Why to vote for Romney!

[GHook93]

Quote by: grandpa Well, I hope you don't vote for someone you find troubling and out of touch with reality. I won't. Grandpa h.

You can find every single candidate troubling and out of touch with reality on some issues!

[GHook93]

Quote by: Stizzles Wow, welcome to 2003 talking points. Didn't you get the memo? Stem cell research is obsolete since they can essentially reverse-engineer the research from mature cells.

I hope this is the case! Do you have a link supporting your claim?

Oops, did I ruin a liberal talking point? My bad.

Welcome to volconvo, but you don't have to come out with 2 guns ablazin!

[xyzer]

GHooks..I agree Romney is the smartest and best equpped of all the candidates for executive leadership. He may not be as electable as Giuliani but he has a good hones record of achievement.

. Clinton compares her experience with the other candidates and its a joke! One term in the Senate and a short job history as an attorney versus others with years of successful business and public service.

I thought that U-tube video was ridiculous! Generalizing off a specific isolated case. Lets change the laws for the majority to accomodate a few? A few who have access to other medications?.

Asking a presidential candidate if he would arrest you is stupid! The president isn't in the judicial part of the government nor does he make any laws? Nor can he arrest anyone?

If ever there was an example of reverse vertigo this U-Tube thing is it.

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 You can find every single candidate troubling and out of touch with reality on some issues!

Of course, and that was my point.

Grandpa h.

[Stizzles]

Of course, and that was my point.

Yeah, and it completely ignores the problem of who to vote for. Even if all candidates would make bad leaders, the goal of voting is to get the best candidate in, to minimize the harm that's done.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Stizzles Yeah, and it completely ignores the problem of who to vote for. Even if all candidates would make bad leaders, the goal of voting is to get the best candidate in, to minimize the harm that's done.

I recommend voting for nobody. If a given person might present a problem, then this option is certainly practical. It's not difficult to avoid the voting process, which is highly flawed (rigged) anyway. Even if there was no way of determining what harm will
or will not result, it's still the prudent choice.

Grandpa h.

[GPIRS88]

Quote by: GHook93 You can find every single candidate troubling and out of touch with reality on some issues!

Ron Paul is more in touch with society than the majority of the republican candidates.

Mike would follow but he seems to much like a theocracy supporter and I remember him saying something like "if we make a mistake we make it together as a country" in one of the debates...thats the exact opposite of what Kennedy use to say and makes no sense to me.

[Stizzles]

I recommend voting for nobody. If a given person might present a problem, then this option is certainly practical. It's not difficult to avoid the voting process, which is highly flawed (rigged) anyway. Even if there was no way of determining what harm will or will not result, it's still the prudent choice.

You are abdicating your duty to your fellow countryman, I think, in not attempting to minimize the harm these politicians will do to this country. I hope that you can fiddle as well as Nero did.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Stizzles You are abdicating your duty to your fellow countryman, I think, in not attempting to minimize the harm these politicians will do to this country. I hope that you can fiddle as well as Nero did.

Why should I seek to impose a political system on my "fellow countryman?" In doing so, it wouldn't just be politicians and their loyalists creating harm -- I'd become more in on the act as well.
If I vote again, I will see that it matters not who is in office. The system is corrupt beyond repair and needs to be taken down (in fact, this has been true since nearly the beginning, when it was decided that slavery and genocide were compatible with "American liberty").
You mention Nero, but he ultimately was just another statesman.

Grandpa h.

[Stizzles]

Why should I seek to impose a political system on my "fellow countryman?" In doing so, it wouldn't just be politicians and their loyalists creating harm -- I'd become more in on the act as well. If I vote again, I will see that it matters not who is in office. The system is corrupt beyond repair and needs to be taken down (in fact, this has been true since nearly the beginning, when it was decided that slavery and genocide were compatible with "American liberty"). You mention Nero, but he ultimately was just another statesman.

Yes, and you are doing nothing to constrain the damage they do. It's like being given the choice between which serial killer to let out of prison: we need to choose the one that will do the least harm before we can get rid of him.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Stizzles Yes, and you are doing nothing to constrain the damage they do. It's like being given the choice between which serial killer to let out of prison: we need to choose the one that will do the least harm before we can get rid of him.

So how does choosing any of them "constrain the damage they do?" To me, it gives them license to do ever more damage.

