Romney in 2012?

[Abrupt]

If Abrupt says he's right, then, by gar, he's right!

Read Ryan's budget proposal, which Romney evidently supports whole-heartedly.  The proof's in the pudding.

I have read both of them and never did I find any information about "granny starving".  I personally don't think Ryan's budge plan goes far enough, but it is the best thing out there.  If someone finds themselves in the situation that they cannot survive without stealing money from the successful (all the while blaming the successful and praising and giving their complete loyalty to the thieves) then all I can say is that you cannot be free if you depend upon others.  Never forget, what the government gives you they can just as easily take away, and considering that the government has nothing of its own then realize that everything they give you they took from someone else.

[eonprim]

Sorry I can't vote for a man that doesn't pay his fair share in taxes.  What type of leader hides their money and faith abroad?  Apparently Romney doesn't have much interest in fortifying our banks and nation.

[Abrupt]

Sorry I can't vote for a man that doesn't pay his fair share in taxes.  What type of leader hides their money and faith abroad?  Apparently Romney doesn't have much interest in fortifying our banks and nation.

He did pay his taxes, and I would be willing to bet he paid a heck of a lot more than you did.  If you judge a man's character by how much he paid, then what is your worth. 

Show me this proof that he has hidden his money.  If you are referring to international banking do you apply your same logic to Reid, Pelosi, and all the other liberals who do just the same?  If you had a choice, would you put your money in a bank that was overextending itself and making bad investments and subject to becoming a victim of fraud, or would you put your money in a bank that made wise investments and was not subject to fraud and shaky economic practices? 

Apparently he has a heck of a lot of interest in it as he is running for president -- or did you miss that?

[Abrupt]

It should be pretty obvious to most people that when the vote suddenly becomes "which candidate do we get the most free stuff from?" that democracy is in jeopardy. 

[falcon9]

The process of selecting electors for the Electorial College is less obvious to the general citizenry.

"Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about the qualifications of the Electors and restrictions on who the Electors may vote for.

The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors."

--http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

[eonprim]

He did pay his taxes, and I would be willing to bet he paid a heck of a lot more than you did.  If you judge a man's character by how much he paid, then what is your worth.  

I believe you choose to ignore my statement "fair share".  Even Warren Buffet admits that the wealthy are getting away with financial murder.

Show me this proof that he has hidden his money.  If you are referring to international banking do you apply your same logic to Reid, Pelosi, and all the other liberals who do just the same?  If you had a choice, would you put your money in a bank that was overextending itself and making bad investments and subject to becoming a victim of fraud, or would you put your money in a bank that made wise investments and was not subject to fraud and shaky economic practices?  

He has openly admitted that he has offshore accounts, and yes, the same does apply to every American that has made their money off the backs of the middle class only to invest in another country's future.  If everyone was capable of performing the same tax dodging tactics as the upper crust, what state would our country be in?  Are you sincerely telling me if the entire middle class was able to avoid x% of their taxes that everything would be ok?

Apparently he has a heck of a lot of interest in it as he is running for president -- or did you miss that?

He has a heck of a lot of interest in gaining power for his own personal gain -- or do you not understand modern day politics ?

The fact of the matter is, our personal belief in what makes a good leader is different.

As my grandfather once told me, "Opinions are alot like butts, everyone's got one, and they all stink." (modified for profanity)

[ghunter]

NO WAY!!! iF YOU VOTE FOR ROMNEY YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.

[Abrupt]

He did pay his taxes, and I would be willing to bet he paid a heck of a lot more than you did.  If you judge a man's character by how much he paid, then what is your worth.  

I believe you choose to ignore my statement "fair share".  Even Warren Buffet admits that the wealthy are getting away with financial murder.

A fair share would be the same amount as everyone else -- that is one person should pay the exact same taxes as any other one person.  The reason for many of these tax exemptions is to spur interest from the productive citizens to invest in areas that increase the prosperity of one's fellow citizens.  If they are making other Americans richer by their efforts it was decided that they should get reductions based upon such generosity.  If you removed the Romney's of America, we would be far poorer than the combined amounts of their wealth and that is something you seem to be totally unaware of.

Warren Buffet can pay as much in taxes as he wants to but he chooses to tax every exemption available and never donates beyond what he is forced to -- he is nobody to speak.

