Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radio interview with Romney

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Radio interview with Romney

    Interesting interview. Then the host (who was close to voting for Romney) goes off on him after Romney bails.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lAFfLy05_Y

  • #2
    I'm sorry but out of the two in this interview, Romney is the classy and informed of the two. Romney disagreed with the 1% VAT, but at least was open to discussing it.

    Calling him an A-hole, elitist screw-ball?
    Accusing him of wanting a 40% tax rate?

    I would be less likely to support Ron Paul after listening to this guy.
    "Don't measure yourself by what you have accomplished, but by what you should accomplish with your ability."
    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #3
      The guy's points are:

      - Romney laughs at the one guy willing to tell the truth and address the real problems at their roots.
      - Romney misrepresented Paul's positions.
      - Romney clearly was not interested or open to discussing the 1% tax. He blew it off from the get-go, then when pressed on it decided it was time to go. Dismissing it out of hand is not being informed. He only demonstrated his ignorance.
      - The path that Romney and the other candidates will keep us on will one day result in a rediculous tax rate (such as, oh, say 40%) to pay for it all. (besides he didn't say Romney wanted a 40% tax rate, only that he wouldn't care if it went to that because he's already made his millions.)

      Honestly, wu, if you're going to base your support of a candidate on your opinion of one supporter, you should probably stay home. Because every candidate has wacko supporters of some sort.

      Romney is an elitist screw-ball. He's another arrogant, power-hungry politician that offers no change in the status quo. How people can't see this baffles me.

      Comment


      • #4
        Why is Romney an elitist screw-ball? Because this radio talk show host says so? What does this guy base his wild accusation that Romney wouldn't care about a 40% tax rate upon? What exactly did Romney do or say that makes him think this?

        Royal, I have to say that I was very pleased with Romney as governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Any republican that not only wins an election in the democratic liberal bastion that is Mass, and then rescue the budget from a huge defecit under the control of a left wing majority house and senate is doing something right.

        There's just something downright peculiar about a Ron Paul supporter calling another candidate a screwball.

        Comment


        • #5
          What exactly did Romney do or say that makes him think this?
          To listen to Romney, he has no plan to reform the tax code. And if that doesn't happen, our taxes will continue to increase in order to pay for the government's current liabilites (which stand at $59 trillion dollars - see one of my posts in the earmark thread).

          Boston, I understand what you're saying about Massachusettes. And I've heard others say the same thing. But for a guy to pull that off, and now try to convince us he's a conservative doesn't pass the smell test. I just don't buy it.

          As for being a screwball, I'd say that for a guy to laugh off (so, you're going to get rid of the military?) a plan he knows nothing about that two well known economic groups have said is viable, well, that sounds kinda screwbally to me.

          Comment


          • #6
            In re-reading my responses above, I apologize to wu_shizzle and Boston for my tone.

            I feel like I have woken up from a long sleep and am seeing things for what they really are. As a result, it has made me easily excitable when this subject comes up.

            Comment


            • #7
              I understand your frustration Royal. Over the last 12 years I have made every effort to be involved and educate myself as much as possible regarding as many elections that affect me as possible.

              My total annoyance with about 99% of the candidates is probably a cause of my poor health. It's all I can do to listen them utter a few words without a screaming fit back at them.

              I truly believe the ONLY chance we have to regain control of our government is inact term limits IMMEDIATELY. 1 term, no relelection. If you can't get it done, then make way for somebody else.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by WuDrWu
                I understand your frustration Royal. Over the last 12 years I have made every effort to be involved and educate myself as much as possible regarding as many elections that affect me as possible.

                My total annoyance with about 99% of the candidates is probably a cause of my poor health. It's all I can do to listen them utter a few words without a screaming fit back at them.

                I truly believe the ONLY chance we have to regain control of our government is inact term limits IMMEDIATELY. 1 term, no relelection. If you can't get it done, then make way for somebody else.
                I feel the same way.

                I havent clicked the link that was originally posted I should obviously but I havent.

                But it doesnt matter who the candidate is republican, democrat it doesnt matter about 75% of what comes out of their mouth is 100% bullturds.

                On the way home from scouts monday I listened to the state of the union address on the radio and nearly took myself and my 6 year old of a bridge from the crap Bush was talking about. It seems like now hes on the boat with stuff people have been saying for years.

                oh well I like your idea doc of 1 term and thats it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Awesome Sauce Malone
                  But it doesnt matter who the candidate is republican, democrat it doesnt matter about 75% of what comes out of their mouth is 100% bullturds.
                  That's why you need to look into Ron Paul. His message has not changed through 20 years in Congress and his voting record backs it up.