Regarding my position, you really are making a mountain out of a mole hill. If a certain section of the population is persecuted and under attack by lunatic politicians, why vote? Obviously, the system has inherent risks, and high ones.
Merely voting in favor of it may get you into ALL KINDS of trouble.
Why then give it more power, and therefore more potentially deadly deign? Why not get rid of all positions of power that may do us great harm? That way we're not stuck with a dummy/lunatic.

Grandpa h.

[another day]

Quote by: GPIRS88 YouTube - Gov. Mitt Romney meets a medical marijuana patient--Oct. 6 ^the guy is a freaking monster....

What an ignorant, spineless idiot. Doesn't have the guts to tell him he would arrest him, just says he's "not in favor of medical marijuana"... complete idiot.

[Squawker]

True, he is an idiot for not seeing the setup and confronting it at the moment. You all follow the script, I will give you that. If you can't find any real dirt you manufacture it. If you don't want to get caught taking drugs, don't advertise it would be my advise. Why do you think everything you want to do has to be sanctioned by the Government?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: ghook93 (a) The media can't find any dirt on him, unlike they find on Guiliani, Obama and Clinton. And you know they are digging.

Haha, the media would find dirt on Mother Teresa.

He was pro-choice, then he was pro-life. In 1994 he was filmed at a pro-choice fund raiser were he raised money. Now, according to his current position, he opposes it (check out his website).

He opposed prayer in school "local school districts should have complete control over the programs, but that they could not endorse specific religious beliefs or prayer in schools"
Joe Battenfield, Boston Herald, August 1, 1994

Then he was for school prayer in 2007. "We ought to allow ceremonies, graduation ceremonies and public events that we have the ability to recognize the Creator."
Erin McPike, Romney: Prayer in School Is A-Ok, SometimesNBC, December 14, 2007

He supported the Brady Bill to ban assault weapons. He said this while supporting the bill. "That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA. I don't line up with the NRA."
Scot Lehigh. Romney vs. Romney The Boston Globe. January 19, 2007

Right before campaigning, he joined the NRA. In 2005, Romney declared the 31st anniversary of the Gun Owners' Action League "Right to Bear Arms Day"
Romney's right on Second Amendment Idaho State Journal. U.S. Senator Larry Craig March 12, 2007. Retrieved May 23, 2007
and
Scott Helman. Romney, appealing to core GOP voters, toughens pro-gun rhetoric The Boston Globe. January 14, 2007

There are others, but you can see why he has been characterized as an opportunist. Some argue that he is worse in this respect then Hillery.

Also, I normally don't nitpick, but when advocating a candidate, you might want to make sure the title uses proper grammar.

Quote by: ghook Mitt is a blind denier and will combat it.

the wording of your statement makes it sound like you are against Mitt's position on global warming. Why include it?

Quote by: grandpa I recommend voting for nobody. If a given person might present a problem, then this option is certainly practical. It's not difficult to avoid the voting process, which is highly flawed (rigged) anyway. Even if there was no way of determining what harm will or will not result, it's still the prudent choice.

not voting is fine, but then you don't get to complain about the system. If you think the system is flawed, then bring a case against it. Do something rather then nothing.

Quote by: xyzer I thought that U-tube video was ridiculous! Generalizing off a specific isolated case. Lets change the laws for the majority to accomodate a few? A few who have access to other medications?.

One of the many reason's why I'm not republican (I'm independent with a slight lean towards liberal).

That the sentiment that opposed the civil rights movement. "Who gives a crap about the minorities? It's the majority rule."
The liberals, with all their faults, have given the minorities a better voice.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Winter wind Haha, the media would find dirt on Mother Teresa. He was pro-choice, then he was pro-life. In 1994 he was filmed at a pro-choice fund raiser were he raised money. Now, according to his current position, he opposes it (check out his website). He opposed prayer in school "local school districts should have complete control over the programs, but that they could not endorse specific religious beliefs or prayer in schools" Joe Battenfield, Boston Herald, August 1, 1994 Then he was for school prayer in 2007. "We ought to allow ceremonies, graduation ceremonies and public events that we have the ability to recognize the Creator." Erin McPike, Romney: Prayer in School Is A-Ok, SometimesNBC, December 14, 2007 He supported the Brady Bill to ban assault weapons. He said this while supporting the bill. "That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA. I don't line up with the NRA." Scot Lehigh. Romney vs. Romney The Boston Globe. January 19, 2007 Right before campaigning, he joined the NRA. In 2005, Romney declared the 31st anniversary of the Gun Owners' Action League "Right to Bear Arms Day" Romney's right on Second Amendment Idaho State Journal. U.S. Senator Larry Craig March 12, 2007. Retrieved May 23, 2007 and Scott Helman. Romney, appealing to core GOP voters, toughens pro-gun rhetoric The Boston Globe. January 14, 2007 There are others, but you can see why he has been characterized as an opportunist. Some argue that he is worse in this respect then Hillery.

