Posted on 03/25/2009 5:58:14 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
RTFA.
His article was about unions destroying charter schools, not about unionizing the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
Mitt is merely doing what a lot of us are typing about sitting on our butts. He is out there helping to stop that snake Franken--a topic widely posted about on our beloved, conservative FreeRepublic forum.
I look forward to further intelligent and thoughtful and hopefully thought provoking discourse in the future. If we can not speak to one another with respect and intelligently drawn arguments how pray tell are we to convince those who can barely do more than flick on tv to a MSM channel (who are unfortunately are many or our family, friends, neighbors, co-workers etc.) Our country is more important than our darn egos in my opinion.
Why was my post #24 removed ?
From the looks of your posts, someone needs to straighten you out. Running around the forum whining and crying about how Romney and his supporters are being treated so badly, is SOP for you WillardBots. Besides, what do you expect? FR didn't support your precious Willard in the last election cycle and I don't see 2012 being any different should he choose to run again.
Legitimate debate on this forum doesn't include promoting unprincipled, two-faced politicos like Myth Romney.
Btw, Romney doesn't do anything unless he believes its in his best interest.
I may think you too need straightening out, but I do realize I can only best argue my point as I did regarded gamesmanship and intelligent dialog. I believe I made some thoughtful, thought provoking points too as I did so :-).
You have not done as such regarding my 'needing straightening out." Do I look physically unstraight to you? Are my posts physically unstraight. This may be a computer problem. LOL.
There was quite a lot of conjecture in your return post and certain amount that leads me to think you believe you have psychic abilities--LOL.
However you did make a claim and I would like for you to a at least back it up as I did my one small comments that threw a group ( a small one at that) into a tizzy.
First the moderators did not take the Mitt thread off the forum. Thus I assume Mitt Romney is a legitimate figure in which to debate as are comments about things he has said as well as posters like me offhandedly repeating something positive I learned about the man. None of those comments were removed for not being legitimate.
Can you attempt at least one post in which you do not call me a name or people who post an article, regarding Mitt Romney's comments on something, a name? It would go further at actually taking your arguments, if they are made, seriously.
So since you backed up another comment with a claim I want to follow this up. You said:
Btw, Romney doesn't do anything unless he believes its in his best interest.
How does contributing money and a large amount of time toward fighting for Norm Coleman and against Al Franken behind the scenes fulfill your claim? Even if you have an argument for such, who among us frequently gives time and money to things that are NOT in our best interest? Even when one gives to charity we do it in that we feel this is good and right for ourselves and fulfills on our commitment to let's say, God.
Is it a bad thing to do things that are in our best interest now along with it being bad to be ambitious and bad to make a lot of money and bad to be a success? I did not get the memo.
Not me. This guy.
"I agree. Screw Whitman and the Romney he rode in with."
~~~ Jim Robinson, February 26, 2009LINK
>>>>>First the moderators did not take the Mitt thread off the forum. Thus I assume Mitt Romney is a legitimate figure in which to debate ...
Wrong, again. Romney threads are kept around just so FReepers can bash him mercilessly. LOL How naive can you be?
I don't see in your quote, that you stole from Jim, that Jim was posting to me or that he had read any of my comments before posting this stolen quote tonight. I also do not see in the quote that Jim said I needed "straightening out."
You can try to use Jim to prop you up (especially without his stated approval.) but if you can't make your own arguments, I do not think he probably appreciates it, but unlike you, I do not presume to know Jim's mind in each circumstance. If I owned Jim's site, I would want conservatives that can use their own brains and voice, not just rely on him.
Now me? I'm a passionate intelligent fighter that uses my own brain. Me thinks they might like a few of those types of conservatives around FreeRepublic. I can handle my own and don't use other's quote and pass 'em off as if they are supporting me to prop myself up.
It is sort of like you are in a gun fight. The other person shoots at you when you thought you could get away with just trying to intimidate them. You know they mean business and using a real gun scares you so you run and hide behind the sheriff who is not in the gun fight but sitting in the saloon. You run and duck behind his legs. Whatever the sheriff thinks of me, you are the coward.
I am a lady and know how to carry and use my own gun. No hidey hole here. Try again ReaganMan. If you can't fight for yourself, I'll call it a night.
