I'm a Romney Supporter and I Have a Message for All of You

Curlz31 said:
He Supports PATRIOT Act - Breaks 1st amendment and 4th amendment

He Supported the Bush Bailout - Breaks General Welfare Clause

He Supported Iraq War - No Declaration of War

He Supports the Federal Reserve - Only gold and silver can be money

You want me to go on?
Click to expand...

With the Bush bailout, that is very debatable because of how Mitt explains it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nvRHYB_BtM and kind of here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Xwa2w6gr8 He didn't support the bailout of individual companies as I'm sure you all know now, but he did support government intervention to stop the inevitable collapse of the dollar. I agree that the government has made HUGE mistakes in regards to TARP, but Mitt didn't support those mistakes.

As for the Iraq War, it would be news to me if anyone can find any proof of Mitt Romney supporting the war in Iraq before we sent our troops there. It is my understanding and I can find clip after clip that Mitt Romney supported finishing the job, but he seemed to always avoid answering if he would go into Iraq if he was president instead of GWB. I think the war would have been far different and may have never happened if Mitt had been president.

Does it say somewhere in constitution that only gold and silver can be money? Also, as I said before, the only times I hear Mitt talk about the Fed, he is very critical, but I admit I have never heard him ask for it to be eliminated.
 
Dan Chisholm said:
It is my understanding and I can find clip after clip that Mitt Romney supported finishing the job, but he seemed to always avoid answering if he would go into Iraq if he was president instead of GWB. I think the war would have been far different and may have never happened if Mitt had been president.
.
Click to expand...

He was supporting a First Strike , Nuclear Strike against Iran during the debates.

541676694_0a43e75575.jpg


It is Totally unacceptable :(
 
Why is this debate even going on? Mitt Romney is not and never has been an advocate for smaller, less meddlesome, less expensive government. Obama's health care plan is fashioned after the one Mitt personally championed for Massachusetts. Look back at the National Taxpayers Union study of the GOP presidential candidates for 2008. Mitt proposed a net increase, not decrease, in all federal spending. This included all kinds of increases in foreign intervention, doubling the size of Gitmo, as well as major corporate welfare (Mitt's personal favorite use for the government) and more federal involvement in education and job training. Overall, Mitt's spending increases added up to twice as much as McCain's (though not nearly as much as Huckabee's). Ron Paul was the only one who favored serious cuts in spending.

I could almost, almost, understand why a lot of relatively conservative people supported Romney in 2008. They just couldn't stomach the thought of either Huckabee of McCain. But let's face it, conservatives were not happy with the whole field in 2008, so going with Romney was a matter of being stuck with someone. Now that we get to start from scratch, there's no reason whatsoever that so many conservative (-ish) people should think that Romney is their ideal candidate for 2012. The only reason he polls so well is that these folks have no imagination and so they instinctively stick with the loser they got stuck with in 2008.

And what is this garbage about wanting to "finish the job" in Iraq? There is no finishing the job. There is only repeatedly moving the goal posts so that there's always a new reason for continuing to spend money on it. Does anybody think that we'll somehow eventually reach a state of things in Iraq where we can pull out all troops and leave behind a pro-America nation that will stay that way indefinitely in our absence? The notion is and always was absurd.
 
Last edited:
He also needs to apologise to Ron Paul for his comments on that Radio show.

Then he needs to make a minimum 500 thousand dollar contribution to Campaign For Liberty.

Then he needs to support ending the FED.

Then maybe we can forgive.
 
pcosmar said:
He was supporting a First Strike , Nuclear Strike against Iran during the debates.
Click to expand...

You may be misunderstanding him. He said that he didn't want to publicly take anything off the table and the main reason why I believe he said that is because it gives us more leverage during negotiations. I don't think for a second that Mitt would ever authorize a nuclear strike against a country like Iran, but I like his strategy which is very similar to his strategy when it comes to torture. He never answered if water boarding was torture not because he didn't have an opinion but because he wants to give terrorists something else to think about. Mitt answered the question when he said he doesn't support torture if you can read between the lines though.

