Tell me why you are voting for Romney

[Anonymous]

I am voting for him because I believe he is at least as competent as Obama on economic issues and likely much better. His vision of the role of government in the economy is closer to mine than is Obama's.

[Anonymous]

I am not sure which candidate I should be voting for, but this screams Romney, but I hate the Republicans and their religious and gender oppression and obstructistism.

Achieving success from an average background screams Obama to me, not silver spoon Romney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am not sure which candidate I should be voting for, but this screams Romney, but I hate the Republicans and their religious and gender oppression and obstructistism.

Achieving success from an average background screams Obama to me, not silver spoon Romney.

Maybe if you are looking at Obama himself, but I see him as more wanting to keep people average. I see Obama as wanting to make me average again and wanting to make my kids average. I earned what I have, and I have clear ideas about where my tax dollars need to go (education) to help other rise above average. Mr. Obama sends my tax dollars to so many other things besides education (which, if you read the 2.0 thread, aims everyone toward average). An inordinate amount of social programs results in average.

[Anonymous]

An inordinate amount of social programs results in average.

Which ones do you want to cut, and by how much? Whom exactly do you want to affect by the cuts, and how?

Do you think a 60-80 hour work week is a reasonable requirement for all adults?

[Anonymous]

Because they don't want their tax money going to poor "blahhhh" people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not sure which candidate I should be voting for, but this screams Romney, but I hate the Republicans and their religious and gender oppression and obstructistism.

Achieving success from an average background screams Obama to me, not silver spoon Romney.

Maybe if you are looking at Obama himself, but I see him as more wanting to keep people average. I see Obama as wanting to make me average again and wanting to make my kids average. I earned what I have, and I have clear ideas about where my tax dollars need to go (education) to help other rise above average. Mr. Obama sends my tax dollars to so many other things besides education (which, if you read the 2.0 thread, aims everyone toward average). An inordinate amount of social programs results in average.

Really, a small tax increase is what stands between you and mediocrity? If you can admit that, then I suppose you have a point.

[Anonymous]

Really? All these smart people and no one has figured out that there is no difference between Obama and Romney?

You REALLY think either one is going to change anything? They are both terrible. America is screwed either way. It is all quite sad, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really? All these smart people and no one has figured out that there is no difference between Obama and Romney?

You REALLY think either one is going to change anything? They are both terrible. America is screwed either way. It is all quite sad, actually.

Ah yes. Ron Paul desciple speaks. I worked with RP on the hill, I can't stand Paultards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 47% isn't one solid, unchanging group, genius. People access government services when they need them -- until they hit 65 and tap Medicare and Social Security. Then we're all in the 47%.

Who are you talking to genius? And once again, he was referring to the 47% committed to voting once again for the Hope and Change....not the lies that you continue to spew.

Except that's not actually what he said.

It isn't anywhere CLOSE to what he actually said. He said those people feel "entitled" to be "dependent on government" and that they are "victims."

That group, by the way, includes active-duty military serving in harm's way (since their combat pay is excluded from taxes). How DARE he insult America's armed forces? First he leaves any mention of the war out of his acceptance speech, then he insults them by accusing them of having a victim mentality?

And he wants to be PRESIDENT of this country?

Oh stop pretending you know what you're talking about. You have no idea the tax issues related to active duty, and spare us the faux outrage, no one's buying it.

It's so funny how everyone notes his leaving out Afghan., but how he most assuredly wants to lead us into a 3rd war. Could you make up your mind please and get back to us when you do?

On the contrary I'm an expert in tax policy. But you keep on whiffing there. Combat pay is non-taxable. The end.

As for your second point, it's completely consistent to connect the omission of Afghanistan from a major policy speech accepting the Republican nomination with an utter lack of competence in foreign/military affairs that might get us into another unnecessary conflict. As Grover Norquist says, he'll do what he is told. That's the scary thing.

What is it that we're debating? Has Romney ever said our armed forces are dependent? No, he hasn't, troll. Hell, he's never even knocked the actual dependents! Your expertise is letting you down.

Describe to me how it's "completely consistant?

1) Combat soldiers are among the proverbial 47%.
2) This sure sounds like "knocking" to me: "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
3) I know logic befuddles you, but I'll try my best to explain it so your pea brain doesn't hurt. The logic is as follows: Romney clearly doesn't pay attention to the military, will do as he's told, and is thus likely to be easily influenced by the same neocons who persuaded Bush to invade Iraq for no good reason. Romney gives no indication he is capable of independent thought about anything policy-oriented, but this gulf on defense is particularly frightening (no pun intended).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? All these smart people and no one has figured out that there is no difference between Obama and Romney?

