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

[pcosmar]

I'm no Mitt fan, but closing the factories and selling them to someone who can run a competent auto manufacturing business, free from the oppressive burden of the unions, is exactly what we need. Incompetent companies who consume more than they produce should be liquidated.

Sorry but that is not what he did.
Hostile takeover, Close business, fire employees
Liquidate assets , collect profit.
Produce nothing.

Sorry, but there is no nice way to put it. He was just one of many that trashed the industrial base of this country.
NAFTA Helped, Over regulation helped. Over taxing helped.
But these raiders sucked,

 

[ClayTrainor]

Oh Hell No !!
Michigan is in enough trouble.
What, you want him to close the factories and sell the assets. That is what he does. The man made his money as a corporate raider. He put thousands out of work.
Hell No.

ummmm.... isn't that exactly what we want them to do?


Sell off the bad assets for as much as they can get, and allow new industries to move in?

 

[tremendoustie]

Sorry but that is not what he did.
Hostile takeover, Close business, fire employees
Liquidate assets , collect profit.
Produce nothing.

Sorry, but there is no nice way to put it. He was just one of many that trashed the industrial base of this country.
NAFTA Helped, Over regulation helped. Over taxing helped.
But these raiders sucked,

I understand what you're saying pcosmar, but I disagree. Overtaxing, over regulating, and most of all, the loose fiscal policies of the Fed led to overconsumption and underproduction, eroding the manufacturing base of the country.

Corporate raiders are just the symptom -- if companies were made unproductive by the economic environment created by the government, as well as by undue regulations and unions, that means they consume more than they produce. Such a company should be liquidated.

That is, government created a distortion in the market -- raiders are just a tool to more quickly shift the economy to match the market. Shifting quickly is what we need -- the distortions were the problem.

 

[pcosmar]

ummmm.... isn't that exactly what we want them to do?


Sell off the bad assets for as much as they can get, and allow new industries to move in?

NO, I want the Government OUT of business.
I don't want them to Bail them out.
I don't want them to Over tax and over regulate them out of business.
I don't want them to interfere

I want the government OUT of business.
It is the Government in Michigan that is killing the ones left here. Most have moved out of state.
I sure don't want the Government managing them. They'll manage them to death.

 

[ClayTrainor]

NO, I want the Government OUT of business.
I don't want them to Bail them out.
I don't want them to Over tax and over regulate them out of business.
I don't want them to interfere

Good point, i wasn't thinking clearly.

Obviously i want the free-market to handle these assets as well...

I want the government OUT of business.
It is the Government in Michigan that is killing the ones left here. Most have moved out of state.
I sure don't want the Government managing them. They'll manage them to death.

Yea... i'm with you.

I'm pretty drunk right now... just got back from the pub, not thinking too clearly.
:o

 

[enjoiskaterguy]

Romney does not support legalization of medical Marijuana, free speech, gun ownership, protection of civil liberties, national soverienty, sound money, or a non-interventionist foreign policy....um, no I can't support him... EVER, and I'm mormon.

LDS FOR RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[axiomata]

I don't know anything about the Mises/Hayek business cycle. Could someone post some links about that? Also, I would like to know more about repealing legal tender laws.

I'd recommend bookmarking the blog over at the Mises Institute and checking in every few days. If you'd be more likely to check back less frequently I'd just bookmark the main page as the main page only links to a few articles every week.

http://blog.mises.org/blog/

The best part about the site is that they have a large collection of scanned books/papers and will point you to them for more info.

Here's their archive of uploaded literature on the business cycle: http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=subject&Id=12 Hazlitt is a great beginner's writer (believe it or not he used to write for the NY Times). His Economics in One Lesson is a classic (though not specifically dealing with the business cycle.)

If your more of a just give me a book type of guy, this is a good beginner's book. Not sure what kind of luck you will have finding it at a library as it is more of a compilation of original essays by Mises Hayek etc.

 

[AutoDas]

You guys are too nice to this guy. Rombots are trying the same strategy before except this time they're being sore losers.

 

[DAFTEK]

 

[nayjevin]

By good-to-go, does that mean you would all campaign for him and vote for him?

Dan, I think this may highlight a key difference between our groups.

Each individual supporter will make his or her own decision.

I would say that most Ron Paul supporters believe each precinct should make their own decisions as well.

The smaller the number of people a set of rules covers, the more peace and individual liberty is achieved.

Same goes for states rights vs. federal power.

My impression is that Romney believes that he can 'do' things as president that will make things better for everyone -- to me, this is painting the whole country with a broad brush.

