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

reply to post by Bakatono

Been in a war? Just curious.

Yes…in 2003

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.

That’s absolutely not true. The deterrent is the fact that we can counter strike in seconds because we have assets stationed around the world. That’s called a projection of power.

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)

Then it’s working!

And those ‘assets’ we have overseas now were not in place pre WW2 before the Japanese strike.

Originally posted by seabag
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)

Again, you are not tired of the system if you continue to live within it. Whining about it doesn't count.

Your comment about throwing out the baby with the bathwater is evidence to the fact that you like this system. The problem is that you don't like the current options. You would rather that you had better options to vote for and so you blame the system in you complaints but in all actuality you like it, but would prefer it was skewed to your interests better.

A 3rd party is not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It is practicing democracy. There is nothing in the "system" which mandates 2 parties and 2 parties only. 3 would be just fine. It may actually be better because it would ensure a swing vote in any election or passing of any law, breaking the 2 party gridlock paradigm.

And you are part of the 99%. You may not be acting as you have stereotyped the people who were in NYC but you are just as lazy and apathetic as they are with regards to your ability to affect any real political change. So yes, you are part of the 99% of all the other lazy bastards out there.

Originally posted by pirhanna
Why does the OP only use Obama's middle name?
It calls into question the nature of such a post, and the ethnocentric nature of the one posting.
It borders on racism.

Also, this is a real annoyance of mine - if you are going to post a new thread, SPELL THE TITLE CORRECTLY.

Bah, it just makes you look stupid and/or lazy.

I Tend to Think that the OP is with these type of People of Shear Ignorance !!

McCain Supporter: "Obama is an Arab"

another view

Supporter at McCain Rally Believes Obama is an Arab

is the Reason Why


OMG sad sad ... she sounds like Beverly Hill billy's Grandma

Redneck lady disses Obama



Yet he... BARRACK H. OBAMA was raised with christian Grand parents ....

Hell Tupac Shakur was a Christian not a Muslim !! for Christ sakes !!!

it just his last name from his Grand parents on his father side ...





Found this moments ago and i just had to put this here
a Classic ... of Voting & Supporting of Blind Ignorance
as it shows some People have ( NO ) Fricken Clue about the opponent !!

Hate and Ignorance in America - McCain Palin Rally



OP your not One of these People are you ?

reply to post by braindeadconservatives


How about pondering the meaning of this question:

Why is it cheaper to have a product made 10,000 miles away and have it shipped here than it is to have that same product made less than 1 mile away from where they live?

Someone is out of touch.

reply to post by 27jd

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.

You may call him what you’d like, Ma’am, but I will stick with his self-defined label which is LIBERTARIAN. I will also occasionally call him other names but you can probably guess what those are since you’re so informed.

You apparently don’t know that Conservatives exist as you confuse them with NEO-conservatives. Maybe you should research a little more?

reply to post by seabag


Ok, so you have been to war, so you know that going out and seeking it is foolish.

Additionally, it is the oceans that protect us. First, we can't strike in "seconds". Second, we can still strike quickly from our subs and naval vessels. The crunchies and grunts never strike back immediately, they take waaaay too long to get ready. The Navy is the first to hit. If you want immediate response, ask the Navy. If you want quick and sustained support, ask the AF. If you want a long term engagement to hold ground, get the Marines and then the Army.

Our subs and ships provide that quick strike "deterrent" you speak of. Other than that, it is our nukes and the fact that people just simply don't have the ability to get an army to our shores. It is just logistically not possible.

Which means, the only place they can really attack us is.....

Our bases overseas!


And as I stated, within your highly constrained definition you are correct. Only within that criteria. Removing that criteria, we have been attacked quite frequently, especially at our deterrent bases overseas.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Bakatono

 

Been in a war? Just curious.

Yes…in 2003

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.

That’s absolutely not true. The deterrent is the fact that we can counter strike in seconds because we have assets stationed around the world. That’s called a projection of power.

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)

Then it’s working!

And those ‘assets’ we have overseas now were not in place pre WW2 before the Japanese strike.

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

Its called a projection of power, which is what we want in order to create peace, or war? Someone comes to my face with their projection of power, I usually come out swinging. How exactly are these "projections of power" NOT causing the problem we face with our current foreign policy?

So, when other countries, get to our point of technology, as we will begin to lose our edge in innovation in all markets just as we are starting to lose it in manufacturing, How do these projections of power keep peace in that scenario? because all signs point to America losing ground in innovation. Spending more and more on R and D and getting less and less in return. Projection of power is a joke, and you buy it, because you can't see far enough ahead to see where this road leads.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


I think you're missing the big picture. Obama and Romney are both big government,( coincidentally also pro federal reserve printing money causing inflation, decreasing the value of the dollar) they both support the framework that is already in place which serves to keep americans in a perpetual state of fear. All while the sheeple of America, give up their personal rights willingly, in exchange for a nation free of terrorism.