Why is this debate even going on? Mitt Romney is not and never has been an advocate for smaller, less meddlesome, less expensive government.
Click to expand...

I guess it's a good thing the debate is going on because Mitt most certainly is for smaller and less meddlesome/less expensive government.
 
You cannot be for small government

Dan Chisholm said:
You may be misunderstanding him. He said that he didn't want to publicly take anything off the table and the main reason why I believe he said that is because it gives us more leverage during negotiations. I don't think for a second that Mitt would ever authorize a nuclear strike against a country like Iran, but I like his strategy which is very similar to his strategy when it comes to torture. He never answered if water boarding was torture not because he didn't have an opinion but because he wants to give terrorists something else to think about. Mitt answered the question when he said he doesn't support torture if you can read between the lines though.



I guess it's a good thing the debate is going on because Mitt most certainly is for smaller and less meddlesome/less expensive government.
Click to expand...

and for the FED. The FED exists to increase government thru the inflation tax. Mitt is all about that tax he knows all too well. Tell him to campaign to abolish the FED then we will talk. Closest thing Mitt had to a printing press was the Mass Lottery(the biggest bohemoth in the nation) which he expanded immensely to guess what, fund big gubmint.
 
Dan Chisholm said:
I guess it's a good thing the debate is going on because Mitt most certainly is for smaller and less meddlesome/less expensive government.
Click to expand...

You can only say that if we ignore his record and instead rely only on platitudes, which is something we're not really very good at around here.

But if you talk to him, ask him what he meant earlier this month when he mentioned that we needed to address immigration reform before it got demagogued in the election cycle. I found that pretty tasty, especially after he ragged McCain so hard over that very issue.
 
I'm a Paul Supporter and I Have a Message for You

I am an Independent Voter.
I guarantee that I will oppose Mitt Romney at any attempt to run for office.
He has a dismal record and a history of flip flops. There is no way that I can not oppose him. He is a perfect example of what is wrong with this country.

I don't really care what lies he comes up with next.
 
How about this: OP peace offering accepted, now if we want any more information on Mitt Romney we will simply join his forum or search for it.
 
op, come back here when the idea of the liberty of the individual interests romney and not just cash money.
 
You folks are harsh. This guy is not obligated to defend Romney's questionable choices. Much respect to the OP, for the reach-out.
 
What does OP stand for?

Also, Mitt never changed his mind about immigration. He just said we should get something done now so it doesn't become such a polarizing and political issue a few years from now. Mitt still doesn't support amnesty. I don't know Ron Paul's views on it, but Mitt wants sanctuary cities to be eliminated and to crack down on employers who hire illegals. Mitt doesn't plan to or think it's even feasible to round up 12 million + illegal immigrants and send them home. He just knows that if they cannot find jobs, many of the will go home on their own.
 
Dan Chisholm said:
What does OP stand for?

Also, Mitt never changed his mind about immigration. He just said we should get something done now so it doesn't become such a polarizing and political issue a few years from now. Mitt still doesn't support amnesty. I don't know Ron Paul's views on it, but Mitt wants sanctuary cities to be eliminated and to crack down on employers who hire illegals. Mitt doesn't plan to or think it's even feasible to round up 12 million + illegal immigrants and send them home. He just knows that if they cannot find jobs, many of the will go home on their own.
Click to expand...
OP= Original Post or Original Poster
 
dan chisholm said:
what does op stand for?

Also, mitt never changed his mind about immigration. He just said we should get something done now so it doesn't become such a polarizing and political issue a few years from now. Mitt still doesn't support amnesty. I don't know ron paul's views on it, but mitt wants sanctuary cities to be eliminated and to crack down on employers who hire illegals. Mitt doesn't plan to or think it's even feasible to round up 12 million + illegal immigrants and send them home. He just knows that if they cannot find jobs, many of the will go home on their own.
Click to expand...



give it up. lol.
 