We need a strong president - strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power a president shouldn't have.

(may be a slight paraphrase - from memory)

 

[acptulsa]

Dan, I think this may highlight a key difference between our groups.

Each individual supporter will make his or her own decision.

We are capable of being team players, Mr. Chisolm. We just don't do it unless we believe in the team. And many of us agree that what we saw from Dubya for eight years isn't worth fighting for. Now, can Romney convince us that he will do better?

 

[OptionsTrader]

Fuck Mitt Romney.

If I had an dime for every time he said Islamofascist during the primaries in an effort to scare J6P I'd could pay for his trip to Leavenworth.

 

[Buffalo Bruce]

Goon Tactics by IL GOP (Romney Chairman) Against Ron Paul Supporters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kU8ZbMYgyc

This is a video of Romney's Illinois Chairman State Senator Dan Rutherford after he took away a Ron Paul sign, stood on it, and attempted to provoke Paul supporters. (at 41 second mark) This violent man was never reprimanded by the Romney campaign as far as I know. And what was with the security team that accompanied Romney on the campaign trail insinuating they were actual police. Why the creepy thugs?

 

[DAFTEK]

 

[DAFTEK]

 

[phill4paul]

Welcome to the forums Dan,

For myself I would say it would be a cold day in hell before I ever supported Mitt Romney.

For myself I have had it with either party and the only reason I support Ron Paul is because he is saying and has always said what neither of the parties are saying. The government is limited by the Constitution. Romney can ask his lawyers about what steps he should take all he wants. I vote for those that stand for individual liberty regardless of or in spite of their political party.

 

[John of Des Moines]

Mitt is a CFR member.

CFR membership equals someone willing to work with the global elites.

Mitt is willing to sell out our constitution.

End of story.

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

mitt is a cfr member.

Cfr membership equals someone willing to work with the global elites.

Mitt is willing to sell out our constitution.

End of story.

qft

 

[Unspun]

Welcome to the forum and I appreciate your post Dan,

1. Mitt never said he likes mandates. I think you are getting confused with "I like vetoes". The mandates in his health care package were the result of the democratically controlled congress in his state and not part of his plan.

I think Angela dispelled that myth in her first post in this thread found here http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2049128&postcount=81

2. I believe that Mitt is closer to Ron Paul on some things that you all realize, but he doesn't focus on them because they are not politically smart moves to make (yet), but that is why I hope Ron Paul's ideas continue to gain momentum so politics can be more about ideas than attacks.

I don't quite buy it. Josh mentioned his support for overseas adventures, doubling Guantanamo, two things I find morally irreprehensible. He supports the income tax, as shown in the video I will link to below. He hasn't said much anything about the Federal Reserve. He supports the idea of continuing the CIA, and its missions. There's many more differences, but it would take me a long time to name them, and I really don't have the time, so while I appreciate you trying, key word being trying, to equate Mitt as much as you can to Ron Paul, I just don't think the argument holds much water.

3. I agree Mitt shouldn't have laughed at Ron Paul at one of the debates because I actually agreed with Ron Paul on that and was surprised to see Mitt laugh like that. However, after thinking about it, I realized that Mitt does so much work to prepare for the debates, that I think the laughter was his way of reacting to a question he hadn't prepared for. I think it was more of a nervous reaction/unconscious stall tactic than an attempt to belittle Ron Paul. In fact, here in Michigan, when questioned off-the-air by a Ron Paul supporter at an event I was at, Mitt expressed a lot of fondness for Ron Paul as someone who has no ulterior motives and just wants his ideas heard.

I disagree and I think this video speaks for itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lAFfLy05_Y&#t=4m04s

 

[satchelmcqueen]

welcome dan,

i support paul because of how unwavering he is on the issues. he speaks for and stands up for me and my family reguardless of the political suicide he sometimes incounters because of it. truth is truth and mitt just doesnt stand in the same line as paul does imo...

about mitt apologizing to paul for laughing at him (and me) in the debates without sounding like hes "pandering' as you put it. well, if you do a man wrong it isnt pandering to make things right. be real about it and say your sorry. if he did that, ild gain a ton of respect for him even though he still might be different on other issues. i could tell in the debates at one point when he was laughing at paul, the audience started booing him, and it seemed that mitt really seemed to notice he made a mistake, but he didnt make it right.

issues aside, until he apologizes for being dis respectful to paul on national TV, i just wont even think of him on any level. and i also think he needs to address the fact that him and all the other candidates banded together in Louisiana and put some crazy "family values org" or something like that on the ballots because they all knew they couldnt beat paul alone. fact is, they CHEATED.