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: 27
22
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
i can never see myself voting for romney for 2 reasons.. 1. every time i think about this guy all i see is him jumping up and down in tantrum form YELLING i'm a conservative, I'M A CONSERVATIVE why don't you guy's believe me.?!?! haha it's true.! and number 2 is.. if he becomes president and he F's us up beyond repair i see him being the very first of a long line of super rich cats fleeing a sinking ship, meaning he does not seem the type to take any blame for his misgivings and faults like the captain going down with his ship.

in all actuality every single republican who was in the race did not make me feel one ounce of loyalty towards our country whatsoever except ron paul and as much as i'd love to vote for him i can't shake my image of him being a dodgy old codger and kinda unstable so it's going to be a "last second" kinda thing for me.. either him or obama.

i bet if you asked any of those dudes.. give us "guesstimate" on the price of groceries, utilities, entertainment and fuel consumption for a average family for any given month. i bet they'd couldn't even comprehend the question and that's what scares me the most, being completely disconnected from the real world.

what is needed right now is a spartacus because we're the slaves and these super rich cats need a wake up call.. the world needs ditch diggers to and i'd definitely be among the first to pick up a shovel, in rebellion, and follow anyone yelling it. we're all to comfy in our little niche we've managed to hack out of this world and don't want to jeopardize our families at all and that's understandable but where's our line.?!

my single biggest fear is the fact that ANY of the republicans who ran got half as far as the actually did. not for the fact that they are "republicans", my vote would go for anyone who had a way to truly help our country get back on it's feet, but for the reason the "the people" actually believe in these guy's and all the BS talking points they've said.

and for anyone who is still in denial at this point.. like it or not, our next president will be... Barack Huessein Obama II




posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


I was not behind Bush after 9/11, nor were any of a great number of people whom I know, both conservatives and liberals. We knew Bush was an idiot and prayed that he had intelligent and skillfull people who could despite his incompetence, steer us in appropriate direction. Well, we saw how that turned out.

As for the OP....really? Gonna cut just about everything but defense. While I shudder at the thought of a Romney presidency, well, not as much as Paul, it might be amusing in a twisted kind of way to see how the conservatives would spin the following faster than light decline of our country into the fault of the liberals. We would indeed be, not only knocking at the door of third world status for most Americans but we will be standing in the room. And sadly, our standing in the world will continue fall down the list.

You do know that the only thing America is still first in is military spending right? We fall behind so many other countries in the catagories that truly define the greatness of a nation: education, health of the citizens, etc..

Yes, let's just keep cutting those things that will help to drag our nation kicking and screaming into the 21st century, while even actual third world nations pass us by. USA! USA! USA!



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
I have still not heard the answer to my question, how Ron Paul will stop evil corporatism from taking over america. When his policies are genuinely pro-corporatism

[...]


UNTIL I GET A GOOD RESPONSE FROM

THIS QUESTION I WILL NOT ANSWER

ANY OTHERS


First off...The "I am going to hold my breath and turn blue until I get what I want" bit isn't exactly shouting maturity.

Secondly...Ron Paul's philosophy (which I don't agree with) is largely centered around the idea that government regulation does not work in the first place and that less government interference will mean a more active consumer-citizen class to police corporations.

The difference between Ron Paul and Romney is that Romney is actually PRO "evil corporatism from taking over america"...as you put it....and sees that as the solution, while Paul is simply for less government as well as less corporate involvement in government.

Which makes it all the more strange that you are endorsing Romney given your concerns about Ron Paul.

Lastly...it's tired and faulty logic to ape the bit about Romney being good at business (which is debatable depending on your definition of business - he was a vulture capitalist)...but anyways..a Government is NOT a business for so many reasons...businesses are for profit, a government is concerned about the general welfare of it's citizenry...at least a good government....ya know...justice, defense, freedom etc. vs. $$$$$$$$



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
I have still not heard the answer to my question, how Ron Paul will stop evil corporatism from taking over america. When his policies are genuinely pro-corporatism and will lead to eradication of all liberal government oversight policies which protect civil liberties as long as they are not over-protected which sometimes they are--Which is what I hate about government policies.

UNTIL I GET A GOOD RESPONSE FROM

THIS QUESTION I WILL NOT ANSWER

ANY OTHERS

Before I go into my opinions of why Ron Paul is the right candidate to avoid total and utter loss of this country you should first recognize a candidate that has good intent, a truthful character, and good moral foundation is better than a candidate that refuses to recognize the problems we face, lies by flip flopping, and supports everything that is going wrong with America by additional expansion of government and more regulation which in turn only benefits the special few at the top. Even if Ron Paul accomplishes nothing no matter how hard he tries I'm still glad to vote for what's right over voting for evil #1 or evil #2.