I meant you can't find any character flaws. Every candidate can be nitpiked about things they said and done in the past. See Ron Paul with the newsletters, Huckabee with the quote on Mormons and his children hanging a dog at camp or Guiliani, well pick one.

the wording of your statement makes it sound like you are against Mitt's position on global warming. Why include it?

sorry I typed to fast and no time to edit. I meant he isn't a blind denier.

[Winter wind]

I meant you can't find any character flaws. Every candidate can be nitpiked about things they said and done in the past. See Ron Paul with the newsletters, Huckabee with the quote on Mormons and his children hanging a dog at camp or Guiliani, well pick one.

not Obama, nor Edwards. Their noses are pretty clean. McCain?

Plus, a complete 180 on major issues can be seen as a character flaw. Opportunisms.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Winter wind not Obama, nor Edwards. Their noses are pretty clean. McCain?

Not Obama? Are you kidding? He even wrote about his drug days in his book, which included cocaine! He was a lawyer that represented slum-lords, not a good thing if you protray yourself as a defender of the poor. He spend 5 yrs of his life living in Indonesia going to a Muslim school. He pastor and self-proclaimed mentor has been cited for stating anti-white rhetoric and praising the ultra-racist Farkahan.

I haven't done any research on Edwards, but he isn't a real candidate so it doesn't matter.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind not voting is fine, but then you don't get to complain about the system. If you think the system is flawed, then bring a case against it.

I disagree. I can object to the system regardless of my decisions related to voting. In fact, not voting is especially sensible for those with strong objections to the system.

Here's another point:
A population capable of letting Bush become President has far greater problems than elections are likely to solve.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

I disagree. I can object to the system regardless of my decisions related to voting. In fact, not voting is especially sensible for those with strong objections to the system.

I don't mind you not voting, but you should do something to change the system. Otherwise it's just whining. It's so much easier to throw rocks at a system then trying to reform it.

Quote by: ghook Not Obama? Are you kidding? He even wrote about his drug days in his book, which included cocaine! He was a lawyer that represented slum-lords, not a good thing if you protray yourself as a defender of the poor. He spend 5 yrs of his life living in Indonesia going to a Muslim school. He pastor and self-proclaimed mentor has been cited for stating anti-white rhetoric and praising the ultra-racist Farkahan.

My problem with Romney isn't that he just has voted one way on one issue and then voted another way on the same issue a little later. He has done absolute 180s on school prayer, abortion, and somewhat guns (not 180 on guns, but closer). he runs many attack ads. His political tactics seem...less then moral.

[Charlatan]

Ron Paul for president? A excellent, maybe one of the best businessmen running the country should see it make good money, but you forget that a country can't make money off of itself, so that means that they will need to export to make money, and he may be good at sorting out an individual business, but to run a country looking to trade with others doesn't include going to each individual business, unless that's what you expect of him.

So he could find good investments for the country, to buy at good prices, and put their money into the prime stuff, but with all the other countries suffering as competitors, that could lead to the big businesses going bankrupt in their countries and the smaller businesses going well. When a big business goes down it takes a lot of money with it, as they hold loans to the most part in those regions. That means a lot of money will go missing there, but that isn't America's problem.

What could he do domestically? He could analyse the stocks and give support for good investments to the public, but that would lead to the same as above happening, with the big businesses going bankrupt. With their outstanding loans - as they always plan to grow - they wouldn't be able to pay back the banks, and with new businesses making lots of money, that would see more money being generated, but they would also plan for the future and lend money. As soon as they aren't doing well, dump them - it's the word of the president - and then there are more outstanding debts, as they lose popularity they go down and another springs up borrowing money. Thus the cycle goes and eventually banks will be up to their necks in outstanding debt as the corpses pile up.

But then there is the issue of the new companies generating more money than their predecessor did each year, but really the hole that will open up is devastating. So I vote for a 'no way' for him as the country will suffer from it's success. Being good at business domestically and politically is not that different, as he will point people to the right countries to inevest in, but then that will go through the same process as the domestic scene. As good investments grow in popularity, they will up their prices, lose popularity, and go into debt without being able to pay back their loans, and then the whole wolrd suffers!

Decay is what I see, but then I am not an economist. Voting for Ron Paul will mean the end of business for everyone, eventually.