I would like to see a message as such from a moderator or from Jim that:
Romney threads are kept around just so FReepers can bash him mercilessly. as you stated in your post.
I will await. If I do not receive as much it is clear you are full of it.
LOL How naive can you be?
Clearly not as naive as you as you are still slapping on the personal insults and attacks regarding reasonable arguments I have made on my own. with out a reasoned thoughtful counteractive. Now I must hand it to you as you did not name call. Excellent! I appreciated that . . . a lot.
I did read the “F”’n article.
Mitt made it seem like he was some individual rights hero. He was a slug as Governor. He couldn’t even care who was appointed a judge in Massachusetts, let alone get into a union fight. He couldn’t even get State Troopers to be replaced by lupin flag wavers.
Mitt, big bad Fight’n Da Unions Conservative( snicker ). This is his equivalent of being a ‘life long hunter’.
Mitt is not a political conservative. But he does play one. (I’m not sure he is even a social conservative)
We’ve had enough, in both the Democrat and Republican parties with fakes.
Anyways, try, if possible for you, to think outside the mental box. Mitt is, like most hack pols, a very desperate and desirous of office, and should be read and listen to with an eye on what their motivations are. Smarten up, don’t embarrass a conservative site with passive reading. That’s for Obama/Clinton serfs.
Romney is an abortion loving big government solution socialist. Want me to post the videos of his abortion pushing speeches again? And his bragging about RomneyCare? Maybe I should link them permanently at the top of breaking news?
61 posted on Saturday, March 14, 2009 1:02:06 PM by Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2206505/posts?page=61#61
Fish in a barrel...
Way too easy...
Thanks...
No wonder you RomneyBOTs hide when the truth comes out.
Romney: "Thank Me that my faithful blind RomneyBOTs continue to call honest FReepers names
blocking their expose' of my scurrilous, lying record and my attacks on Gov. Palin and the other candidates."
Furthermore, you got a form. So what.
The important questions you ignore are: Did you get a PCP?
Did your rates go up? Did you get immediate care?
The rest say: No. Yes. No.
You are GOP I will grant that, but that brand and conservative have been at odds for some time, much to the GOPs detriment.
Socialized Medicine, weak gun stances and big government are not part an parcel of Conservative standards. Perhaps, if you are indeed conservative, you might want to look beneath the polish and the words of a man who is not really interested in anything but political success and will join with whomever brings it.
Then you can join the majority of us conservatives here on FR who have also looked at the total package and found Mitt "lacking"..
Thanks VR, saved me the trouble.
Yeah, your links to FR vanity threads are sure TRUE. LOL.
The important questions you ignore are: Did you get a PCP?
The point is, I was able to get individual coverage equivalent to my prior employer provided coverage at similar (actually lower) cost without having to go through any process more complex or onerous than I did to choose coverage at the prior employer. And, yes, I kept my PCP.
You’re telling me that you are not screaming in pain and dying like Diogenesis’ disingenuous link to an article about UK health care in his prior post on this thread suggested?
As with most WillardBots, you're a glutton for punishment. This is JR's house. He makes the rules and his words stand on their own. You may not like to see his attacks on Romney re-posted. Well, too bad. You can ignore them, but they won't go away.
Tomorrow is your third year as a member of this forum. Obviously, you have a lot to learn about conservatism. In case you didn't notice, FR opposed Willard's candidacy for president. Nothing has changed. If you want to come on here to promote, support and defend liberals like Romney, you do so at your own peril.
It is normal courtesy to ping someone a poster remarks about, but
to a liar like GOP_Lady, courtesy is as difficult to provide as truth.
GOP_Lady is also noted to have ignored the challenge to rebut the
comments in post #14.
The reason: It was all truth, as now proven.
RomneyBOTs' and Mr.GOP_Lady's comments: [sound of crickets]
"Subsidized care plan's cost to double (Uh, oh...bad news for Romney's Healthcare plan)"
"Romney Care Is a Sham" by Michael Lewis
"I owe HUMAN EVENTS readers a big apology. I allowed the good spin put on Massachusetts’ new Romney Care legislation by the New York Times tilt my view in favor of the program enacted in an attempt to provide every citizen in the state with healthcare.
My column “Massachusetts Not as Blue as it Seems” reflects my violation of a crucial rule: never trust any law endorsed by the Times. At first glance, the much-heralded Massachusetts reform uses free-market principles to universalize healthcare. Upon reading the actual bill, the Wall Street Journal reported May 5 that the well-intentioned bill is actually a death warrant for small business in the Bay State.
