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

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

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.

Do you know how U.S. politics work? Do you know how Congress works? Do you know what Lobbyists are? Do you think this hasn't been tried before? You are so uninformed it's painful to read your posts.

Originally posted by Konduit
Do you know how U.S. politics work? Do you know how Congress works? Do you know what Lobbyists are? Do you think this hasn't been tried before? You are so uninformed.

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

So how exactly will being President help? Will he make new laws saying what corporations can and can't do? Because that's pretty liberal sounding to me! Can you make one remark without insulting me?

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by Konduit
Do you know how U.S. politics work? Do you know how Congress works? Do you know what Lobbyists are? Do you think this hasn't been tried before? You are so uninformed.

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

So how exactly will being President help? Will he make new laws saying what corporations can and can't do? Because that's pretty liberal sounding to me! Can you make one remark without insulting me?

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

pardon me jumping in, but I felt the need to point out without sarcasm and rudeness that the president can not make laws.

What a President Can Do & and Cannot Do


A PRESIDENT CANNOT
~ make laws.
~ declare war.
~ decide how federal money will be spent.
~ interpret laws.
~ choose Cabinet members or Supreme Court Justices without Senate approval.
A PRESIDENT CAN
~ make treaties with the approval of the Senate.
~ veto bills and sign bills.
~ represent our nation in talks with foreign countries.
~ enforce the laws that Congress passes.
~ act as Commander-in-Chief during a war.
~ call out troops to protect our nation against an attack.
~ make suggestions about things that should be new laws.
~ lead his political party.
~ entertain foreign guests.
~ recognize foreign countries.
~ grant pardons.
~ nominate Cabinet members and Supreme Court Justices and other high officials.
~ appoint ambassadors.
~ talk directly to the people about problems.
~ represent the best interest of all the people

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by Konduit
Do you know how U.S. politics work? Do you know how Congress works? Do you know what Lobbyists are? Do you think this hasn't been tried before? You are so uninformed.

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

So how exactly will being President help? Will he make new laws saying what corporations can and can't do? Because that's pretty liberal sounding to me! Can you make one remark without insulting me?

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

You love Romney but hate Obama? Guess what, Obamacare is based on Romney's Massachusetts health care reform from when he was Governor in 2006. It's pretty hilarious when an informed person watches Romney on television saying he would repeal a health care system he practically invented.

I'm sure Romneycare will be soooo much better! If there was ever a movie made about Mitt Romney, it would have to be called "Gone With The Wind" cause that's certainly a good way to describe his policies.

People are afraid of going against the status quo, as a start being President would put the problems in Washington and Congress that Paul has been screaming about for years into the spotlight.

Seriously guys just look at who is funding each candidate... Romney, Santorum, Obama are all being funded by big banks and corporations, if you honestly think that ANYONE who is funded by Goldman Sachs will provide any ounce of good change then you are seriously delusional.. I honestly dont get it, how many times do you guys have to vote for the same guy before you realize its the SAME GUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Paul is the only person worth voting for, Of course he wont be able to change everything and bring this country back to its former glory but its a start. Im starting to think that everyone here is afraid of real change, you can vote for Obama, Romney or Santorum if you want to keep putting this country in a deeper hole but if you want to give this country a chance, just a slight chance then PLEASE vote for Ron Paul, he is the only man who truly wishes to bring this country back to the glory days and ensure our survival. If we keep voting for the same puppet year after year then we surely will be dead soon, We have been the super power for quite some time but the radical ideas and actions of our recent presidents has put us in deep water and the only one with a life jacket is Ron Paul.

one has to conclude that the OP is kinda crazy..
it would be like giving your vote to a clown

Originally posted by Konduit
It's pretty hilarious when an informed person watches Romney on television saying he would repeal a health care system he practically invented.

So do you admit that Romneycare is libertarian policy put in place? The stupid liberals in Mass voted for RomneyCare! He didn't create it all on his own! And that name was given to the legislature by the liberal media to pound Romney shortly after he announced his bid for the Presidency!

This level of ignorance is bewildering

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Ok.. star count - who all here knows that the presidential election is phoney baloney?
Besides, why on earth would you promote another rich guy (200 million net worth) when you know his hands have got to be dirty?

You think these yuppies care about you????

The highly anticipated thread about why I am voting for Mitt Romney:

You mean highly predictable rhetoric?