To answer your question:

Number 1

I believe he would eliminate the international corporate interests that control the UN from influencing our policies by leaving the UN. Then he would chop or eliminate regulatory branches of the US government that tell small business owner JIMMY he can't get proper zoning for his business and then tell BP they can move right in. He could eliminate property taxes while removing tax incentives to big corporations.

Number 2

Nobody is saying Ron Paul needs to end corporations or big business. What RP simply says is it should be an equal playing field for everyone allowing the free markets themselves to regulate the value of the economy. You shouldn't get a bailout in a free market. The big banks would have taken a risk and lost big, gone out of business, and then another bank would have emerged. It's what keeps the economy and wild west of special interests devoid of causing havoc.

edit on 7-5-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)


If we left the control of the federal reserve, eliminated welfare to illegal immigrants who claim 10 kids in mexico while receiving tens of thousands in federal assistance, we could begin getting somewhere. Until then the best tax policy is a higher sales tax and the elimination of all other taxes. We could eliminate the EPA, IRS, DHS, and various other branches of waste and then we could all enjoy a tax free paycheck, zero property tax, and simply pay a 15% sales tax. Even people here illegally wouldn't be able to hide from their taxes. There's no need for an IRS. There's no need for most of the federal government and it's regulations. The main purpose of the federal government should be to protect the homeland from outside influence. Everything else should be dealt with on a state level and if it can't be worked out there is a supreme court.
edit on 7-5-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
I have still not heard the answer to my question, how Ron Paul will stop evil corporatism from taking over america. When his policies are genuinely pro-corporatism and will lead to eradication of all liberal government oversight policies which protect civil liberties as long as they are not over-protected which sometimes they are--Which is what I hate about government policies.
Whats so ironic about this post is that Paul is the only candidate who openly states that he wants to sever the ties between the corporations and the federal government and end military overseas nation building. Look up any of his speeches or any Republican debate as a reference.

Look at the amount of media coverage Fox, CNN, MSNBC has been giving each candidate for the last year, and you will quickly get an idea who is genuinely pro-corporatism.

Connect the dots brother, 2 + 2 = 4, no matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Konduit
Whats so ironic about this post is that Paul is the only candidate who openly states that he wants to sever the ties between the corporations and the federal government and end military overseas nation building. Look up any of his speeches or any Republican debate as a reference.


How is he going to cut ties between the federal government and corporations??? By making new libertarian laws?? That's still big government and those are liberal policies. Or will the free market take care of that too, oh wait....



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Secondly...Ron Paul's philosophy (which I don't agree with) is largely centered around the idea that government regulation does not work in the first place and that less government interference will mean a more active consumer-citizen class to police corporations.



See This is why I am asking the question. Not sure how that will work.... Since when do people police corporations?? Are you saying the CEOS will make sure that they always have the good interests at heart? At all times?? In the business world, that's simply not possible sometimes...



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by Konduit
Whats so ironic about this post is that Paul is the only candidate who openly states that he wants to sever the ties between the corporations and the federal government and end military overseas nation building. Look up any of his speeches or any Republican debate as a reference.


How is he going to cut ties between the federal government and corporations??? By making new libertarian laws?? That's still big government and those are liberal policies. Or will the free market take care of that too, oh wait....

Stop playing political football and trying to cause division with the all the Libertarian/Conservative/Republican/Democrat BS. We are all in this together, being pro-freedom shouldn't be a political alignment.



Don't play their game.
edit on 7-5-2012 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall


To answer your question:

Number 1

I believe he would eliminate the international corporate interests that control the UN from influencing our policies by leaving the UN.


There's a problem with this part of his plan. We're not leaving the UN anytime soon. and which corporations control it again? I always thought it was a big government waste of time.


Number 2

Nobody is saying Ron Paul needs to end corporations or big business. What RP simply says is it should be an equal playing field for everyone allowing the free markets themselves to regulate the value of the economy.


Equal playing field for everyone sounds an awful lot like communism to me! However, I'll play the game in your socialist free market society, corporations will have all the power... As there will be no government oversight. Therefore they will have the power to do whatever they want. And yes people on here has said that Ron Paul is the only hope we have of defeating evil corporations or something along those lines. I usually ignore posts like those.

It's hilarious seeing you guys try to wrap your heads around this one... Face it and man up your plans will never work and you are promoting the same things that you are trying to fight against!

edit on 7-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Konduit
[
Stop playing political football and trying to cause division with the all the Libertarian/Conservative/Republican/Democrat BS. We are all in this together, being pro-freedom shouldn't be a political alignment.


But your either not thinking about my questions or ignoring them and want to brainwash me to blindly follow ron paul into his version of freedom which is far from the truth....