The bill was hailed as a success in that it required individuals who could afford it to buy health insurance or pay an income tax penalty. The legislation also sought to mandate that companies move to provide all employees with health coverage. It was an improvement in that it wasn’t Hillary Care, and it is a disappointment in that it saddles businesses with expenses that threaten their ability to stay open, and shams individuals in that it requires a specific kind of policy be purchased.
Being a native of Massachusetts, I am of course more inclined to look favorably on a bill prided by a Republican governor than legislation sponsored by the commonwealth’s congressional delegation of Neanderthals (Kerry, Kennedy, Frank, Meehan, et al). The lesson here is to never let party allegiances blind you. The bill is destined to fail, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Upon a full comprehensive study of the legislation, it is clear that Romney was pandering to the Democrat-controlled legislature. The new healthcare law, according to the Wall Street Journal, requires businesses with 10 or more employees to provide them health insurance, or face a yearly $295 penalty per employee. While the fee seems punishment enough, businesses that cannot afford to provide insurance to all employees are responsible for all the expenses which the employee cannot pay, with no cap on the liability. After the bills reach in excess of $50,000, the commonwealth will fine companies $5,000 a week for every week they fail to submit the required paperwork on uncovered employees. The Wall Street Journal asserted that the regulations are burdensome enough for businesses to either limit their workforce to 10 employees, or begin laying people off.
Alas, I have learned to be skeptical of blue-state Republican governors. These governors must often sell out to Democrat-controlled legislatures to get anything done. Romney initially vetoed the provision which levied a $295 per employee penalty on businesses, only to be overruled by the Democratic legislature. Additionally, Section 65 of the law mandates that individuals buy HMO policies, rather than PPO plans, which allow much more consumer choice in providers and treatments. A Republican has betrayed the people by restricting choice insurance plans. What a sad day for the party.
As a Republican, Romney should have been more attentive to the consequences of the law for Mom n’ Pop businesses. Under the new cumbersome law, small businesses will be the first to fold because of unsustainable financial burdens. A more sensible bill would have allowed multiple businesses to pool resources in order to provide healthcare benefits to employees through trade associations. A similar bill has been pending in the Congress for two years, but is being opposed by — surprise — Democrats, who cite it as a giveaway to the insurance industry.
My aunt and uncle, owners of Foodmaster Supermarkets, with about 16 stores located throughout the greater Boston area, feel betrayed by Romney, as every Republican should. Foodmaster Supermarkets are renowned throughout Boston for their commitment to public service and charitable causes, such as Hospice of the North Shore, United Cerebral Palsy, the Lupus Foundation, and many others. But as with any business, there is a limit to how much the company can afford to give. The regulations imposed on my family’s business by Romney Care far surpass that limit. As Foodmaster already faces obstacles to survival from conglomerate chains such as Shaw’s and Stop n’ Shop, the new Massachusetts healthcare reform bill saddles the company with burdens which will challenge its ability to remain operational, and will reduce its ability to make much-needed contributions to the greater Boston community.
I hope my readers will forgive me of my misdeeds. But more importantly, I hope my uncle will forgive me for acting like a liberal."
Romney should stay home and take care of his wife for a change,
instead of continuing his lying carpetbagging RINO ways,
instead of buying "votes" and buying fake endorsements,
and instead of continuing his TeamRomney-backstabbing, dirty tricks, and "hate" through his RomneyBOTS.
FRee Republic Member Opinion
WINNER - Thompson 66.8% 1,658
LOSER --- Romney 12.7% 315
Post Election Rasmussen poll - GOP voters:
WINNER - Palin -- 64%
LOSER --- Huckabee -- 12%
LOSER --- Romney -- 11%
RINO Chameleon Shape-shifter GOP-backstabber Romney: “Make all the promises you have to...”
I can see you posting the link, but for God's sake quit using him as your voice box. If you do not like Romney this is America for Gods' sake speak your own mind and talk about your own points of view. Bots that hide behind people are really annoying and come off as not very bright and children hiding behind mama's skirt.
I can understand if you do not like Romney. Argue your own points. Let Jim read this article and my comments and comment. You have and you have nothing to say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.