The golden rule is being replaced by the platinum rule

jpete wrote:I'd like an absence of most laws.

In accordance with The Constitution? Maybe give up on the Ron Paul and join The Tea Party Patriots.

Dann757 wrote:

jpete wrote:I'd like an absence of most laws.

In accordance with The Constitution? Maybe give up on the Ron Paul and join The Tea Party Patriots.

Because the TP people don't believe in the Constitution.

They are displaced neo con Republicans and racists afraid of a black, allegedly Muslim, president.

jpete wrote:Because the TP people don't believe in the Constitution.

They are displaced neo con Republicans and racists afraid of a black, allegedly Muslim, president.

-------------------------------

Wow, is that what you home school your kids? Did Ron Paul approve of your message

-----------------------
OUR MISSION

The Tea Party Patriots’ mission is to restore America’s founding principles of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

https://www.teapartypatriots.org/about/

Dann757 wrote:

jpete wrote:Because the TP people don't believe in the Constitution.

They are displaced neo con Republicans and racists afraid of a black, allegedly Muslim, president.

-------------------------------

Wow, is that what you home school your kids? Did Ron Paul approve of your message

-----------------------
OUR MISSION

The Tea Party Patriots’ mission is to restore America’s founding principles of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

https://www.teapartypatriots.org/about/

Where in the constitution does it say we can interfere with the operations of a sovereign country?

Fiscal responsibility? How do you propose that while maintaining the empire?

Free markets? With Mitt Romney, the Godfather of Obamacare? I think not.

jpete wrote:Where in the constitution does it say we can interfere with the operations of a sovereign country?

You know more about it you tell me. Doesn't it have some stipulations that we can defend ourselves?

Where in the constitution does it say we could interfere with a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?

jpete wrote:Fiscal responsibility? How do you propose that while maintaining the empire?

Doesn't Ron Paul advocate pulling out militarily completely worldwide? That's one way. I'd like to see it.
Yeah I think about that; Romney will inherit the same 16 trillion debt. I think he will try to reign it in a lot more than Scarey Barry.

jpete wrote:Free markets? With Mitt Romney, the Godfather of Obamacare? I think not.

Why don't you ask Smitty about that? I don't think he liked it. So? Smitty's for Romney and he lived there in Mass. He sees how bad Obama is.
You think not? Well I don't think like you, who else does? You think not that Romney will be better at "free markets" than the current Administraitor?

Dann757 wrote:

jpete wrote:Where in the constitution does it say we can interfere with the operations of a sovereign country?

You know more about it you tell me. Doesn't it have some stipulations that we can defend ourselves?

Where in the constitution does it say we could interfere with a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?

How is overthrowing another government anything like responding to an attack?

I guess we'll find out because we are doing all the same things today that we did in 1939 so maybe if Mitt is elected, we'll tighten the noose on Iran and then pretend to be shocked when they lash out at us.

Dann757 wrote:Why don't you ask Smitty about that? I don't think he liked it. So? Smitty's for Romney and he lived there in Mass. He sees how bad Obama is.
You think not? Well I don't think like you, who else does? You think not that Romney will be better at "free markets" than the current Administraitor?

Mitt made his bones in the system we have now. What leads you to believe he'll change the system?

We don't have "free markets" now. We haven't had them at least in a century, and I don't see anything changing if Mitt is selected.

jpete wrote:I guess we'll find out because we are doing all the same things today that we did in 1939 so maybe if Mitt is elected, we'll tighten the noose on Iran and then pretend to be shocked when they lash out at us.

Flash bulletin, they're already lashing out at us. They sponsor terror worldwide.

jpete wrote:Mitt made his bones in the system we have now. What leads you to believe he'll change the system?

Not that he will change the "system", just implement policies that are conducive to job creation; not the psychotic nanny state socialist doctrine of Oneener.

jpete wrote:We don't have "free markets" now. We haven't had them at least in a century, and I don't see anything changing if Mitt is selected.

Okaaaay nice optimism. Good luck with your imaginary utopia. I do see "anything changing" when Mitt Romney is elected. Four years of sluggish growth, runaway spending, class warfare, race warfare, socialism, bad foreign policy; I see that changing.

Have you seen Greece lately?

Mitt already said he wants to increase military spending, likely to go to war with Iran which he has virtually promised to do.

So no, you won't see any of those things you think you'll see. Just more of the same like we got in 2009.

Still hangin in there with your projected "wants to's" "likely to's" and "virtually promised to's" ? Here I was hopin you'd gotten over all that negative projection stuff--guess not huh ?

jpete wrote:Have you seen Greece lately?

Mitt already said he wants to increase military spending, likely to go to war with Iran which he has virtually promised to do.

So no, you won't see any of those things you think you'll see. Just more of the same like we got in 2009.

Just curious when and where did he state that he wants war with Iran. Just because he believes our military should be strong and our current soldiers are prepared with the best of everything to keep them safe doesn't mean he wants a war. Being the strongest can deter war.
I keep hearing he will be another Bush but everything I look into with Romney shows him to be very different.

Policy means nothing, nor do debates, murdering people, assaults on the constitution etc. All the 47% care about is more welfare. The welfare one trillion number, 17T in debt and rocketing up, the fact that you can't tax the rich and get that amount of money nor the crushing load on future generations. O is about voting the useless money.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
--Benjamin Franklin

So simple.

So CNB, your saying that 47% of our country is on welfare, I think you should recalculate unless SS, the disabled & vets in combat along with others are all on welfare as well & I guess that you also believe they are all democrats. Then some of you wonder where the class warfare idea comes from but a Corp. that pays no tax & gets subsidized is not on welfare, just why is that? I guess if a wealthy person avoids tax they are smart & have extra to hide offshore but someone that gets food from a food bank because their kids & themselves are hungry are stupid leeches.

Ah Sam, missing the point as usual. Disabled vets is not welfare that's earned money but breaking the free-for-all into worth categories is a waste of time with you. I suppose I have not attained that level of intelligence....... idot. The corporations that pay zero tax is a result of the incredibly complex tax code - it's their duty to pay as little tax as possible, idot. Show me a CEO is giving the IRS gifts and show you a man/woman who is out of a job - idot. I suppose it would not work that way in commie town. The dems had two years to change that code on their own and did nothing - idot - nor did they do anything else useful. A 10% flat tax or a VAT would solve all that but the lobbyists would cut off the funds.

You really have no idea how the real world works do you?

CNB, I sure do & I don't even have to call someone a name to get my point across, first thing I said was to recalculate your #s but if a con says anything you have to run with it. It is the Corp.s that pay the lobbyists to pay the Congress to make that tax code in their favor, it's not a duty to cheat but your like wouldn't understand that. The cons had the bulk of the last half dozen decades to change the tax code & they did to what we have now. I'll show you a CEO that gave more than he had to just to get the % up to where he said it was never under & that one said if he ever paid more than he should he doesn't deserve to be Pres.. Gee all that without one single derogatory remark, I guess that makes me look like an idiot.