Last edited:
Dan Chisholm said:
What does OP stand for?

Also, Mitt never changed his mind about immigration. He just said we should get something done now so it doesn't become such a polarizing and political issue a few years from now. Mitt still doesn't support amnesty. I don't know Ron Paul's views on it, but Mitt wants sanctuary cities to be eliminated and to crack down on employers who hire illegals. Mitt doesn't plan to or think it's even feasible to round up 12 million + illegal immigrants and send them home. He just knows that if they cannot find jobs, many of the will go home on their own.
Click to expand...


actually romney got busted with a bunch of illegals working on his estate and here you are saying that he wants to crack down on people who hire illegals? lol.



121x18_newsBlogs.gif

local news updates
updated
Wednesday, 12:44 PM ​

From the Metro staff at The Boston Globe

[h1]Lawn work at Romney's home still done by illegal immigrants[/h1]
December 4, 2007 06:54 PM Email| Comments (0)| Text size – +

saenz.jpg

(Globe Photo)
Ricardo Saenz, owner of the company that employed illegal immigrants, worked on Romney's lawn recently.
By Maria Cramer and Maria Sacchetti, Globe Staff; and Connie Paige, Globe Correspondent
Standing on stage at a Republican debate on the Gulf Coast of Florida last week, Mitt Romney repeatedly lashed out at rival Rudy Giuliani for providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants in New York City.
Yet, the very next morning, on Thursday, at least two illegal immigrants stepped out of a hulking maroon pickup truck in the driveway of Romney's Belmont house, then proceeded to spend several hours raking leaves, clearing debris from Romney's tennis court, and loading the refuse back on to the truck.
In fact, their work was part of a regular pattern. Despite a Globe story in Dec. 2006 that highlighted Romney's use of illegal immigrants to tend to his lawn, Romney continued to employ the same landscaping company -- until today. The landscaping company, in turn, continued to employ illegal immigrants.

Two of the workers confirmed in separate interviews with Globe reporters last week that they were in the country without documents. One said he had paid $7,000 to a smuggler to escort him across the desert into Arizona; the other said he had come to the country with a student visa that was now expired. Both were seen on the lawn by either Globe reporters or photographers over the last two months.

Questioned this afternoon during two campaign stops in New Hampshire about the use of illegal immigrants on his property, Romney declined to answer. An aide said he would issue a statement, and Romney, emerging from a Concord restaurant, said, "Did you hear him? We'll give you a statement."

Later, the campaign issued a statement saying Romney had just learned -- apparently from Globe reporters -- of the company's continued practice of employing illegal immigrants, and immediately fired it.
"After this same issue arose last year, I gave the company a second chance with very specific conditions," Romney said in the statement. "They were instructed to make sure people working for the company were of legal status. We personally met with the company in order to inform them about the importance of this matter. The owner of the company guaranteed us, in very certain terms, that the company would be in total compliance with the law going forward.

"The company's failure to comply with the law is disappointing and inexcusable, and I believe it is important I take this action," Romney said.

For Romney, who has made curtailing illegal immigration a cornerstone of his presidential campaign, the revelation that he continued to employ the same landscaping company was likely to fuel criticism from his rivals, at least one of whom -- Giuliani -- has already mocked Romney's commitment to the issue on the trail.
Click to expand...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2007/12/lawn_work_at_ro.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Attended a Meetup
Replies
1
Views
2K
fisharmor
fisharmor
Brian4Liberty
Three Cheers For Rep. Thomas Massie!
Replies
5
Views
297
TheTexan
TheTexan
CaptUSA
EV Politics
Replies
4
Views
106
CaptUSA
CaptUSA
osan
What Is The Public Trust?
Replies
0
Views
446
osan
osan
PAF
A Chance to Double Your Gift!
Replies
3
Views
2K
TheTexan
TheTexan
Back
Top