Wake up. We need radical change and Ron Paul is the one who offers just that.

Since when is a perpetual state of war considered world peace?

Anyone who is not voting for Ron Paul simply does not understand the scope of the problems that exist within our own government.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by braindeadconservatives

 

How about pondering the meaning of this question:

Why is it cheaper to have a product made 10,000 miles away and have it shipped here than it is to have that same product made less than 1 mile away from where they live?

Someone is out of touch.

edit on 6-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

That's an easy one - Free trade vs Fair trade, and the idiots who set up this system didn't care about the sustainability of the system, they only use it to consolidate power and money to accomplish an agenda.

And by idiots that set up the system I am talking about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the major banking cartel that wrote the bill and paid congress to pass it.

Originally posted by seabag

If so, that somehow makes Romney’s platform inaccurate or irrelevant?

Yes, the advertising ads on foxnews,cnn,msnbc,drudge aren't only during commercial breaks. The REAL marketing is during the actual programs. These companies are part of the system and tied to the lobbyist. They don't run news coverage nor unbiased reporting. There purpose is to mold your opinion on who to pick in the coming election. Despite Ron Paul successes none of those news sources ran any coverage on him. Interesting that both the left leaning and the right leaning news organizations decided to black list Ron Paul.

RP supporters get their news from different sources but in the end they use something that is not common among the GOP and DNC loyalist and that is commonsense.

Originally posted by seabag
If you had common sense you’d know that RP’s plan to close ALL military cases overseas at a time when other countries are beefing up their capabilities is a FOOLISH thing to do!

First, You are dealing with this issue of global American hatred because the mainstream GOP and DNC foreign policy. We have been messing and getting involved with there affairs long before 911. Its as simple as you $hit in my back yard then I'm going to $hit in your backyard mentality that got us were we are today.Had you listened to Ron Paul you would have gotten Bin Laden without having to go to war, but lobbyist wouldn't have made billions.

Had we never gotten involved in the middle east they would have never had any reason to even think about us let alone hate us. Had you listened to Ron Paul this wouldn't have been an issue. Had you listened to Bush, Obama,Romney we would have repeated the same mistakes.

Secondly, bringing the troops home does not equate to closing all the military bases overseas. However, why should we be using our tax payers money to operate a base in Germany that stimulates their economy? Why not build a stronger defense back home and use our tax dollars to stimulate our economy? Our military is spread thin around the world and every time we invade or occupy another country we build more enemies. At some point that will become unsustainable and we will get into trouble or we are going to have to dominate the world which has never been done successfully. History has proven this time and time again that all GREAT empires fall when they spread themselves thin and try to become the world police. On Dwight D. Eisenhower exit speech on Jan.17,1961.he warned us about the military industrial complex and its pursuit of profits that can lead us to sought after world conflicts.
www.youtube.com...


If I was a true enemy of the US I would love the US to build more bases around the world and spread themselves so thin to a point they are almost at economic failure and can't sustain their global fleet. Then I could attack them at home where they would be vulnerable. How is it that us being unable to $ustaining all those bases and keeping our majority of our forces overseas not a threat to us back home?


I could go on and on but I don't see the point.

However, I got a feeling that a lot of virtual Romney $upporters are going to start coming out of the wood works in the internet, much like the Obama supporter when the elections start getting closer.



.

reply to post by Bakatono

Ok, so you have been to war, so you know that going out and seeking it is foolish.

I knew that before but…yes!

Additionally, it is the oceans that protect us. First, we can't strike in "seconds".

I believe the Russian’s would disagree. Do you remember the significance of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Explain to us why America was against it!

Second, we can still strike quickly from our subs and naval vessels. The crunchies and grunts never strike back immediately, they take waaaay too long to get ready. The Navy is the first to hit. If you want immediate response, ask the Navy. If you want quick and sustained support, ask the AF. If you want a long term engagement to hold ground, get the Marines and then the Army.

Our subs and ships provide that quick strike "deterrent" you speak of. Other than that, it is our nukes and the fact that people just simply don't have the ability to get an army to our shores. It is just logistically not possible.

Which means, the only place they can really attack us is.....

Our bases overseas!

You’re correct about our sub capability but RP doesn’t’ want us patrolling the waters over there, so the subs you speak of won’t be there and neither will the bombers! The AF can’t simply fly across the sea in a few minutes. These are things you’ve failed to consider when pondering RP’s foreign policy.

And as I stated, within your highly constrained definition you are correct. Only within that criteria. Removing that criteria, we have been attacked quite frequently, especially at our deterrent bases overseas.

We will ALWAYS be better off as a nation if we fight our battles in the enemy’s backyard rather than our own.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by braindeadconservatives

 

How about pondering the meaning of this question:

Why is it cheaper to have a product made 10,000 miles away and have it shipped here than it is to have that same product made less than 1 mile away from where they live?

Someone is out of touch.

edit on 6-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

yes that is right! I would also like to add, " we can compete with them on wages" If the American people who support this current corporate business model were paid the same wages as in China that would scream rape!

