[Rushtalk] Romney Shows His Hand

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at verizon.net
Sun Aug 24 17:40:58 MDT 2014


At 02:40 PM 8/24/2014, Stephen A. Frye wrote:
>Content-type: multipart/alternative;
>  boundary="Boundary_(ID_Sc3QrJcxlSKL1b3LweHNlA)"
>Content-language: en-us
>
>I agree he is right;  I don¡¯t think it¡¯s quite that close.

         Nice to see that you're back, Stephen...............   -   jaq

>
>From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com 
>[mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On Behalf Of Bernard L Willis
>Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 9:45 PM
>To: rushtalk at csdco.com
>Cc: rushtalk at csdco.com
>Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Romney Shows His Hand
>
>Sad, but I think Dennis is right.  Hope I'm wrong.
>
>BW
>
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 19:55:31 -0400 Dennis Putnam 
><<mailto:dap1 at bellsouth.net>dap1 at bellsouth.net> writes:
>You are all missing it. It would not matter what 
>Romney did or said unless he promised more free 
>stuff than Obama. As I've said many times, this 
>country has turned the corner to dependence. 
>Those getting free stuff will out vote the rest 
>of us until the country totally collapses 
>economically and then it will be too late for 
>all of us. We are at a tipping point this 
>November. If low information voters stay home 
>then we have a chance to get congress to slow 
>down the slide (we will never have enough 
>cajones in congress to reverse it) but if they 
>turn out like 2013 then the end is eminent. 
>Slavery will follow and the cycle will start 
>again. Cry for your children and grandchildren.
>
>On 8/22/2014 6:20 PM, Steven Laib wrote:
>A large part of the problem is that Romney, like 
>a lot of other people, could never imagine that 
>an anti-American person would ever be allowed to 
>get this far, let alone, be elected.
>
>Stupidity is becoming infectious these days.
>
>SDL
>
>
>On 8/22/14 12:55 PM, Tom Matiska wrote:
>Mitt's words are spot on.  First sentence of 
>second paragraph should not be about Mitt, but 
>should ask how the Paulbots couldn't see how bad 
>Obama was going to be.  I understand the 
>Paulbots had their feelings hurt when he lost 
>the primaries in convincing style. but there is 
>no rationale to explain people who would rather 
>see the country fail under Obama than prosper under Mitt.  Tom
>
>On Friday, August 22, 2014 11:11 AM, Carl 
>William Spitzer IV <mailto:cwsiv at copper.net><cwsiv at copper.net> wrote:
>
>For all the fools who choose a RINO over Conservative Ron Paul you would
>be no better off than under an honest enemy we have in ObombA except you
>would be defending him and excusing liberalism in the GOP.
>CWSIV
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Romney Shows His Hand
>
>   * Posted by Jeff Dover on August 20, 2014
>
>
>Mitt Romney¡¯s recent assertion that Obama is ¡°worse than even I had
>imagined¡± tells us much about who Romney is and how he would have viewed
>the presidency.  His statement clearly conveys that, if he wasn't
>previously sympathetic to Obama, at least he didn¡¯t think that Obama was
>really that bad.
>
>How is it that a man, nominated by the Republican Party to oppose Obama
>in a presidential election, could fail to understand how bad Obama
>really was?  Obama¡¯s known associations with and affinity for people
>such as  ¡°Reverend¡± Jeremiah Wright, ACORN or William Ayers should have
>been enough of a tipoff for anyone to summarily reject such a person for
>the office.  But then there was Obama¡¯s Fast and Furious operation, run
>against the citizens of his own country, which resulted in the death of
>one of his Border Patrol agents.  If that wasn¡¯t enough, he squandered
>$500 million dollars on a solar firm that was barely breathing when it
>received the funds.  Predictably, when the funds were exhausted, so was
>Solyndra, which promptly went out of business.
>
>But then, reportedly, Romney¡¯s son told the press that his father didn¡¯t
>even want the office.  His campaign reflected both his lack of
>enthusiasm and his lack of fundamental disagreement with Obama.  He
>couldn¡¯t seem to come out swinging against the guy.  Was that because
>Obama¡¯s triumph from passage of the Obamacare legislation was in league