Show me this proof that he has hidden his money.  If you are referring to international banking do you apply your same logic to Reid, Pelosi, and all the other liberals who do just the same?  If you had a choice, would you put your money in a bank that was overextending itself and making bad investments and subject to becoming a victim of fraud, or would you put your money in a bank that made wise investments and was not subject to fraud and shaky economic practices?  

He has openly admitted that he has offshore accounts, and yes, the same does apply to every American that has made their money off the backs of the middle class only to invest in another country's future.  If everyone was capable of performing the same tax dodging tactics as the upper crust, what state would our country be in?  Are you sincerely telling me if the entire middle class was able to avoid x% of their taxes that everything would be ok?

There is nothing illegal with offshore accounts, these are perfectly reasonable things to have, especially when you do international banking.  Considering the foolish regulations placed by our government onto the banking systems that prompted this financial crisis we are in it would be better for us all to have had offshore accounts and then maybe it would have been avoided.  You do realize that just because you have money in an offshore account that it doesn't mean there is tax dodging going on don't you?  You realize he paid US taxes on this money, don't you?  You realize that it is absolutely known that he did nothing illegal with this venture, don't you?  The middle class does avoid x% of their taxes through various deductions they take advantage of -- whether that is ok or not is subjective, but I think every person is entitled to keep at least 90% of their own damned money.  Considering the amount of waste and fraud and unconstitutional expense perpetrated by our government I seriously wish that every American refused to pay any more in taxes until it was corrected -- after all it is time for us to remind them who is in charge and who pays the bills.

Apparently he has a heck of a lot of interest in it as he is running for president -- or did you miss that?

He has a heck of a lot of interest in gaining power for his own personal gain -- or do you not understand modern day politics ?

The fact of the matter is, our personal belief in what makes a good leader is different.

As my grandfather once told me, "Opinions are alot like butts, everyone's got one, and they all stink." (modified for profanity)

I understand politicians quite well and I do not trust any of them as a general rule.  I also have some knowledge about businessmen too and it is their greed that I count on as it is at the core of their success and the success of those invested in them.  It is my hope that he will be more businessman than politician.

[Abrupt]

NO WAY!!! iF YOU VOTE FOR ROMNEY YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.

I deserve freedom and prosperity so I will certainly vote for Romney then, thank you for helping me make up my mind!

[jaymz462]

If Abrupt says he's right, then, by gar, he's right!

Read Ryan's budget proposal, which Romney evidently supports whole-heartedly.  The proof's in the pudding.

I have read both of them and never did I find any information about "granny starving".  I personally don't think Ryan's budge plan goes far enough, but it is the best thing out there.  If someone finds themselves in the situation that they cannot survive without stealing money from the successful (all the while blaming the successful and praising and giving their complete loyalty to the thieves) then all I can say is that you cannot be free if you depend upon others.  Never forget, what the government gives you they can just as easily take away, and considering that the government has nothing of its own then realize that everything they give you they took from someone else.

Stealing money from the successful?  How about if you're a widowed mother of three who's barely scraping by and depends on food stamps to feed her children?  Is that stealing from "the successful?"  What if you're elderly with no living relatives, you can't work, and you have a life-threatening illlness that you have no chance of being able to afford treatment for without Medicaid?  Is that stealing from "the successful" too?  Should these moochers just crawl away and die?  Ever hear of the phrase "There but for the grace of God go I?"

You really are one sick puppy.

[Abrupt]

If Abrupt says he's right, then, by gar, he's right!

Read Ryan's budget proposal, which Romney evidently supports whole-heartedly.  The proof's in the pudding.

I have read both of them and never did I find any information about "granny starving".  I personally don't think Ryan's budge plan goes far enough, but it is the best thing out there.  If someone finds themselves in the situation that they cannot survive without stealing money from the successful (all the while blaming the successful and praising and giving their complete loyalty to the thieves) then all I can say is that you cannot be free if you depend upon others.  Never forget, what the government gives you they can just as easily take away, and considering that the government has nothing of its own then realize that everything they give you they took from someone else.

Stealing money from the successful?  How about if you're a widowed mother of three who's barely scraping by and depends on food stamps to feed her children?  Is that stealing from "the successful?"  What if you're elderly with no living relatives, you can't work, and you have a life-threatening illlness that you have no chance of being able to afford treatment for without Medicaid?  Is that stealing from "the successful" too?  Should these moochers just crawl away and die?  Ever hear of the phrase "There but for the grace of God go I?"