You REALLY think either one is going to change anything? They are both terrible. America is screwed either way. It is all quite sad, actually.

Ah yes. Ron Paul desciple speaks. I worked with RP on the hill, I can't stand Paultards.

Ron Paul is such an idiot. Not an ounce of sense in the man. That cult of personality was strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 47% isn't one solid, unchanging group, genius. People access government services when they need them -- until they hit 65 and tap Medicare and Social Security. Then we're all in the 47%.

Who are you talking to genius? And once again, he was referring to the 47% committed to voting once again for the Hope and Change....not the lies that you continue to spew.

Except that's not actually what he said.

It isn't anywhere CLOSE to what he actually said. He said those people feel "entitled" to be "dependent on government" and that they are "victims."

That group, by the way, includes active-duty military serving in harm's way (since their combat pay is excluded from taxes). How DARE he insult America's armed forces? First he leaves any mention of the war out of his acceptance speech, then he insults them by accusing them of having a victim mentality?

And he wants to be PRESIDENT of this country?

Oh stop pretending you know what you're talking about. You have no idea the tax issues related to active duty, and spare us the faux outrage, no one's buying it.

It's so funny how everyone notes his leaving out Afghan., but how he most assuredly wants to lead us into a 3rd war. Could you make up your mind please and get back to us when you do?

On the contrary I'm an expert in tax policy. But you keep on whiffing there. Combat pay is non-taxable. The end.

As for your second point, it's completely consistent to connect the omission of Afghanistan from a major policy speech accepting the Republican nomination with an utter lack of competence in foreign/military affairs that might get us into another unnecessary conflict. As Grover Norquist says, he'll do what he is told. That's the scary thing.

What is it that we're debating? Has Romney ever said our armed forces are dependent? No, he hasn't, troll. Hell, he's never even knocked the actual dependents! Your expertise is letting you down.

Describe to me how it's "completely consistant?

1) Combat soldiers are among the proverbial 47%.
2) This sure sounds like "knocking" to me: "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
3) I know logic befuddles you, but I'll try my best to explain it so your pea brain doesn't hurt. The logic is as follows: Romney clearly doesn't pay attention to the military, will do as he's told, and is thus likely to be easily influenced by the same neocons who persuaded Bush to invade Iraq for no good reason. Romney gives no indication he is capable of independent thought about anything policy-oriented, but this gulf on defense is particularly frightening (no pun intended).

Nope. Still don't buy#1. And regarding that independent thought, I actually have high expectations and am looking forward to Wednesday.

Add # 2 to the list of fallacies.

[Anonymous]

7:55 Yo Einstein why are you calling your forum nemesis pea brained when you defended your "completely consistent" hypothesis with the term PROVERBIAL!

"A proverb is a statement we enthusiastically embrace when we are unwilling to examine the particulars in a general situation."
(Sydney J. Harris)

Thank you for explaining you are a tax policy expert. You need to work on your vocabulary. Point goes to the nemesis b/c #2 is horse excrement and #3 is the reason daily intelligence briefings exist. When a President does not take action as recommended, word gets around especially if it goes bad.

[Anonymous]

Tell me if I am wrong about this:

Romney confused two groups, those who pay no federal income tax (47% of all households) and those on welfare, who he thinks are addicted to dependency. It seems clear to me that it is the latter group he despises, but by using the 47% figure, it seemed he was speaking of the former, which contains soldiers, people on social security, low-income working families, and perhaps others that he had no intention of demeaning.

The moral is that a politician who insults a large part of the nation risks the resentment spreading further than those he aimed the insult at.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter whether it was a misunderstanding on his part. If he's running for president and he's carrying around misconceptions of that magnitude in his head about the American people, then he can't represent them. L

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tell me if I am wrong about this:

Romney confused two groups, those who pay no federal income tax (47% of all households) and those on welfare, who he thinks are addicted to dependency. It seems clear to me that it is the latter group he despises, but by using the 47% figure, it seemed he was speaking of the former, which contains soldiers, people on social security, low-income working families, and perhaps others that he had no intention of demeaning.

The moral is that a politician who insults a large part of the nation risks the resentment spreading further than those he aimed the insult at.

And his risk is magnified by the fact that his opponent has a pathetic record and his supporters have no choice but to continue manufacturinng such a foolish level of faux outrage. What's funny is Romney is up 20% with military and veterans, but I'll be the first to admit these polls are over the place. But this one is more believable for obvious reasons. (foolishly running on the backs of Navy SEALs)