                  He's the only believable presidential candidate. No flip-flops. No subjectivity in his voting record.

                  Never voted to raise taxes.
                  Never voted for an unbalanced budget.
                  Never voted to raise congressional pay.
                  Never taken a government-paid junket.
                  Never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
                  Never voted to raid Social Security.
                  Doesn't participate in the congressional pension program (which is seriously lucrative).
                  Returns the unused portion of his yearly budget to the government's general fund.
                  Doesn't accept money from lobbyists.

                  I challenge anyone to find another candidate that can come close to that kind of record.

                  As for term limits, I could go for a one-term limit in the Senate, but for any office with a term of 4 years or less (like the House, with a 2-year term), two terms.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Royal, absolutely no apology necessary. I agree something needs to be done with the tax code and I like the premise of something along the lines of 1% VAT...of course it has to be able to fund the military and checks for the old folks.

                    In fact, I have a suspicion that I would favor a lot of Paul's fiscal and domestic policies. It's just that anyone whose plan (from this day forward) on the war on terror is to simply retreat and bring all the troops home is living in a dangerous fantasy world. They still want to kill each and every one of us and would love nothing better than do to it again on our soil. They ain't going to leave us alone if we cut and run.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Our 50-year history of meddling in their affairs and our military presence is what has them so pissed off. When we have a base in Saudi Arabia, we are the infidels (from their point of view) allowing their religious fanatics to use Islamic scripture as justification to kill us.

                      It's been reported that Al-Quaeda's numbers are larger now than before 9/11. I don't think our plan is working.

                      Would they send us a thank you note right after pulling out? No. But Al-Quaeda wouldn't have the recruiting fodder or motivation to coordinate and pull off attacks on our soil.

                      Read the 9/11 Commission Report (I think it's in chapter 2) as well as the writings of the CIA guy who's job it was to study and understand Bin Laden. They both concur about the primary reason they attacked us and are able to recruit.

                      Now we're playing right into Bin Laden's hands. Back in 2004 he stated his goal was to bankrupt the US. And thanks to the $1 trillion spent on the Iraq war and the trillions more it's going to take to stay there, it's working.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        wow Royal to be honest you never struck me as the type to type what you just did haha.

                        Its kind of OT but I agree with your last post.

                        Pulling everybody out off the middle east wont solve anything but neither will having half the country over *exaggeration*

                        This country will forever be in debt. I dont have a plan in order to solve that somewhat. I havent seen anything thats really going to help either

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The Islamo Fascists want to kill anything that is not Muslim (so called infidels). They want to spread their gospel all over God's green earth. Hell they're killing folks in London, Spain, Bali, the Phillipines and other countless spots around the globe. So it goes a little deeper than just the good old US of A. I personally would feel less safe if all the troops cut and run. I guess everyone feels different on this subject.

                          And we're not going to end up bankrupt. We'll emerge from this war and the luming recession just fine just like history has shown over the last 300+ years. There are many factors that are much more likely to threaten the US economy than war. Generally speaking, post-war eras offer times of prosperity.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Many, if not most, of those other bombings were retalliations for participation in Iraq or support of those who participated.

                            From my understanding, an "infidel" is a non-Muslim in Muslim lands, not an American citizen minding their own business in their own country. But as long as our military are infidels in their lands, we are all infidels in their eyes.


                            A big difference between past wars and this one is the state of the dollar. Except for post-Vietnam, we had a dollar that was at least partially backed by precious metals. That is, it was relatively stable. And I don't think the 70's were times of particular prosperity. That's when inflation really kicked in.

                            I think this will be the first time we've ever emerged from a war with a seriously devalued dollar with no solid backing and runaway domestic spending and a large group of baby-boomers set to retire and collect their Social Security and go on Medicare (get ready for a nice tax increase, which won't be good for the economy). And I don't see the feds (Federal Reserve board) willing to increase interest rates enough to solidfy the dollar like was done in the late 70s and early 80s. No, instead they bow to pressure to stave off a recession by doing the same thing that keeps us continuing to try to stave off a recession. And if Congress actually reigns in spending on social programs enough to help out I will fall out of whatever chair I'm sitting in.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm no friend of Romney but I thought he was right. Most flat taxes generally start around the 23+ % range so it just does not sound like this will take in enough revenue to pay for our current expenditures.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X