The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people. ? Ron Paul
And Zeb, I typed a response to you last night and my post never went through! I will spend the time again. You might have to wait because I have a three week old that I am taking care of and sleep is so precious ; )
edit it showed up so I don’t have to, yay!
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Zeb, do you think Romney would be a single bit different, if NOT worse? Please show evidence of other than lowering taxes in one State. There are 50 in America and please show me how the war machine will be funded. Again, please show evidence. Pretty pictures are a bonus ; )
[/quote]
It would be worst selective tax cuts and selective welfare programs for Corporations so that Ma and Pa can’t compete, He probably would manage to LOOK mean towards those lazy welfare recipients and maybe the old people too 
[/quote]
More of your stereotype nonsense. He got rid of much regulation for SMALL BUSINESS as Governor of Massachusetts. What part of that don’t you understand?
And welfare recipients have come to depend on the government. They feel they’re entitled to a free check each month (not all but probably most). Did you know that the US is the only country where its poor have cell phones, computers and eat as well as the rest of the country?
You’ll vote for Obama again because you don’t know any better. But those of us who are tired of government trying to control a larger share of our lives will vote for Romney.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
First of all I do respect your American spirit I really do.[/quote] Well we agree there! ; )
[quote]As for Romney he was only Governor of one state therefore I cannot show you his history for lowering taxes in all 50 states (or as Obama has said all 57 states).[/quote] NICE! [quote] But as Governor he lowered taxes 19 times![/quote] So is the state still in the green and everything running smooth still? [quote]In addition to that he got rid of needless regulations on small business.[/quote] Good for him, but where will the nation get its needed funding? [quote] I understand you want Ron Paul, but he’s not going to be the nominee (Zeb said for the 78th time).[/quote] You apparently like to hear yourself talk, because you say the same thing over and over. ; )
[quote]And I’ve pointed out the many differences between Obama and Romney multiple times.[/quote] I honestly could not care. I have disliked Barry since he first took office. He gives me the heebie jeebies, and because of him I took an interest in exercising my rights in this country. Many of which are God given and declared by our founding fathers. Romney does NOT rub very differently than Barry. [quote] Romney is flat out far more conservative and just about anyone who studies politics will agree with me.[/quote] So is your claim that he will just slightly change things and the behemoth Government we have now? I know this country needs some large scale change, otherwise America will crumble in the exact same manner as Rome once did and Greece preceded that country. Small change will not stop her from collapsing. It has been said by Edmund Burke that “those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” Can you honestly say that you understand their collapse? I am still learning and it scares me each minute I spend learning about each of their histories.
[quote]1-Romney will ditch Obamacare. Not because HE hates but because he’s put himself out there too many times saying he’ll do it and he must follow through or there will be no second term.[/quote] So? Romney is a politician and he will do what he needs to do to get into office, nothing more.
[quote]2-He has a tax plan wich will cut rates for all Americans (and as you know Obama has never seen a tax that he hasn’t liked)[/quote] Which is spelled with an H ; )
[quote]The differences are endless. The democratic party wants people like you to keep saying there is no difference in order to lower the republican turn-out but the truth is the differences between Obama and Romney are many and very deep![/quote] I want Barry gone, as badly as just about anyone. However this country can turn away from the current path and be the leader of the world through example and innovation. This will only happen when people are free.
[quote]As for the “war machine” you’re looking at it the wrong way my friend. If it were not for that “war machine” we would be over run by our enemies. Just like on a personal level, having more muscle and fighting skills is a good thing. It only becomes a bad thing when you use it to bully others. You don’t want America stripped of it’s fabulous fighting force. What you want is for us to use it less. I understand that.[/quote] Rather than go through each line, I will just address your points in one shot. So if America were to pull out of EVERYWHERE and bring ALL of our troops home, why would another country attack us? Because they are jealous? Because they want the freedoms we enjoy? You know the reason why we were attacked on 9/11/01 right? Come on Zeb, you know the term BLOWBACK? Well here is a site which I found - http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/general/articles/blowback.aspx - and here is another, from a book. I can’t find it to pass on the source page - Blowback Blowback The Costs and Consequences of American Empire - Imagine what would happen if we pulled our troops home? When i was at my largest, I never walked around looking for a fight. I have never been a drinker, so I was never in the bars. After I got into MMA it was the same thing, I never looked for a fight. Guess what, even though I was in college during the year I lifted, I never got into a fight! Guess how many fights I got into when I was fix foot something my freshman year as I weighed a buck sixty? I often got into fights. But my long limbs gave me an obvious reach and I could run. My point, the nicest and chillest guys I ever met were also the biggest and strongest guys. One of the best guys I know, he actually caught a peeping tom in college at WSU. Bristol is a hell of a chill guy. He can hit like a train wreck though. I will never forget the first time we sparred.
