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.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
Here is a list of me discussing Romney on this thread. So no, that is not the case.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There are mor that is enough though. I have sources cited as well.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
Well if you believe anything the Obama campaign says you are fooled. So I suppose you simply don't believe anything they say? If so, I am with you.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Grimpachi
What does Santorum have to do with Romney? Nothing? Ok thought so.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
Are you 12? Why are you talking about being sad? This is a discussion nothing more. You contradicted yourself in 3 consecutive posts. I don't have any desire to engage in a debate with someone who constantly changes their story. As I said. Be consistent, supply facts not opinions, cite sources, and we can talk. Until then ... don't be sad and butthurt I suppose?
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
No actually he said he will allow change to occur.
There are no guarantees since there are human elements involved. However you can take out the roadblocks preventing change from occuring, that's what he will do. When you remove the car wreck from the road more than likely traffic will end as a result. Throw a car wreck on the road and you probably won't get many cars moving.
Originally posted by wascurious
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
No actually he said he will allow change to occur.
That means he will do nothing.
Is English not working out for you?
There are no guarantees since there are human elements involved. However you can take out the roadblocks preventing change from occuring, that's what he will do. When you remove the car wreck from the road more than likely traffic will end as a result. Throw a car wreck on the road and you probably won't get many cars moving.
So we agree. Romney has no plan. He plans on doing nothing and hoping for change.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by wascurious
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
No actually he said he will allow change to occur.
That means he will do nothing.
Is English not working out for you?
There are no guarantees since there are human elements involved. However you can take out the roadblocks preventing change from occuring, that's what he will do. When you remove the car wreck from the road more than likely traffic will end as a result. Throw a car wreck on the road and you probably won't get many cars moving.
So we agree. Romney has no plan. He plans on doing nothing and hoping for change.
Sigh, not willing to engage in a childish argument with you. I cited sources in a previous post, please let me know when you can refute my sources. He does not plan on doing nothing, he plans on ensuring there are no impediments. That is not the same as nothing. Like saying when all the cars slow down because of the cop car parked looking for speeders that the cop is doing nothing.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
Still waiting for you to form coherent arguments and cite sources. Please don't post anything directed at me without doing so, as I will not respond to gibberish.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
Still waiting for you to form coherent arguments and cite sources. Please don't post anything directed at me without doing so, as I will not respond to gibberish.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
If you want to mimmick someone elses incoherent post you will get the same response. Form a coherent post, cite sources, use facts. I will not respond to gibberish.
Since facts and sources is a requirement I do not expect to hear much from either of you.edit on 23-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Sigh, not willing to engage in a childish argument with you.
I cited sources in a previous post, please let me know when you can refute my sources.
He does not plan on doing nothing, he plans on ensuring there are no impediments.
That is not the same as nothing.
Like saying when all the cars slow down because of the cop car parked looking for speeders that the cop is doing nothing.
Originally posted by Emeraldous
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
I'm sorry but you keep going back to presidents making a pleasant environment for companies. Can I find that fact in the constitution, or in any logic? I thought governments were there for people's pleasant environment or did I misspell that...PEASANT environment.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by Emeraldous
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
I'm sorry but you keep going back to presidents making a pleasant environment for companies. Can I find that fact in the constitution, or in any logic? I thought governments were there for people's pleasant environment or did I misspell that...PEASANT environment.
So you believe the President should make the environment unpleasant for companies? You obviously do not understand the purpose of the constitution, that's another thread entirely. And there is your problem, the government is not there to make things pleasant for you. Please show me where the Constitution says the government is there to provide a pleasant environment for people.
Now let's play Devil's Advocate for a minute. Do people have a more pleasant environment when the economy is doing well, or bad? If your answer is well, then Romney will create a more pleasant environment for you.
Originally posted by Emeraldous
Oh and by the way making the environment pleasant for both companies and people is not mutually exclusive, you just need to prioritize which one comes first. I choose people, but that's just me.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by Emeraldous
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
I'm sorry but you keep going back to presidents making a pleasant environment for companies. Can I find that fact in the constitution, or in any logic? I thought governments were there for people's pleasant environment or did I misspell that...PEASANT environment.
So you believe the President should make the environment unpleasant for companies? You obviously do not understand the purpose of the constitution, that's another thread entirely. And there is your problem, the government is not there to make things pleasant for you. Please show me where the Constitution says the government is there to provide a pleasant environment for people.
Now let's play Devil's Advocate for a minute. Do people have a more pleasant environment when the economy is doing well, or bad? If your answer is well, then Romney will create a more pleasant environment for you.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
The map is stupid. Doesn't take away that Romney's plan is the one that works while Obama's puts us in debt with doing nothing. I have supplied quite a few sources in my posts that support that position. Keynesian economics don't work. Never have never will. Ask Greece.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
Sources and facts thanks.