Posted on 06/05/2012 2:51:31 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi
Once-secret emails from Mitt Romney's time as governor that were revealed today spurred a flurry of comments about the candidate's support for the so-called individual mandate. Yet there's another issue that's been revived: Romney's secrecy.
When Romney left the governor's office in Massachusetts, his staff erased all the emails from a computer server and bought the hard drives used to store data, so that their correspondence would stay hidden.
Or so they thought.
Tom Trimarco, Romney's administration and finance secretary, never deleted his emails. Some of them surfaced today in The Wall Street Journal, which submitted a public information request for emails involving Trimarco and officials in the administration.
The emails show that Romney was neck-deep in negotiations to get his health care bill passed, that he personally wrote op-eds about it, and that he defended the so-called individual mandate to buy health insurance, a provision in President Obama's law that has drawn criticism from Republicans.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I align with Goode on every issue. But you are smoking crack if you vote for him. He will NEVER win. Ever...
You might try reading instead of skimming or skipping when you reply to posts. Hello?????? I've made it pretty clear ... I accept and expect that whichever third party candidate I vote for will lose. I'm not voting for him to win -- I'm casting the third party vote FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of weakening the "victory" of whichever statist wins, Obama or Romney. I am praying that enough American patriots do the same and that whichever statist wins, Obama or Romney, is forced into a plurality win and enters office defensive and vulnerable, It is the least -- and it is the ONLY -- way I can vote in the Presidential in order to advance the interests of limited government conservatism.
You obviously did not read my post 98 very comprehensively.
I wouldn’t pi$$ on Romney if his hair was on fire. The father of homosexual marriage and 0bamacare, along with the fools at the RNC the foisted this POS upon us can all KMA.
Well put, thanks.
Absolutely!! If Romney wins the election, I expect the conservatives who held their noses and voted for him will have the greatest case of political buyer's remorse ever in a short period of time.
To vote third party or not vote in the current presidential election is to knowingly declare one’s self to be irrelevant. There is no possibility of the third party candidate to win, therefore the vote is meaningless.
You are probably irrelevant in the big picture any way but if there are a few of you who insist on prideful voting for nothing, in a tight race your zealous pride could allow the Obama margin to exceed the Mitt total.
There are only two candidates. We have two parties and within those parties are a majority consensus of the various coalitions.
To choose otherwise is to become irrelevant to the process and of no value to the country
The tantrum troops march to Obama’s tune even though they despise him. Sadly, they are apparently too deaf to hear the beat so they presume they march for freedom while in the commie’s line to the trains.
Your angry assumption, that voting against little barry bastard is making MIlt Rominy ‘my candidate’, comes across as an arrogant insult. And demanding mathematical proof is another childish insult. Do you undertsand that Obama will get a predictable number of automatic dron democrat votes? Do you understand that to prevent that automatic number from being enough to re-elect him requires that ONE candidate get sufficient votes to total greater than Obama’s total? If you comprehend those two realities then demanding ‘mathematical proof’ is an absurdism used to try and squelch rational thought.
Your angry assumption, that voting against little barry bastard is making MIlt Rominy ‘my candidate’, comes across as an arrogant insult. And demanding mathematical proof is another childish insult. Do you undertsand that Obama will get a predictable number of automatic drone democrat votes? Do you understand that to prevent that automatic number from being enough to re-elect him requires that ONE candidate get sufficient votes to total greater than Obama’s total? If you comprehend those two realities then demanding ‘mathematical proof’ is an absurdism used to try and squelch rational thought.
Yes or noe?
You haven't actually read my posts, have you? Come on now, you're among FRiends, you can be honest. It's obvious anyway. :^) You sound like Emily Latella.
It's pretty obvious you're just knee-jerk responding to something you didn't read. Maybe you've skimmed them, but you haven't read them and certainly haven't done me the courtesy of mulling them -- I am serious in writing them, leaving anger and contempt OUT of them; the least you can do is give them serious consideration.
Instead, all you have are emotional insults, anger and contempt. FRiend, when I respond to a post, I do its author the courtesy of actually READING the post before responding, and if I'm participating in a thread, I generally READ the whole thread so I know the positions of the FReepers participating. Is that too much to expect from you?
If you had actually read, for example, my post #72 on this thread, you'd never even have asked the questions you pose in post #108. Like I said, you sound like Emily Latella!
I challenge the popular fallacy that if one doesn't vote for Romney, that "it's the same as voting for Obama." If a person is going to make such a false statement, he/she should expect to be asked to prove it mathematically (and since it is mathamatically false, such proof will fail to appear). If that request comes across to you as "an arrogant childish insult," then you have some ego problems.
One question: do you think the Republican revolution would have happened if Clinton had won with 53% of the vote?
Yes or no?
I’m afraid you’re too full of yourself for me to have a discussion with you. In closing, does the name Ross Perot mean anything to you? *sigh* [We are so blessed to have such mental giants insulting us now, rather than the run of the mill democrat pawns.]
Dear, I have discussed Ross Perot ON THIS THREAD!!!! -- hello?????? -- but you didn't read it. You talk about how impossible it is to have a "discussion" with me when what you really want is you doing all the broadcasting and zero receiving -- not even reading the posts or opinions you respond to. That sounds like a liberal's idea of a "discussion." THAT is the mindset of the folks who want me to vote for Romney.
Why don't you discuss how Romney would treat conservative Republicans when he is two years into his term? PLEASE discuss that here -- talk about whether he would fight them and side with Democrats who like his progressive big-government programs, or whether he would join with limited government conservatives?
Why don't you discuss what the political dynamics would be if Obama won on such a thin plurality that 60% of Americans voted against him?
You pretend that you want to have a "discussion"? Go for it. I'm not too full of myself to hear your ideas on what kind of President Romney would be for limited government conservatives halfway into his first term.
DISCUSS THAT, please?
Do you think the Republican Revolution would have happend if Clinton had won with a 53% majority?
YES or NO?
When you're called out on the obvious fact that you didn't take the time or trouble to READ the posts, you do a nice little maneuver of "you're just too full of yourself for me to have a discussion with you." Really and truly, the behavior of the people who want me to vote for Romney, speaks volumes about the weakness of their position.
Seems to really irk you that I won’t dance to your dissonance. Have Nice Day
MHG was for Newt in the primary...
Romney is not his cabdidate...
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.