but I’ll take a stab anyway. Conservatives and Libertarians both believe in limited government and free enterprise but part ways on social issues such as drugs, gambling and prostitution. Conservative believe in strong foriegn policy and national defense (not wars for profit) while Libertarians want a version of isolationism.

I know the difference, Ma’am. RP is dangerous!



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Iran's attitude is a direct result of our actions in the middle east. Anyone who can't see this is either ignorant of history or stupid/blind. Iran does not need nukes to attack Israel. They have that capability now. If all they wanted was to wipe Israel off the map with no regard to their own country because they all believe some end time prophecy THEY COULD DO IT NOW. No nukes required. Gawd. Do you know what military offense means? It means killing people who haven't hurt you because they might one day do so. Bad bad slippery slope to go down my friend.

As for the other stuff. Politicians will promise the world but deliver very little.

No freaking way taxes are ever getting eliminated for the poor. I'd bet my life on it.

I like planned parenthood. Is it really their fault for offering the service? Not in my book.

Corporations need tax cuts?



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Bakatono
 



Then you are not tired of the system. If you were, you would throw it away. Otherwise, you are just one of the blowhards who rants and raves but does absolutely nothing about it.


You don’t throw away the baby with the bath water. We need to FIX not REMOVE the system. There is a group trying to do that and I'm actively involved. It's called the Tea Party!

And I assure you I've sacrificed more for this country than you ever will.


Welcome to the 99%


NOT HARDLY, bud! I have a job, I pay my bills, I don’t use drugs and I sure as hell don’t run around destroying property and assaulting people while calling it a peaceful protest.


edit on 6-5-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by no time
 



Seriously, as if being in all these countries with a military presence is what has protected us? What has it protected us from exactly?


Have any legit countries attacked us? As a matter of fact, have there ever been wars waged on US soil by a foreign country with boots on the ground??

Our bases are a projection of power and a serious deterrent to attack! It’s worked well so far. I’m not drinking the RP and OBAMA Kool Aid about blaming US presence overseas for all of the hatred of America. The hatred comes from the illegitimate wars. You buffoons apparently don’t know the difference between CAPABILITY to wage war and ACTUAL WAR.



Been in a war? Just curious.

Also, don't confuse our bases overseas as protecting us when we are actually protected by thousands upon thousands of miles of ocean on either side. The protection is because they can't reach us. The Japanese could really only get to Pearl, and that was 70 years ago. No one can fly, swim, sail or float their way across the oceans without us knowing about it.

And in answer to your question and its very specific criteria: No, we have not been attacked by a "legitimate" country with "boots on the ground". (meaning that the Japanese don't count since they didn't occupy Hawaii nor did their sub attacks on California because they did not occupy San Diego or LA. Additionally, none of the terrorist attacks count because they are not legitimate)

ETA: bases in places like S Korea are not "capability" to wage war. They are a reason. They are a reason to retaliate with exceptional force if N Korea attacks them. They stand no chance in repelling N Korea and everyone knows it. Everyone also knows that it will be a political victory for us vs them if they did attack and we would have the world's support to wipe them off the map. So, perhaps you don't know what "capability" to wage war means.

edit on 6-5-2012 by Bakatono because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I see, so you use a point of fact that has been true since the revolutionary war to make your case that this is what has kept us safe? Russia admitted that the only reason they never attacked America was because the citizen population was ARMED and DANGEROUS. I can only state that the bases are doing nothing now but making people build up armaments to defend themselves. At least the bases in areas of instability.

So, you believe that fear of America keeps everyone safe? that sir is an unsustainable foreign policy. Maybe you should look at the fall of the Roman empire, or even the British empire for that fact. I doubt you have the collective understanding of history to even realize that we are doing nothing but repeating mistakes made in the past and hoping for better results, because we are so much more powerful than those that have tried the same in the past.

That's like watching your friend get bitten by a wild animal, and then saying, no dummy you do it this way. We all can see in our daily lives how that turns out. Both dummies get bitten.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Whats the problem?

As long as Americans can get what they want their 8 weeks of vacations and their double time and their triple time the holiday pay etc to get the iphones and ipads.

That is the price that was paid there always is.


Oh is that right?

Why don't you ask how many American's get 8 weeks of vacation


How elite are you?

You are the enemy of anyone who doesn't own their own business and you
are clearly out of touch.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
Conservatives and Libertarians both believe in limited government and free enterprise but part ways on social issues such as drugs, gambling and prostitution. Conservative believe in strong foriegn policy and national defense (not wars for profit) while Libertarians want a version of isolationism.

I know the difference, Ma’am. RP is dangerous!


Wrong, sister. You are a typical ignoramus, who thinks she knows the difference between true (paleo) conservatism, and big government liberals in disguise (neo) conservatism. Ron Paul is not a Libertarian, he is a paleoconservative.


Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for a conservative political philosophy found primarily in the United States stressing tradition, limited government, civil society, anti-colonialism, anti-corporatism and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity.[1] Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as "the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture—an identity that is both collective and personal".[2] Paleoconservatism is not expressed as an ideology and its adherents do not necessarily subscribe to any one party line.[3]

Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often highlight their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially regarding issues such as military interventionism, immigration, affirmative action, free trade, and foreign aid, to which they are opposed.[1] They also criticize social welfare and social democracy, which some refer to as the "therapeutic managerial state",[4] the "welfare-warfare state"[5] or "polite totalitarianism".[6] They see themselves as the legitimate heirs to the American conservative tradition.[7]
en.wikipedia.org...


Ron Paul believes in state's rights to regulate such things as drugs and abortion, whereas Libertarians don't believe in any government regulation over such things.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Bakatono
 


Double

Post
edit on 6-5-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join