How Many Romney (GOP) Supporters Here Are Wealthy?

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by Taiyed
Really?

What is going to be the result? I'm curious.


That is beyond my ability to contemplate, but call it a hunch. A hunch that your idealist dreams of a perfect society will probably be in tatters.

For that is something that history has proven time, and time again.


So, just emotional ranting really?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say government isn't going anywhere soon, and there is going to be no revolution or civil war or secession.

I'm pretty comfortable making that statement.




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Taiyed
 


probably what the (western)Romans said right before the Gauls crashed through the gates and started burning Rome while Nero played some kind of instrument.or perhaps what the eastern empire was saying when the walls of Constantinople fell. and probably what the Mayans said shortly after saying hey whats with these white guys before a city of millions was conquered by 1200 Spaniards.or what the people of Argentina said shortly before there economy collapsed and they entered a violent recession/depression. Or the Japanese empire before we nuked them,or the Germans of the third Reich before we firebombed them into submission(with a hellof alot of help from the soviets and our allies) Or the many many nations that fell to the mongol hordes or Alexanders army's of antiquity. ALL empires nations eventually fail or change the nature of their country with time....change and the fall of empires..and taxes are all that are certain in this world well that and death. we as a nation will either fail or adapt(change) tis the way of nature


edit to add: if you think the people of America will not stand up to corruption and use force if necessary when government corruption becomes to rampant for us to tolerate i give you the following links

en.wikipedia.org...

www.constitution.org...


McMinn A Warning — By Eleanor Roosevelt New York, Monday — After any war, the use of force throughout the world is almost taken for granted. Men involved in the war have been trained to use force, and they have discovered that, when you want something, you can take it. The return to peacetime methods governed by law and persuasion is usually difficult. We in the U.S.A., who have long boasted that, in our political life, freedom in the use of the secret ballot made it possible for us to register the will of the people without the use of force, have had a rude awakening as we read of conditions in McMinn County, Tennessee, which brought about the use of force in the recent primary. If a political machine does not allow the people free expression, then freedom-loving people lose their faith in the machinery under which their government functions. In this particular case, a group of young veterans organized to oust the local machine and elect their own slate in the primary. We may deplore the use of force but we must also recognize the lesson which this incident points for us all. When the majority of the people know what they want, they will obtain it. Any local, state or national government, or any political machine, in order to live, must give the people assurance that they can express their will freely and that their votes will be counted. The most powerful machine cannot exist without the support of the people. Political bosses and political machinery can be good, but the minute they cease to express the will of the people, their days are numbered. This is a lesson which wise political leaders learn young, and you can be pretty sure that, when a boss stays in power, he gives the majority of the people what they think they want. If he is bad and indulges in practices which are dishonest, or if he acts for his own interests alone, the people are unwilling to condone these practices. When the people decide that conditions in their town, county, state or country must change, they will change them. If the leadership has been wise, they will be able to do it peacefully through a secret ballot which is honestly counted, but if the leader has become inflated and too sure of his own importance, he may bring about the kind of action which was taken in Tennessee. If we want to continue to be a mature people who, at home and abroad, settle our difficulties peacefully and not through the use of force, then we will take to heart this lesson and we will jealously guard our rights. What goes on before an election, the threats or persuasion by political leaders, may be bad but it cannot prevent the people from really registering their will if they wish to. The decisive action which has just occurred in our midst is a warning, and one which we cannot afford to overlook.
so from the sitting presidents wifes(at the time of the incident) own mouth be wary your corruption does not reach the point that the people rise up and take matters into their own hands
edit on 5-11-2012 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-11-2012 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by whywhynot
 


Just watch the last debate. Romney agreed with Obama on just about everything near the end I thought he was going to turn around and endorse him.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by whywhynot

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by hououinkyouma
 


So giving food to people who need to feed their families js not helping them?


Chinese Proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."


That’s a bad analogy in this day and age after fishing fleets have decimated the oceans .



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Broke Romney supporter here. Drive 60 miles to classes three times a week because living on campus is too expensive. I believe in helping others but I don't believe you should be FORCED to help others. That's a key difference between the GOP and Democrats. I'm 26 btw



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Self reliance...maybe that sums it up for me...Govt. as a whole, in size and scope has become too large and too intrusive, I also disagree with so many of the tactics on the left...all the "wars on this group or that group".

Take something like welfare, it is a good program, if it is used correct, a way to temporarily help those that need it...however, let's say you are comfortable middle class, married, etc...one of you loses your job, the other still makes let's say half what the couple was...guess what...no assistance, even though you need it to not lose everything you worked for. It's become a way of life for too many folks...

War on women...c'mon, vote with your lady parts is not demeaning??? Many of us "conservatives" have no issue with things like abortion or birtch control...but hey...you pay for it...my insurance covered my wifes birth control when she needed it for medical reasons...moot issue.

Can go on and on down all the talking points, but for me...it's 2 ideals...one revolving around self reliance, the other around government reliance.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
The US economy does better when we have higher taxes on the rich.