I will summarize the point I am trying to make. By fighting other countries in war, or anything like that, how has that actually benefited us as a country? Imagine pulling our troops home and simply protecting our borders? Imagine the concept.
[quote]Finally, if you wanted Ron Paul to Be President and your for smaller government and less taxes then the only alternative is to vote for Mitt Romney because Obama represents the opposite of what Ron Paul stands for![/quote] I am honestly asking, what in the fuck gave you the idea that Barry is someone I would ever vote for? I knew we where in trouble four years ago and I am still scared of what he can/will do in the future.
[quote]Think it over.[/quote] Trust me, I have spent quite a bit of time mulling over the thought of this country. The hard part, where to get your information. You say that Ron Paul has no support for the Presidency. I never made it to a rally here in AZ, at least I never knew of one I could make. However, my brother in law went to Berkley for a Paul convention and the video he showed as he spun 360 showed people packed in tight, all supporting the good Dr. I notice you didn’t bring up Romney’s Masters and I am thankful because a former ObGyn requires a tad more schooling.
I will tell you that by no means do I expect you to provide counter points, line by line. Only Trib seems to have the eyes for that! :o ]
But I need to bring one more point to the table. The first President of this country actually did NOT want to be President. He only stepped into the role because that is what his comrades in arm asked of him. Paul has a desire to lead this country because he wants to save this country, NOT break her back!
[/quote]
I don’t have to respond line by line, I read what I wanted to read and am content with your support for Romney against the media’s chosen one.
Perhaps someday, maybe 2016, or hopefully 2020, we’ll have an even more conservative choice on the ticket. And if we do I will beat the drum for him as well.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. [/quote]
This is happening right now.
But the statement is somewhat misleading, as well.
The fact is, it only really applies to the True-rich. The Obama-Rich (this stupid fucking 200,000 agi limit, 200k isn’t shit, but it isn’t rich either) typically just change the way they do business rather than leave. If the tax rates change, small business will take a hit, and then try and find a new way of operating to save some of that money. Downsizing and reducing the top line is an option but you are cutting off your nose to spite your face in some ways.
Now the True-rich… The repatriation of foreign profits is a complex transaction that results in a 35% hit in taxes… How people aren’t up in arms about this is insane… The glut of funds just waiting to come back into the states is insane.
If the stupid fucking government would give a 300 day holiday and tax repatriation at 5% rather than 35%, we would need one less stimulus package for sure…
This isn’t a simple thing I’m talking about, nor am I an expert, but I do know there is a shit load of money, that would be invested in the states, sitting in foreign corps, that won’t come back because keeping only 65% of your money v keeping 100% of your money.
EDIT: think about it, 5% of something is better than 35% of nothing, and people will be much more willing to part with only 5%.
Look to the success of the recent holidays on foreign earnings fraud.[/quote]
Good to see you back Beans
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Zeb, do you think Romney would be a single bit different, if NOT worse? Please show evidence of other than lowering taxes in one State. There are 50 in America and please show me how the war machine will be funded. Again, please show evidence. Pretty pictures are a bonus ; )
[/quote]
It would be worst selective tax cuts and selective welfare programs for Corporations so that Ma and Pa can’t compete, He probably would manage to LOOK mean towards those lazy welfare recipients and maybe the old people too
[/quote]
More of your stereotype nonsense. He got rid of much regulation for SMALL BUSINESS as Governor of Massachusetts. What part of that don’t you understand?
And welfare recipients have come to depend on the government. They feel they’re entitled to a free check each month (not all but probably most). Did you know that the US is the only country where its poor have cell phones, computers and eat as well as the rest of the country?
You’ll vote for Obama again because you don’t know any better. But those of us who are tired of government trying to control a larger share of our lives will vote for Romney.
[/quote]
Yawn , I will not vote for Obama , No one ever stereotypes any one on this board .
First off, let me say that I hope you would never take any offense, in any shape or form to the words I type directly to you. I mean no disrespect in what I type. I just want you to know my position and my thoughts.
Zeb, you very well may have given my post a quick glance, I am not arguing that point. However you never read and digested everything I wrote. That whole idea makes it hard to have a conversation on the internet, at least for me with you. Until you can give me the same respect I give you, please do not expect more than which you give.
