I Can't Stand Romney.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by crakjak

That is just stupid!! Romney would be infinitely better for the country than Obama. Newt and Romney's mudding slinging is politics as usual, both of them are muddy.

That ad he put out and refused to pull when he knew it was a lie is totally despicable and disgusting. I had just walked in the door and my husband was watching the news. When I heard him talking I stopped to listen. He was telling a crowd of people that lie about Gingrich and smiling all the while, my husband and I shut down on him.

I turned to him and said, "I cannot vote for that man." He replied, "I can't either."

You better recruit a couple of more people to vote for him to take our place.

[Pressing-On]

Let's talk about Mitt's "blind trust" statement. Which Mitt?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPBl3...yer_embedded#!

[Pressing-On]

January 30, 2012
Romney's Massachusetts mandate deception

Mitt Romney, in last Thursday’s debate, made the familiar argument that the reason why he supported the individual mandate in Massachusetts was to combat freeloaders who choose not to get health insurance and instead showed up at hospitals, where taxpayers ultimately paid for their care. But this claim is contradicted by analyzing state data in Massachusetts.

No doubt, liberals could argue that it’s fair for healthier people and those with more means to be forced to purchase insurance or help subsidize those who are sicker or poorer. But that’s not the argument that Romney is employing in his deceptive attempt to justify his policy to a conservative audience under the guise of "personal responsibility."

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...ception/348731

[Pressing-On]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WdkE...yer_embedded#!

[Pressing-On]

George Soros would suggest that there isn’t a lot of difference between Obama and Romney and that if Romney were the nominee, there wouldn’t be a lot of enthusiasm on either side of the aisle.

However if Newt or Santorum wins, Soros believes just the opposite would be true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyftC...yer_embedded#!

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

George Soros would suggest that there isn’t a lot of difference between Obama and Romney and that if Romney were the nominee, there wouldn’t be a lot of enthusiasm on either side of the aisle.

However if Newt or Santorum wins, Soros believes just the opposite would be true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyftC...yer_embedded#!

Soros is the last person I would trust to tell the truth about the Republican campagin. He just might have a sinister agenda. LOL

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Let's talk about Mitt's "blind trust" statement. Which Mitt?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPBl3...yer_embedded#!

Yes, you set up perimeters for the blind trust when you set it up, but once set up you cannot manage the day to day operation of it. And the fact is that he didn't have stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rather he owned mutual fund stock which did have FM & FM, but like Newt he probably didn't know it. Individual stockholders on mutual funds have zip control over the stock purchase in the fund. And do not own the individual stocks in the mutual fund. This is all a straw man raised by Newt, neither one of them controlled FM & FM, so it is all moot. PURE MUD, no substance to the argument.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Soros is the last person I would trust to tell the truth about the Republican campagin. He just might have a sinister agenda. LOL

We can both agree on the character of Soros. LOL! But, in this instance, he hasn't been the only one stating that there is not much difference between Romney and Obama. Not only no difference on the healthcare issue, that he hasn't backed down on, but the Global Warming as well.

In 2005 he imposed tough (CO2) emissions regulations. At that time the first and only state to set limits on power plants - toughest in the nation.

Romney did in 2005 what Obama wants to do now - toughest in the nation and with price caps so that the cost cannot be passed to the consumer.

The person who advised Romney was John Holdren, Obama's chief science adviser.

No, not much difference between the two.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Yes, you set up perimeters for the blind trust when you set it up, but once set up you cannot manage the day to day operation of it. And the fact is that he didn't have stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rather he owned mutual fund stock which did have FM & FM, but like Newt he probably didn't know it. Individual stockholders on mutual funds have zip control over the stock purchase in the fund. And do not own the individual stocks in the mutual fund. This is all a straw man raised by Newt, neither one of them controlled FM & FM, so it is all moot. PURE MUD, no substance to the argument.

Not exactly pure mud. National Journal and others have pointed out that not all of Romney's assets were in a blind trust.

According to Romney's financial disclosure forms, he owned somewhere between $250,000 and $500,000 in a mutual fund called the Government Obligation Fund. That fund invested in debt notes of various government entities, including Fannie and Freddie.

Because those assets were considered a charitable trust and not a blind trust, Romney could have reviewed them himself. That was what Gingrich was talking about in the last debate and Romney denied that, saying it was a blind trust only.

At Human Events, John Hayward, writes:

"...Advancing a position that is radically different from something he was documented saying in the past, without explaining that either he’s had a sincere change of opinion, or the rules surrounding blind trust have changed in such a way that he feels differently about them now? That’s not going to cut it. Not against Obama and the massed legions of the mainstream press."

[n david]

I'd vote for Romney over Gingrich. Gingrich is a clown. He can't debate facts, so he tries debating the media and debate moderators.

He's a joke. The sooner he gets out, the better.