Small businesses thrive when we have higher taxes on the rich, so that claim is ridicous.

Heck, most federal spending serves the rich.

And the greatest threat to your liberties are the International Corporate Bankers.

The whole free market concept only succeeds in uprooting democracy, and supplanting it with corporatocracy.

The republicans not only start more wars, they write more laws to take away our liberties.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by BigFrigginAl
 


War on women? Never heard of it. Is that like the war on drugs declared by the repubs?

Most conservatives do have a big problem with abortion, and birth control. The heart of red country likes to send large amounts of money to televangelists. Those are the people you vote with.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
My parents make a combined income of around 340k, they live in a quiet upper middle class neighborhood and put us through college.

They are voting democratic, because they know that many people do need food stamps and other government benefits to survive. My dad does not believe in the idea of letting your fellow country man starve, or fall ill. I believe in the same thing

We are supposed to help eachother especially in these tough economic times and we cannot throw people out in the curve and tell them to rely on chairty, when wall street and the bankers receive billions from our tax money.


If you believe this to be so, why do you do it through taxes? why doesn’t your family donate directly? Do you believe the government knows how to use your money for charitable reasons better then you do?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 



If you believe this to be so, why do you do it through taxes? why doesn’t your family donate directly? Do you believe the government knows how to use your money for charitable reasons better then you do?


Who says they don't?

But like it or not, the government is the biggest provider of food and assistance to the poor.

Let's use your logic, if private charities are better at doing it...why haven't they put the goverment out of a job? Why did the government have to get involved in the first place?

Let me guess, because you think if Government dropped taxes to zero, all the rich people would automatically donate all of that to Charity, right?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by guohua
 



You do understand that your Democrat Party has Lied to You,,, Don't You?


Yep, I'm sure they have.

But what is it that you think they have lied to me about that I should be concerned about?






But what is it that you think they have lied to me about that I should be concerned about?

MODS: if you feel I've over stepped the Bonds, Please Remove. But he/she asked.
I don't want to derail this thread but you asked.
Lie's are told by both political parties, any one with any intelligence at all knows this. But, one Political Party recently has taking upon it's self to rewrite some of histories moments to bring a better light upon their Now Seating President,,,
The name of the Article is:

The DNC's Bold Lies


To view how they have rewriting their take on the below listed lies go here: www.democrats.org...

DNC website caught lying about party's civil rights record: Wasserman Schultz, Virginia Senate nominee Kaine involved.


Lie Number One: Check the "Our History" section, found here of the DNC's website. See it? The history section -- now written to reflect the history of the Obama administration -- begins with this breathtakingly bold lie:


For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights…..


Lie Number Two: Then check here to see the DNC's "Issues" section on civil rights. That section begins with a second bold lie. This one: Democrats have a long and proud history of defending Civil Rights and expanding opportunity for all Americans.



Kaine even agreed to a short video version that begins by briefly saying: Democrats are the party of Jefferson, who declared that we are all created equal. And we worked long and hard to make that real. The video immediately skips from Jefferson -- to the 1900s.


This video is very well made to make the Democrat Party Look Like The Party of The People,,
They forgot Some Not So Nice Episodes the Democrat Party was responsible for.
Yes the video skips some of our History doesn't it? But then again, many Americans have not been there or studied our history, they just believe what they are told and want to believe.
Now what did the video leave OUT?
What was rewritten and ignored or just not mentioned at all about the Past of The Democrat Party.
Yes, what happened in History that involves the Democrat Party, Your Party, The Party of The People.
But, What People, that is what you need to look at here, Yes, you've been Lied To!

Supported slavery in 6 platforms from 1840-1860. Opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution that successively wiped out slavery and gave both legal rights and voting rights to black Americans. Supported segregation actively or by silence in 20 platforms from 1868-1948

Next you were told it was the Evil Republicans that Supported Lynchings,, Right?

Opposed anti-lynching laws, specifically supported by the GOP in four platforms between 1912 and 1928. Opposed the GOP-sponsored Civil Rights Acts of 1866, which focused on legal equality for blacks. Opposed the GOP on giving voting rights to blacks in the District of Columbia in 1867. The legislation was passed over the Democrats' objection. Nominated an 1868 presidential ticket of New York Governor Horatio Seymour and ex-Missouri Congressman Francis Blair. The Democrats pledged they would declare the Civil Rights laws passed by the GOP "null and void" and would refuse to enforce them. They lost to Ulysses Grant.

Opposed anti-lynching laws, specifically supported by the GOP in four platforms between 1912 and 1928.
The Democrats pledged they would declare the Civil Rights laws passed by the GOP "null and void" and would refuse to enforce them.
Now which Party Opposed The KKK?

Opposed the Enforcement Acts, three laws passed by the GOP between 1870 and 1871 targeting the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and making it a federal crime to block the right of blacks to vote, hold office, serve on juries and have equal protection of the laws with whites.