No hard feelings, right? Just no more real conversations ; )
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t have to respond line by line, I read what I wanted to read and am content with your support for Romney against the media’s chosen one.
Perhaps someday, maybe 2016, or hopefully 2020, we’ll have an even more conservative choice on the ticket. And if we do I will beat the drum for him as well.[/quote]
This is a young girl talking about Canada, yet America is walking the same path and the government oversteps her bounds daily, with no repercussion. At least in the mind of this gimp.
A 12-Year-Old Spells Out the Fraud That Banks Are Committing Against the People
I believe her name is Vicrotia Grant, though I do not actually know
I got your message and didn’t feel the need to respond line by line. You forget that I’ve been reading your posts for quite a while now and fully understand why you are so devoted to Ron Paul. So don’t take offense my friend.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
First off, let me say that I hope you would never take any offense, in any shape or form to the words I type directly to you. I mean no disrespect in what I type. I just want you to know my position and my thoughts.
Zeb, you very well may have given my post a quick glance, I am not arguing that point. However you never read and digested everything I wrote. That whole idea makes it hard to have a conversation on the internet, at least for me with you. Until you can give me the same respect I give you, please do not expect more than which you give.
No hard feelings, right? Just no more real conversations ; )
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t have to respond line by line, I read what I wanted to read and am content with your support for Romney against the media’s chosen one.
Perhaps someday, maybe 2016, or hopefully 2020, we’ll have an even more conservative choice on the ticket. And if we do I will beat the drum for him as well.[/quote]
[/quote]
Zeb, I was the one who told you that I wouldn’t “want you to respond to every one of my sentences.” Then you told me that “you weren’t going to provide counter points line by line.” Jaa jaa jaa, glad you simply repeated my language back to me.
No hard feelings . . . . right ; )
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I got your message and didn’t feel the need to respond line by line. You forget that I’ve been reading your posts for quite a while now and fully understand why you are so devoted to Ron Paul. So don’t take offense my friend.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
First off, let me say that I hope you would never take any offense, in any shape or form to the words I type directly to you. I mean no disrespect in what I type. I just want you to know my position and my thoughts.
Zeb, you very well may have given my post a quick glance, I am not arguing that point. However you never read and digested everything I wrote. That whole idea makes it hard to have a conversation on the internet, at least for me with you. Until you can give me the same respect I give you, please do not expect more than which you give.
No hard feelings, right? Just no more real conversations ; )
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t have to respond line by line, I read what I wanted to read and am content with your support for Romney against the media’s chosen one.
Perhaps someday, maybe 2016, or hopefully 2020, we’ll have an even more conservative choice on the ticket. And if we do I will beat the drum for him as well.[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
Ron Paul: The “Ex-PATRIOT” Act - America’s Berlin Wall for Tax Refugees
Of course all of Ron Pauls good points (legal weed,actually I think that might be all of it) are ruined by his batshit crazy isolationist stance and less than thorough understanding of how the economy works, plus he’s a homophobe and is/was quite the racist (sometimes people grow out of that so maybe he’s changed in the past 25 years).
You were the one that said I didn’t have to respond line by line. And I was the one who repeated it back to you.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Zeb, I was the one who told you that I wouldn’t “want you to respond to every one of my sentences.” Then you told me that “you weren’t going to provide counter points line by line.” Jaa jaa jaa, glad you simply repeated my language back to me.
No hard feelings . . . . right ; )
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I got your message and didn’t feel the need to respond line by line. You forget that I’ve been reading your posts for quite a while now and fully understand why you are so devoted to Ron Paul. So don’t take offense my friend.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
First off, let me say that I hope you would never take any offense, in any shape or form to the words I type directly to you. I mean no disrespect in what I type. I just want you to know my position and my thoughts.
Zeb, you very well may have given my post a quick glance, I am not arguing that point. However you never read and digested everything I wrote. That whole idea makes it hard to have a conversation on the internet, at least for me with you. Until you can give me the same respect I give you, please do not expect more than which you give.
No hard feelings, right? Just no more real conversations ; )
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t have to respond line by line, I read what I wanted to read and am content with your support for Romney against the media’s chosen one.
Perhaps someday, maybe 2016, or hopefully 2020, we’ll have an even more conservative choice on the ticket. And if we do I will beat the drum for him as well.[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
Do you think I need to have everything I tell you, repeated back to me? Thanks man. I was in a coma for six weeks and still, after seven years people think I have no functioning brain. Thanks! I thought that here of all places . . . . it would be different.