Look, I'm sure you think you have all your ducks in a row, but Obama will be POTUS for another 4 years... hell, it was probably decided 12 years ago by the shadow cabal.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Those are just pretty talk to get votes,

votes like you.

I'm not from USA and I can see threw romney games

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by Konduit
It's pretty hilarious when an informed person watches Romney on television saying he would repeal a health care system he practically invented.

So do you admit that Romneycare is libertarian policy put in place? The stupid liberals in Mass voted for RomneyCare! He didn't create it all on his own! And that name was given to the legislature by the liberal media to pound Romney shortly after he announced his bid for the Presidency!

This level of ignorance is bewildering

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

Again, please stop playing political football with the whole Libertarian/Conservative/Republican/Democrat crap, informed people don't buy into that game anymore.

Romney was the Governor of Mass. any reform that gets passed would have had to go through him. This was just a beta test before it went nation wide, Romney's corporate campaign backers made a lot of money giving Mass. overpriced healthcare, it was business as usual when Obama copy+pasted Romney's policies on a federal level.

Originally posted by Konduit

Romney was the Governor of Mass. any reform that gets passed would have had to go through him. This was just a beta test before it went nation wide, Romney's corporate campaign backers made a lot of money giving Mass. overpriced healthcare, it was business when Obama copy+pasted Romney's policies on a federal level.

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

But, Ron Paul always says leave it to the states to decide their stance on health care so Ironically under a President Paul and a Governor Romney in Mass, the thing would have happened anyway. Do you agree?

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by Konduit

Romney was the Governor of Mass. any reform that gets passed would have had to go through him. This was just a beta test before it went nation wide, Romney's corporate campaign backers made a lot of money giving Mass. overpriced healthcare, it was business when Obama copy+pasted Romney's policies on a federal level.

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

But, Ron Paul always says leave it to the states to decide their stance on health care so Ironically under a President Paul and a Governor Romney in Mass, the thing would have happened anyway. Do you agree?

The trick to Paul's plan, is that the PEOPLE would vote and decide on the systems being put in place. It would not be decided by bureaucrats in backroom meetings than slipped silently into a bill with almost zero media coverage.

You understand?

On the topic of Obamacare, not many people know that it's quite similar to the Republican proposal dating back to 1993 when they were fighting Clinton's reform:
www.kaiserhealthnews.org...

Now of course since Obama put his name on it, it's all bad, it's socialism and it's devil's handywork.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


that... would be very interesting. It could work out really well if they were mature. But being politicians I don't see them doing that and it would end up in squabbles.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by Konduit

Romney was the Governor of Mass. any reform that gets passed would have had to go through him. This was just a beta test before it went nation wide, Romney's corporate campaign backers made a lot of money giving Mass. overpriced healthcare, it was business when Obama copy+pasted Romney's policies on a federal level.

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

But, Ron Paul always says leave it to the states to decide their stance on health care so Ironically under a President Paul and a Governor Romney in Mass, the thing would have happened anyway. Do you agree?

This still isn't an argument in your favour - It's merely pointing out how much more of a dick he is. Do you have any particular views on this extra little facet of his hypocritical nature?

reply to post by jjf3rd77


OK, let's say the slightly right of center president is unseated by your slightly more right of center nominee. Let's say he eliminates all (income/payroll??) taxes for those making less than 200,000 a year. I suppose this goes part and parcel with privatization, because if you don't make the taxes, the public services have to be privatized.

SIDE NOTE: You know, as a freelance translator, it was always a bit hard to translate certain concepts about US education, healthcare and public transportation from English into Spanish and Portuguese...in this wholly privatized future, it will be next to impossible. It confuses people in other countries when I use their equivalent words for "public education" yet continue to talk using words like tuition and student loans.

OK, to continue. When all is said and done and that vast majority of US citizens who make below 200,000 are left without having to pay taxes, they will be paying for the services that were formerly provided at cost and or with some level of subsidy. Public education, fire, police, public transportation, interstates, public roads...how will all these things mesh in Mitt Romney's Ayn Rand Wet Dream? Well, we all know that state and local taxes still pick up a portion of the bill - in many cases, the Lion's share - when it comes to those services. We also know that Federal funding comes with strings attached in the form of Federal mandates.

We all remember (or many of us?) that the Federal government forced Louisiana's hand in raising the drinking age to the national standard of 21. They did this by threatening to cut funding on the interstate system. I believe Puerto Rico went ahead and said screw the federal funding for the interstate system, we're keeping the drinking age the way it is.