>with Romney¡¯s thinking?  After all, as a big money guy, Romney had to
>love the ¡°welfare¡± that was thrown to many of the country¡¯s largest
>insurance companies as a result of the act, and of course, Romney had
>ushered in state-run healthcare insurance when he sat in the
>Massachusetts governor¡¯s office.
>
>His statement makes it plain that Romney was never the right guy for the
>office of President and we conservatives knew that.  The RINOs running
>the Republican Party, however, didn¡¯t care what their base thought.
>Romney was of and by the GOP Establishment.  He was one of them, and as
>it certainly appears to anyone paying attention, the GOP Establishment,
>like Romney, doesn¡¯t really care if a Republican or a Democrat wins the
>office.  They only worry that a conservative will win the office and
>begin the upset of Washington that the United States so desperately
>needs.
>
><http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topic/show?id=3355873%3ATopic%25>http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topic/show?id=3355873%3ATopic%
>3A2905578&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
>
>
>Replies to This Discussion
>
>Permalink Reply by Sunny 12 hours ago
>
>   Please God, let that upset happen!!!
>
>      *
>
>         ¢º Reply
>      *
>
>Permalink Reply by Jo Gonzalez 11 hours ago
>
>   Romney lacked "the fire in his belly".  He refused to really go
>at Obama, use the tools provided.     The evidence was there, but he
>played the game with no passion, no spirit.  Simply not firm in his
>convictions.     We need a Passionate, America-loving Christian in
>this Office, and someone, with some brains and couurage, for a change.
>
>      *
>
>         ¢º Reply
>      *
>
>Permalink Reply by Sunny 11 hours ago
>
>   So true Jo.  Romney didn't have passion or spirit because he is
>O-lite.  No fire at all.  A schumuk actually.  We need exactly what you
>described.  Wonder if we will ever see that day come.  The demon-rats
>have the voting machines rigged from the last two elections - what's to
>change that now?
>
>      *
>
>         ¢º Reply
>      *
>
>Permalink Reply by Donald Mack Flippin 11 hours ago
>
>   Jeff, old buddy,
>
>   You're right on the money again.  Honestly, can you see Ted Cruz
>p****-
>
>   footing with this communist shuck and jive artist (Obama) in a
>debate??
>
>   But . . . the GOP establishment had to run a 'nice guy'.
>
>   Well, nice guys don't lose; they just come in second place!
>
>   And, unfortunately, we didn't lose in Vietnam, but . . . right!
>Because of
>
>   the traitors in Washington, D.C., we came in second place.
>
>   Semper Fi!
>
>      *
>
>         ¢º Reply
>      *
>
>Permalink Reply by Paul R. Bedard 2 hours ago
>
>   Just like Romney, we do NOT go to war to win anymore! We are the
>most powerful country in the world and third world countries with ragtag
>armies beat us after fighting them for over ten years! They have no
>naval or air force, live in caves and tunnels, ride horses and donkeys
>and they beat our asses! Since the Korean war, we never went to war to
>win! If we wanted to, we could have won Vietnam, Afganastan and the Iraq
>wars in less than 6 months! The military industrial complex and the
>politicians/lobbyists in Washington, D.C. run the wars! It's all about
>keeping the wars going to make billions of dollars off the dead body's
>of our men and women! In Vietnam, 58,000 men and women lost their lives
>for nothing! Not to mention the hundreds of thousands that came back
>injured! Over 1 million Vietnamese men, women and children were in the
>wrong place at the wrong time and were murdered! Notice how few
>politicians had their children fighting in Vietnam! They could afford to
>send their kids to college and then they'd be exempted from the draft;
>the law they created to protect their children! So the poor black and
>white kids who couldn't afford college were put on the battlefield to be
>blown apart! JUST SHAMEFUL! GOVERNMENT IS SO CORRUPT!!!
>
>      *
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
><mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
><mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
><mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20140824/ea001435/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list