Opposed the GOP Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited discrimination of blacks in public accommodations.

Now, Which Party Had No Problems Using the KKK?

Used the Ku Klux Klan as what Columbia University historian Eric Foner calls "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party." Nor is there mention of the infamous 1924 Democratic Convention -- the "Klanbake" as it is known to history because hundreds of the delegates were Klan members. The Klan-written platform mixed the traditional Democratic message of progressivism and racism in the Klan-written platform.

spectator.org...
edit on 5-11-2012 by guohua because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-11-2012 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Anyone who believes wealthy Americans are going to stick around for huge tax increases for the explicit purpose of feeding the entitlement minded masses is completely and utterly stupid. The rich will stay rich, the poor will get poorer. There is no money tree. America is too far in debt as it is. It can not be sustained. You will just turn yourself and your ancestors into slaves. The only course America can sustain is embracing Capitalism. Everybody has a shot at success. An entitlement society will be dumbed down slaves.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
Anyone who believes wealthy Americans are going to stick around for huge tax increases for the explicit purpose of feeding the entitlement minded masses is completely and utterly stupid. The rich will stay rich, the poor will get poorer. There is no money tree. America is too far in debt as it is. It can not be sustained. You will just turn yourself and your ancestors into slaves. The only course America can sustain is embracing Capitalism. Everybody has a shot at success. An entitlement society will be dumbed down slaves.


That's a good little Republican.

Vote to appease your masters. Bow down to those wealthy elite.

Because you know, they might just leave us, and the poor little peasants will never be able to survive without our lords.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed
For the purposes of this thread, let's go ahead and place the "wealthy" threshold at $250,000 income.

So how many of you are "wealthy"?

The reason I ask is because if you aren't over this threshold and you are voting for Romney (or the GOP), you are voting directly against your own economic interests.


Yes...but it's not about using logic, empirical evidence, and forming rational conclusions.

American politics is all about silly fits of emotional catharsis. Asking an American to think rationally is like asking the Taliban to set aside their religious beliefs for a moment.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
beats voting for hope and CHUMP change.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
How many people are voting for Romney because they want a shot at becoming wealthy by hard work and maximum effort in the marketplace?

How many people are voting for Romney because they gave "Yes We Can" a shot and too-late realized it became "Yes We Can Really Be Suckers"?




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Who the hell is voting for Romney really? I don't know a single person who likes that guy and I know everybody!



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by samlf3rd
Who the hell is voting for Romney really? I don't know a single person who likes that guy and I know everybody!

Voting for Romney? You want more war? You like being poor? F that guy!



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
So i get it you think we shouldjust give a man a fish each day instead of taking the time to teach him to fish and letting him be independent of you. But instead of giving them yourself you put them through a middle man? So why not give some fishing poles, to the men that will spare their time to teach and really benifit thee ones you claim to?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed
For the purposes of this thread, let's go ahead and place the "wealthy" threshold at $250,000 income.

So how many of you are "wealthy"?

The reason I ask is because if you aren't over this threshold and you are voting for Romney (or the GOP), you are voting directly against your own economic interests. You are voting for those that are already wealthy to become more wealthy. You are voting for those that have less (this being you) will have to sacrafice more in either taxes, tax credits, deductions, or social services.

I was watching a documentary the other day, it was following a couple who are in tough economic times due to the recession. They lost their home, they lost their jobs, they are hurting. They are on welfare, they are on food stamps, they are getting bill assistance. They show them watching the Republican primary debates, and they are talking about cutting welfare and foodstamps and putting limits on unemployment. They guy, who is recieiving all these benefits agrees with the canddiate speaking. He acknowledges that it is hypocritical, but he still says they should be cut and that he will be voting Republican.

It is just mind boggling to me, here is a man that is being saved from government assistance. His children are being fed because of these programs. And he is going to go out and vote to cut them. He is voting to give rich families more money and more breaks and to take away a safety net from those that need it.

Now for me, I am also voting against my own economic interests. I am considered "wealthy", but I will never vote Republican. I don't need more money, I don't need a tax break, I don't need to pay less on my capital gains. I am just fine with how things are right now, I would be just fine paying double what I pay. My kids wouldn't go hungry, my lifestyle wouldn't change, I would still have great healthcare coverage, I wouldn't even feel it.

But I do know people who make much less than me, family members, friends, people I see working hard every single day. And no matter what, I can not cast a vote to take what little they have away from them. I can't cast a vote telling a single mom who is working as hard as she can at a retail store, but still doesn't make enough to pay rent and feed her kids that she is going to have to decide to do one of the other.

So here is the point.. Yes, I vote against my own economic interests, but in doing so it doesn't harm me one single bit. But those of you who are Republicans and aren't "wealthy" that vote against your economic interests that directly harm you, I just have to ask, what are you thinking? What is your rationale?





edit on 4-11-2012 by Taiyed because: (no reason given)


Nice straw man argument from someone posting from his mother's basement.





top topics
 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join