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 Indigo5
reply to post by UberL33t
So...Romney only lost because of...
Hispanics....
African Americans...
Hispanic Americans
Asian Americans...
Single Women...
Voters 18-45....
Etc..
Etc...
At what point do we simply call them AMERICANS???
Romney lost because AMERICANS chose President Obama...
LITERALLY...the politics of division.
Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
Given the current trajectory of the nation and the recent voting habits of women over the past few decades, yes.
I think it would definitely put us back on the right track in terms of being able to get rid of the unconstitutional entitlements that eat up so much of the budget.
Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by UberL33t
So...Romney only lost because of...
Hispanics....
African Americans...
Hispanic Americans
Asian Americans...
Single Women...
Voters 18-45....
Etc..
Etc...
At what point do we simply call them AMERICANS???
Romney lost because AMERICANS chose President Obama...
LITERALLY...the politics of division.
We could always repeal the 19th Amendment and put this country back on the right track.
Definitely not a bad idea.
Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
reply to post by narwahl
This isnt about voting right or "wrong", this is about continually voting for people who implement policies that are detrimental to the future of the nation. I do not believe Romney wouldve been much better but at least he understands the concept of debt vs income and knows what takes to run a business, albeit a gigantic business named the United States.
Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
reply to post by narwahl
When one segment of society, in this case the wealthy, pay the overwhelming share of the taxes (something like top 10% of earners pay 50% of the taxes), they should be the first recipients of any tax cuts.
Giving more money to a government that has continually proven they cannot spend responsibly or intelligently, let alone in adherence of the Constitutional limitations, is not the right course of action.
Massive cuts and eliminations of unconstitutional programs needs to be the first thing done, long before even thinking about demanding more money from people.
Originally posted by spinalremain
So Americans voted for you, Romney, but women and blacks and hispanics voted for Obama?
Just come out and say it, Mitt. You believe that only white land owning men are Americans.
Imagine all the profit increases if we put Africans in chains again and made them work for nothing. That'll show the unions!
Now we all officially know and understand exactly what "Taking America Back" means. Back to 1838, I get it.
Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
reply to post by narwahl
While you may not like the message, you cant argue with the truth contained in this Tshirt:
edit on 15-11-2012 by TheAngryFarm because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by kozmo
You know why we used to be first, right?
Part of the reason was because the rest of the world was busy rebuilding their sewers, roads and bridges after WW2. We were one of the only counties in the first world whose manufacturing base wasn't spread all over the ground in tiny little pieces. But lets not let "history" stand in the way of a good rant.
I did notice that you couldn't explain how people who are compelled to vote by law, and who operate under a "socialist" safety-net (OMG -- Market socialism!) are somehow more FREE and attractive to business people than we are. Do you believe American entrepreneurs are frustrated by their inability to create better roadside bombs? Is that why the patriot act is so scary to them?
Or could it be that a consumer and worker base of free people aren't worried that cancer will eat up their life savings and cost them their home are somehow better employees and partners in creating actual wealth and progress?