You really are one sick puppy.

Yes it is.  If you take by force the property of another person, then it is stealing.  There is no way around that simple fact.  You liberals are always so emotional in your thinking and you never consider things reasonably with logic.  When you have to deal with the logic of the facts (You are taking through force the wealth/property of another and giving it to someone else) your argument becomes clear for what it is, and it reveals that it is undeniably stealing.

I am familiar with the phrase and so much that I am generous with my wealth and time (what I have of either -- not that the amounts are particularly significant).  I cannot be generous with other peoples time or wealth, though, as it is not mine to give.  If I force you to mow my 'poor' neighbors lawn should I be pleased and call it 'good'?  Traditional charity has always handled these things rather well and is the best provider, not this government mismanaged system that presides now.  It would be far better for all of those you mentioned above to die and have that brought to the attention of those who could have helped (every damned one of us and not just the rich -- none of us are helpless invalids) than to take by force from the rest of us and blaspheme it as 'charity'.

I am not sick at all, I am simply a realist in these matters.  I don't let my emotions override what is best.  I don't feel this sense of guilt or pity that you seem to, as those emotions are destructive when applied to the considerations of the well being of another.  If I see someone in need and I can actually help them, then I will -- but I will not throw money at them just so that I can get a night of guilt free sleep.  Are you honestly feeling sorry for another person or do you feel sorry for the image you see as yourself in that situation? 

[Falconer02]

am familiar with the phrase and so much that I am generous with my wealth and time (what I have of either -- not that the amounts are particularly significant).  I cannot be generous with other peoples time or wealth, though, as it is not mine to give.  If I force you to mow my 'poor' neighbors lawn should I be pleased and call it 'good'?  Traditional charity has always handled these things rather well and is the best provider, not this government mismanaged system that presides now.  It would be far better for all of those you mentioned above to die and have that brought to the attention of those who could have helped (every damned one of us and not just the rich -- none of us are helpless invalids) than to take by force from the rest of us and blaspheme it as 'charity'.

I would recommend taking into consideration crime and theft. You are correct (imo) that it technically is stealing, but would you prefer a mismanaged system to 'steal' from you, or would you rather have some poor a55hole bash your door open with a handgun, tie you up, potentially kill you, and steal from you? Granted this already happens, but what do you imagine happening if all gov't aid ceased tomorrow? Look at countries that have little/no gov't benefits. Also having those people who are in need just die is a cold statement, however I completely understand from the aerial viewpoint of what you're saying. The problem with your ideal outcome is simply that it's speculative and does not address the polar opposite of what could happen.

I see this as a strange argument of 'civilized' or less-threatening stealing versus anarchic stealing. I look back onto what my grandma tells me about the Great Depression and how the gov't and it's people did do as much as it/they could to make sure people were okay. Times were tough, but they pulled through. Granted times have changed a lot...I guess it's just a messy argument with a lot of 'what ifs?'.

[Abrupt]

am familiar with the phrase and so much that I am generous with my wealth and time (what I have of either -- not that the amounts are particularly significant).  I cannot be generous with other peoples time or wealth, though, as it is not mine to give.  If I force you to mow my 'poor' neighbors lawn should I be pleased and call it 'good'?  Traditional charity has always handled these things rather well and is the best provider, not this government mismanaged system that presides now.  It would be far better for all of those you mentioned above to die and have that brought to the attention of those who could have helped (every damned one of us and not just the rich -- none of us are helpless invalids) than to take by force from the rest of us and blaspheme it as 'charity'.

I would recommend taking into consideration crime and theft. You are correct (imo) that it technically is stealing, but would you prefer a mismanaged system to 'steal' from you, or would you rather have some poor a55hole bash your door open with a handgun, tie you up, potentially kill you, and steal from you? Granted this already happens, but what do you imagine happening if all gov't aid ceased tomorrow? Look at countries that have little/no gov't benefits. Also having those people who are in need just die is a cold statement, however I completely understand from the aerial viewpoint of what you're saying. The problem with your ideal outcome is simply that it's speculative and does not address the polar opposite of what could happen.