The only reason this can happen, " producing product 10,000 miles away" is the tax policy the corporations have bought with the assistance of Congress and the President. It really doesn't matter who is president because the forces of right and left are pushing toward the same goal with different means and strategies. The "left-right march toward fascism moves forward with each election. The people are easily fooled and they are being played like CHUMPS!

reply to post by no time

Its called a projection of power, which is what we want in order to create peace, or war? Someone comes to my face with their projection of power, I usually come out swinging. How exactly are these "projections of power" NOT causing the problem we face with our current foreign policy?

We’ve been through this…guess you missed it. Has America been attacked on its own soil by a foreign country with boots on the ground? If not then it’s working!

So, when other countries, get to our point of technology, as we will begin to lose our edge in innovation in all markets just as we are starting to lose it in manufacturing, How do these projections of power keep peace in that scenario? because all signs point to America losing ground in innovation. Spending more and more on R and D and getting less and less in return. Projection of power is a joke, and you buy it, because you can't see far enough ahead to see where this road leads.

How will RP’s plan of cowering in our own back yard deal with the issues you’ve raised?

reply to post by no time


Well the only idiot of consequence was the Democrat Wilson who signed it into law and yep seen a lot of people trying to blame republicans on that one but hey

The person who owns it is the person who sits in that oval office but that is just one part of the larger issue.

Bigger the Goverment get's the more regulations get the more taxes get the more minimum wage goes up the more energy costs go up.

well businesses goes to where the money is and the largest potential for returns;

reply to post by jjf3rd77


romney is the biggest flip flopper ever!

so all your points are invalid.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


Blaming the corporations alrightie would be nice to hear something other than a liberal talking point that has been recycled for the last 100 years.

So OP wants more war with brown people. That's all I really got from the original post. It doesn't matter how many lives are lost or how much money it costs. OP wants more war so he's voting Romney. How about we let Israel fight it's own damn war?! And then we could... you know... nation build here where it actually matters!

...Too simple, I know.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by braindeadconservatives

 

How about pondering the meaning of this question:

Why is it cheaper to have a product made 10,000 miles away and have it shipped here than it is to have that same product made less than 1 mile away from where they live?

Someone is out of touch.

edit on 6-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Yes you are out of touch - You are saying America should "fix itself" by
lowering our standards to that of communist China

what you are suggesting is global equalization

EXACTLY what one world government proponents promote. You a globalist?

Your approach calls to lower America to China's wage standards, which are 15 times below
America's current notion of abject poverty. All of which will dramatically lower the amount
of money in circulation and make it so American's cannot buy anything.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Bakatono

 

Additionally, it is the oceans that protect us. First, we can't strike in "seconds".

I believe the Russian’s would disagree. Do you remember the significance of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Explain to us why America was against it!

Second, we can still strike quickly from our subs and naval vessels. The crunchies and grunts never strike back immediately, they take waaaay too long to get ready. The Navy is the first to hit. If you want immediate response, ask the Navy. If you want quick and sustained support, ask the AF. If you want a long term engagement to hold ground, get the Marines and then the Army.

Our subs and ships provide that quick strike "deterrent" you speak of. Other than that, it is our nukes and the fact that people just simply don't have the ability to get an army to our shores. It is just logistically not possible.

Which means, the only place they can really attack us is.....

Our bases overseas!

You’re correct about our sub capability but RP doesn’t’ want us patrolling the waters over there, so the subs you speak of won’t be there and neither will the bombers! The AF can’t simply fly across the sea in a few minutes. These are things you’ve failed to consider when pondering RP’s foreign policy.

And as I stated, within your highly constrained definition you are correct. Only within that criteria. Removing that criteria, we have been attacked quite frequently, especially at our deterrent bases overseas.

We will ALWAYS be better off as a nation if we fight our battles in the enemy’s backyard rather than our own.

*Sigh*

Well, your remembrance of the cuban missile crisis says a lot regarding your politics. As does your final comment about fighting in their "backyard". Pseudonym for attacking foreign countries. Gladly, your generation is about to fade out of the voting pool so that the rest of us can bring the US back to being a rational country again.

It is also humorous how you support your "attack in seconds" argument regarding the cold war but then discount it when arguing against my comment regarding AF backup.

So, without getting into a long and drawn out logistics conversation; the Navy does the initial strikes as necessary, they have plenty of planes and missiles and are forward deployed all the time. The AF backs them up whenever they can get their friggin planes there, probably a couple of days (takes a while to get geared up and FLY across the OCEAN), then the Marines go in, since they are on ships. Finally the Army shows up.

And RP never said he wasn't in favor of having the Navy patrol the open seas. Not sure where you get that tripe from. He just said he is not in favor of attacking them "in their back yard" as you put it. At least not without congressional approval. The point is, the president should not have carte blance to sign the entire country up for a war.

Double

Post