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by Indigo5

Secondly...Ron Paul's philosophy (which I don't agree with) is largely centered around the idea that government regulation does not work in the first place and that less government interference will mean a more active consumer-citizen class to police corporations.



See This is why I am asking the question. Not sure how that will work.... Since when do people police corporations?? Are you saying the CEOS will make sure that they always have the good interests at heart? At all times?? In the business world, that's simply not possible sometimes...


I suppose you didn't read my post. Another Paul idea is to remove corporate campaign contributions and make it a federal crime to accept money or deals that influence legislation.


If you eliminate the tax benefits and than eliminate the lobby what power does the corporation have left?
edit on 7-5-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall


I suppose you didn't read my post. Another Paul idea is to remove corporate campaign contributions and make it a federal crime to accept money or deals that influence legislation.


I like that idea! So why doesn't he do that now? Too busy campaigning huh just like NDAA!



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by Konduit
[
Stop playing political football and trying to cause division with the all the Libertarian/Conservative/Republican/Democrat BS. We are all in this together, being pro-freedom shouldn't be a political alignment.


But your either not thinking about my questions or ignoring them and want to brainwash me to blindly follow ron paul into his version of freedom which is far from the truth....
Your questions have been answered a dozen times in the 27 pages this thread has, stop playing stupid because your backed into a corner and all you have is bias opinions and blatant lies to back you up. It's getting obvious at this point. This thread is just meant to be a troll.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by libertytoall


I suppose you didn't read my post. Another Paul idea is to remove corporate campaign contributions and make it a federal crime to accept money or deals that influence legislation.


I like that idea! So why doesn't he do that now? Too busy campaigning huh just like NDAA!


You support the NDAA? I wouldn't have shown up either. It doesn't even deserve the recognition of existence for the extent it trashes the US constitution. If he shows up to vote no he's at least acknowledging it as a legal form of legislation which it is not. Therefore, it was the rational and freedom loving thing to do by not showing up..
edit on 7-5-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Konduit
]Your questions have been answered a dozen times in the 27 pages this thread has, stop playing stupid because your backed into a corner and all you have is bias opinions and blatant lies to back you up. It's getting obvious at this point. This thread is just meant to be a troll.


I have heard talking points; I haven't heard an exact response to my question about how Ron Paul's policies will stop corporations from influencing policies. I've heard that he's had ideas for limited corporate interest, so why not do it now? What's stopping him? Corporations perhaps?
edit on 7-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Romney or Obama will be put into place as president regardless of what the American people want.
Other than a couple people in this thread, on forums across the internet, I have seen very few like him.
If he wins, it is time to get the pitch forks out.

Here at a Republican Forum, they hate him as well and consider him a Liberal, because he is after all a fascists that is for Big Government!

Romney is a disgusting two faced human being that plays both sides of the spectrum like Obama while he stabs you in the Back!


www.freerepublic.com...

Why Romney Sucks



MITT ROMNEY - THE PROVEN BAD GOVERNOR

"As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.
* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.
"Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.
In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal."
[Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004.]





posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall

You support the NDAA? I wouldn't have shown up either. It doesn't even deserve the recognition of existence for the extent it trashes the US constitution. If he shows up to vote no he's at least acknowledging it as a legal form of legislation which it is not. Therefore, it was the rational and freedom loving thing to do by not showing up..
edit on 7-5-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)


Your deflecting the topic, why doesn't he create some law now that says corporations cannot influence politics or people cannot fund super pacs?? HM? I'm waiting.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
Romney or Obama will be put into place as president regardless of what the American people want.
Other than a couple people in this thread, on forums across the internet, I have seen very few like him.
If he wins, it is time to get the pitch forks out.

Here at a Republican Forum, they hate him as well and consider him a Liberal, because he is after all a fascists that is for Big Government!

Romney is a disgusting two faced human being that plays both sides of the spectrum like Obama while he stabs you in the Back!


www.freerepublic.com...

Why Romney Sucks



MITT ROMNEY - THE PROVEN BAD GOVERNOR

"As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.
* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.
"Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.
In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal."
[Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004.]








Your pointing to a post written by somebody very much like here on ATS. Only difference is...it's not written on ATS. There are actually way more people on that site that support Mitt Romney too! I think I might join actually

www.freerepublic.com...



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


I can respect your opinion and I understand that he may want to do these things and that he may believe in certain things, but his voting record says otherwise. I am not republican or democrat and find both parties to be quite a mess. Now that I am older I have decided that it isn't wise to believe what a politician says or what their campaign or people say they are all about and believe in. The only real way to find out what a politician intends on doing is to look at their past record. Find out what they have voted for, despite what they say they are 'going to do if elected', kwim?

I am very cynical of all politicians anymore, I think they are all just a bunch of crooks.




top topics



 
22
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join