I see this as a strange argument of 'civilized' or less-threatening stealing versus anarchic stealing. I look back onto what my grandma tells me about the Great Depression and how the gov't and it's people did do as much as it/they could to make sure people were okay. Times were tough, but they pulled through. Granted times have changed a lot...I guess it's just a messy argument with a lot of 'what ifs?'.

Well, if the person that is supposed to be helped is going to break into my home and rob me (odd to see him in the light of a poor sort though), then I would not want to help him in the first place.  He isn't too lazy to steal (I actually respect that and I know it may seem odd in the light of what I have previously said about stealing but it is in contrast to him living deliberately off government redistribution) so he is obviously capable in his own way of taking care of himself.  It comes off more of which form of being robbed would I prefer, and to tell you the truth I would prefer the one where I at least get to fight back -- which is the later.  If someone asks me to help them I generally do, but when someone tells me to help them it brings out the worst sort in me (unless it is an employer or an elder as I always comply with both with no argument).

I understand what you mean about the statement being cold, and I agree.  It isn't something one would ever intentionally do and that is why I think charity would always prevail without the government intervention.  People are not cold and heartless and they do help each other out, it is when we are put under duress to help that we start to balk.  I sleep sound at night, not because I know other people are taking care of other people, but because I know I am doing what I can to take care of other people.

I have stories from my dad about how his father took his four other brothers and the rest of his family and went north and left him and another brother on their own to fend for themselves.  They turned out well enough and it didn't seem to bother them in the long run.  I realize that I am one of those people that it is hard to help (you may know the type).  I also don't take compliments well either.  This is certainly attributed to my upbringing, I suppose, and is an instilled characteristic of self dependency.  I would never ever ever take food stamps or government assistance and I was brought up to look upon those things in a shameful manner, and I would be so ashamed to be reduced to such an unworthy level as to have to accept them.  I am not that strict with others, though, they should do what they must to survive, but they shouldn't be proud of being on welfare or receiving government aid.  If some of what I say seems harsh, it isn't intentionally that way it is just naturally that way from me.

[Falconer02]

Well, if the person that is supposed to be helped is going to break into my home and rob me (odd to see him in the light of a poor sort though), then I would not want to help him in the first place.

Perhaps they're stealing because someone else (family or friend) is in miserable shape? Again, these are all speculative pathways of thought, but I'm fairly certain we can agree that this does happen. Some people just get cornered in life.

he is obviously capable in his own way of taking care of himself.

Possibly. Though not everyone has the same moral standards or work ethic you adhere to. It depends on the upbringing, education, etc. and some just don't get that. If these gov't programs give these people/children a chance to get those, I'm for them. If they're just lazy and living off of them, screw it. Therefore I believe it's a case-by-case situation.

If someone asks me to help them I generally do, but when someone tells me to help them it brings out the worst sort in me

Unfortunately I know the feeling of the 2nd statement. That's precisely why I'm in the gray here. I wouldn't mind the gov't using my money to fund welfare just as long as the people are thankful for it and aren't being parasites and living off of it when they're in good shape to get their lives on track (for instance the example of my friend above-- he just needed it due to his crappy situation). There'd be less of a need for it. I find it as sort of a barrier of keeping parts of our country from becoming third-world though, and I'm totally for wiping the parasites off of it and being much stricter with it (drug tests, proof of purchases with the welfare, etc.). Unfortunately these would probably require more taxes on us though.  :-

I am not that strict with others, though, they should do what they must to survive, but they shouldn't be proud of being on welfare or receiving government aid.  If some of what I say seems harsh, it isn't intentionally that way it is just naturally that way from me.

I'm looking at this from an argumentative standpoint, so in no way would I judge your character. I do agree with a lot of what you're saying though as it is informative, but it's still a mess no matter which way I look at it.

[vmcutshall]

Amen Hawkeye; we sure can't survive with another 4 yrs. of Obama.  Romney may not be the most conservative but he will sure be better than what we have now.  Everyday Obama says something new that is just hard to believe; giving jobs in the USA to illegals; what's up with that?  Our unemployment is thru the roof so why give jobs to ppl who are here illegally?  If we don't get this country back on track we are doomed.

The thing is the illegals already have our jobs,work for the less pay and don't have to pay taxes. In my area the whites are the minority and the illegals are the majority.