What's my point? I don't see a lot of havens for non-privatization. Federal funding for public education and public transportation is going to come with more and more unreachable, untenable goals and caveats, forcing the states' hands toward eliminating (how austere it will be!). In South Florida, I already see charter schools in strip malls next to Subways (privatized cafeteria?) and movie theaters (privatized recess??), privatized lanes on our publicly funded interstate (I-95) that charges upwards of $5 for the so-called HOV lanes (doesn't matter if you are one person as long as you pay), a privatized commuter rail system that lowers trains - sizes and frequency - and raises rates...

So, in Mitt Romney's America, rather than a social contract being fulfilled between the citizens and the service-providers vis-a-vis their tax money, the horde of people who make less than 200,000 will be expected to somehow...what...come together and collectively bargain for the private bus company to stop on Maple Drive or so that the public school curriculum at the charter between the Hooters and the Super Target has to teach with updated school books.

People are busy, the idea behind this whole thing called a SOCIety is that we reside in a SOCIALly cohesive manner. And since we all need to occupy COMMUNity space and utilized COMMON roads and services, it only makes sense that we pool our resources (ie, tax money) so that no single INDIVIDUAL has the burden of starting from scratch

This could be in how he or she gets to work - ie, we have roads and bus programs and train lines that have been collectively decided upon via usage...ie, ie, it makes sense because it services as many people as possible). It wouldn't make a lot of sense for John Doe to forge his own zigzag pathway around and through people's property for him to get to work, so we have roads.

Listen, I'm not even necessarily for Socialism, though I see the redeeming qualities, I also see the room for abuse. At the same time, the way the system is already set-up cannot be just dismantled from the bottom without seeing the whole house of cards tumble down.

Maybe Romney will win, maybe he won't. In Obama's America, I end up seeing the same results. That's why I just don't get any sort of valid, logically-sound argument for or against the Republican or Democrat running for president. I think party is moot, the candidates are usually Pepsi and Coke. Either way you are drinking a carbonated beverage with a # ton of calories and corn syrup.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

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.

I've told you already as have many others but you refuse to read our comments. Are you in denial? Here are some bills Ron Paul has attempted in order to restore America and stop special interests.




"American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009. H.R. 1146, 2009-02-24, originally H.R. 1146, 1997-03-20. Ends U.S. participation and membership in the United Nations and its activities and the World Trade Organization, 1999-2000: Withdraws U.S. membership in the World Trade Organization.[2]"

"National Review cited the ASRA as an example of grassroots effort "to educate the American people about the efforts of foreign tyrants to disarm them"

Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. H.R. 1207

Term limits, 1970s: Paul was the first member of Congress to propose term limits legislation in the House,[54] one of several bills considered "ahead of their time" by Texas Monthly magazine.

Market Process Restoration Act of 1999. H.R. 1789, 1999-05-13. Repeals United States antitrust law (which limits cartels and monopolies), with intent to restore market economy benefits.

Sunlight Rule. H.Res. 216, 2009-03-05, originally H.Res. 709, 2006-03-02. Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to ensure that Members have a reasonable amount of time to read legislation that will be voted upon. Prohibits votes on legislation from occurring until ten days after its introduction, with the intent of giving lawmakers enough time to read bills before voting on them; allots 72 hours for House members and staff to examine the contents of amendments. Paul charged his fellow legislators with voting for the Patriot Act in 2001 without reading it first; more than 300 pages long, it was enacted into law less than 24 hours after being introduced.

Don't waste too many long posts on this guy - he's quite obviously a troll - from his own posts he's well aware of Romney's hypocrisy and fundamental inadequacies

reply to post by seabag


Fight a proxy war with nukes? BS. There would be no plausible deniability...everyone knows terrorist groups don't have nukes and if they were ever to obtain one and somehow detonate it we would glass Iran. It's no secret who supports who...and all that aside terrorists could never deploy a nuke anyway. They don't work that way and suitcase nukes are a thing of fantasy. The most they could ever hope to detonate would be a dirty bomb and those have been a possibility for some time now yet the never used one.

reply to post by 27jd


You're forgetting one important thing - Iranians aren't reasonable human beings like you me, George Bush and Netanhayu, they're sick and twisted, subhuman monsters who spend their lives longing for death and can't be trusted with so much as a firecracker.