; )
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You were the one that said I didn’t have to respond line by line. And I was the one who repeated it back to you.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Zeb, I was the one who told you that I wouldn’t “want you to respond to every one of my sentences.” Then you told me that “you weren’t going to provide counter points line by line.” Jaa jaa jaa, glad you simply repeated my language back to me.
No hard feelings . . . . right ; )
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I got your message and didn’t feel the need to respond line by line. You forget that I’ve been reading your posts for quite a while now and fully understand why you are so devoted to Ron Paul. So don’t take offense my friend.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
First off, let me say that I hope you would never take any offense, in any shape or form to the words I type directly to you. I mean no disrespect in what I type. I just want you to know my position and my thoughts.
Zeb, you very well may have given my post a quick glance, I am not arguing that point. However you never read and digested everything I wrote. That whole idea makes it hard to have a conversation on the internet, at least for me with you. Until you can give me the same respect I give you, please do not expect more than which you give.
No hard feelings, right? Just no more real conversations ; )
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t have to respond line by line, I read what I wanted to read and am content with your support for Romney against the media’s chosen one.
Perhaps someday, maybe 2016, or hopefully 2020, we’ll have an even more conservative choice on the ticket. And if we do I will beat the drum for him as well.[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
Mass. GOP moves to invalidate caucus ballots
Ron Paul backers cry foul
By Stephanie Ebbert May 28, 2012
A month after Mitt Romneyâ??s loyalists were trounced by supporters of Ron Paul in the former governorâ??s home state caucuses, the Massachusetts Republican Party is trying to invalidate some ballots.
The move, some say, could oust Paul backers and send more Romney representatives to the GOP nominating convention in Tampa in August. It has infuriated rank-and-file Republicans who accuse establishment insiders of bending the rules to their own benefit.
â??Just because you didnâ??t like the outcome of an election doesnâ??t mean you overturn it because you have the power to,â??â?? said a state committeeman, Stephen Zykofsky.
Much of the ire is directed at a challenge in the Fifth Congressional District - where Romney lives and where all six of his selected delegates and alternates lost. A member of Romneyâ??s slate contends the results should be thrown out because the caucus chairman failed to get all the participants to sign in.
A 14-member GOP committee is expected to consider whether the results should be counted this week.
Inflaming the situation is Republicansâ?? decision not to count provisional ballots in any district. The provisional ballots are those cast by voters whose registration could not be confirmed on April 28, the day of the caucuses. Paul supporters say it is a maneuver by the party to diminish their influence.
Even if the factors change the makeup of the delegation that Massachusetts sends to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, they will not affect the Republican nomination for president. Based on Romneyâ??s strong primary win in Massachusetts, the delegates to the convention are all committed to vote for him, and Paul has dropped out of contention. But it could weaken the voice of Paul supporters, who had hoped to influence the party platform.
Ed McGrath, a Romney-backed nominee who lost in the Fifth District, is chairman of the committee that will take up the ballot challenge on Tuesday. He said last week the challenge in his district had nothing to do with manipulating the outcome, and, in an attempt to dispel that perception, he withdrew from consideration as a delegate.
â??I donâ??t think itâ??s an effort to get the Romney slate back on,â??â?? he said. â??It certainly isnâ??t for me.â??â??
The delegates for the national convention were elected in caucuses held in each of the stateâ??s congressional districts. Romney advertised his support for a slate of 54 delegates - three delegates and three alternates in each of the nine congressional districts. But Romneyâ??s slate was overwhelmed by Paul supporters, who have been posting similarly strong showings in other states.
In the Sixth Congressional District, the only one of Romneyâ??s six nominees to prevail was state Senate minority leader Bruce E. Tarr, who won by just one vote. The losers included state House minority leader Bradley H. Jones Jr.; Kerry Healey, the former lieutenant governor; Sheriff Frank G. Cousins Jr. of Essex County; and Republicansâ?? most recent nominee for governor, Charles D. Baker.
But the Massachusetts Republican Party has still not confirmed the results of the caucuses. A spokesman, Tim Buckley, previously told the Globe that the votes would not be official until the partyâ??s allocation committee certified them and that the tallies remained uncertain because some votersâ?? eligibility could not be confirmed. Neither Buckley nor the partyâ??s lawyer, Vincent DeVito, could be reached for comment.
To participate in the caucuses, voters had to be registered as Republicans before Feb. 15. Those whose names did not appear on registration lists were allowed to cast provisional ballots and told their votes would be counted if they were proven eligible and if the election was narrow enough to make a difference.
But last week, the partyâ??s counsel began telling Republicans who were questioning the results that the provisional ballots would not be counted and that the rules had never allowed provisional ballots to be cast in the first place.
That had some Republicans fuming: Why did the party print, distribute, and collect provisional ballots only to later tell voters who cast them that they were invalid? Heather Mellem, a 37-year-old Paul supporter from South Boston who lost in last monthâ??s caucuses, said the outcome might have been different if provisional ballots were counted.
â??Now itâ??s time for Republicans to come together, and if theyâ??re trying to unify the party, not counting the ballots is certainly not the way to do that,â??â?? Mellem said. â??Theyâ??re going to only offend Ron Paul supporters and make them feel more excluded.â??â??
She and others objected to the notion that decisions affecting the results are being made by Republican leaders with interests in the outcome. DeVito, the partyâ??s lawyer, is one of the Romney-backed delegates who won.
Brad Wyatt, a Paul supporter and confirmed delegate, said there is a simple remedy: open the provisional ballots and count the votes that are valid.
He acknowledged Paulâ??s supporters hope to influence the party platform at the convention and to press for a prime-time speech by Paul but said, â??We are all committed to voting for Mitt Romney when we get down there. Weâ??re not causing any trouble.â??â??
â??Many of these guys are really excited about the Republican party,â??â?? Wyatt said. â??But the Mass GOP is really walking a thin line here. Theyâ??re going to really upset a lot of people.â??â??
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Do you think I need to have everything I tell you, repeated back to me? Thanks man. I was in a coma for six weeks and still, after seven years people think I have no functioning brain. Thanks! I thought that here of all places . . . . it would be different.
; )
[/quote]
What was that like? Did those 6 weeks go by in a flash or did you have a sense of time passing? Dreams? etc.
For me and my coma; I went to bed Saturday night and woke up in a hospital bed over 6 weeks later. No recollection at all of Sunday on. I watched MotoGP Sunday morning and was riding my friend’s bike when a girl turned in front of me. I was told that is what happened anyway.
Each coma is different for each person who has one. Mild is someone who is unconscious for a few seconds up to an hour. Moderate is people who are out, from an hour, up to a day. Severe is more than one day. I do not remember the numbers, but typically people who are in a coma for more than three weeks never wake up and far less make a full recovery. I am a blessed mother fucker!
; )
[quote]ZEB wrote:
What was that like? Did those 6 weeks go by in a flash or did you have a sense of time passing? Dreams? etc.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
For me and my coma; I went to bed Saturday night and woke up in a hospital bed over 6 weeks later. No recollection at all of Sunday on. I watched MotoGP Sunday morning and was riding my friend’s bike when a girl turned in front of me. I was told that is what happened anyway.
Each coma is different for each person who has one. Mild is someone who is unconscious for a few seconds up to an hour. Moderate is people who are out, from an hour, up to a day. Severe is more than one day. I do not remember the numbers, but typically people who are in a coma for more than three weeks never wake up and far less make a full recovery. I am a blessed mother fucker!
; )
[quote]ZEB wrote:
What was that like? Did those 6 weeks go by in a flash or did you have a sense of time passing? Dreams? etc.[/quote]
[/quote]
Thanks for sharing that with me. And it’s nice to read that you are so thankful for your recovery!
Oh, and if Ron Paul were the nominee and ended up beating Obama I would be very happy to accept his no income tax policy. However, since that event will not be taking place I will vote for and contribute to Mitt Romney as we all know what Obama will do if given a second term with no electorate to answer to.
Thanks Zeb :o ]
As for Romney, I would vote for him over Barry any time and/or day of the week. No questions asked. ; )
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Thanks for sharing that with me. And it’s nice to read that you are so thankful for your recovery!
Oh, and if Ron Paul were the nominee and ended up beating Obama I would be very happy to accept his no income tax policy. However, since that event will not be taking place I will vote for and contribute to Mitt Romney as we all know what Obama will do if given a second term with no electorate to answer to.[/quote]
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Of course all of Ron Pauls good points (legal weed,actually I think that might be all of it) are ruined by his batshit crazy isolationist stance and less than thorough understanding of how the economy works, plus he’s a homophobe and is/was quite the racist (sometimes people grow out of that so maybe he’s changed in the past 25 years).[/quote]
