• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Mitt Shakes Etch-a-Sketch Again

A

Anonymous

Guest
Romney Says He Will Not Pursue Any New Restrictions of Abortions


In an obvious play for women's votes, Romney said yesterday that as President, he would not pursue any new legislation concerning abortion. This position is in contrast to what he has been saying all year in order to woo pro-life voters. He is counting on people not remembering his earlier positions. This change is what his advisor Erik Fehrnstrom meant by shaking the Etch-a-Sketch. Fehrstrom felt that Romney could completely change his positions on taxes, abortion, and anything else that was inconvenient near the end of the campaign and hardly anybody would notice.

Since winning the nomination he has flip flopped on raising taxes, Dream Act, Obamacare, and now abortion...

By campaign time he may be a fullfledged card carrying Democrat ! :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Romney Says He Will Not Pursue Any New Restrictions of Abortions


Fehrstrom felt that Romney could completely change his positions on taxes, abortion, and anything else that was inconvenient near the end of the campaign and hardly anybody would notice.


And he was right nobody noticed that counts oldtimer :D :D :D :D at least he is capable of looking at an issue and changing his mind...You on the otherhand have tunnel vision aand actually belive some of the stuff you say...even if you make up a lot of it.....Still waiting for proof of some of you false lies from the past...Gain back some of your credibility,,,You certianally need some in order to make any impact on how people believe what you say...
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Romney Says He Will Not Pursue Any New Restrictions of Abortions


In an obvious play for women's votes, Romney said yesterday that as President, he would not pursue any new legislation concerning abortion. This position is in contrast to what he has been saying all year in order to woo pro-life voters. He is counting on people not remembering his earlier positions. This change is what his advisor Erik Fehrnstrom meant by shaking the Etch-a-Sketch. Fehrstrom felt that Romney could completely change his positions on taxes, abortion, and anything else that was inconvenient near the end of the campaign and hardly anybody would notice.

Since winning the nomination he has flip flopped on raising taxes, Dream Act, Obamacare, and now abortion...

By campaign time he may be a fullfledged card carrying Democrat ! :wink: :lol: :lol:

To be against abortion is one thing. Since it is now the law of the land getting it changed is something else.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Talking about flip-flopping, how about this that Mike started another
thread about:

President Barack Obama has refused to extend to victims of Hurricane Isaac in Louisiana the same relief he criticized former President George W. Bush for withholding from New Orleans residents in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The move has frustrated state and local politicians and contradicts his own campaign rhetoric about disaster relief from just one election cycle ago.

In a fiery 2007 speech at Hampton University unveiled last week exclusively by The Daily Caller, Obama excoriated the Bush administration for supposedly refusing to waive requirements of the Stafford Act, which requires disaster victims to repay the federal government for emergency assistance, after Katrina struck the Gulf Coast.

“What’s happening down in New Orleans?” Obama shouted during the speech, which was recorded at the Virginia university in June of 2007. “Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act Money? Makes no sense! It tells me, the people down in New Orleans, they don’t care about as much!”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/obama-fails-to-provide-aid-to-victims-of-hurricane-isaac-despite-2007-anti-bush-rhetoric-on-katrina-relief/#ixzz28u9DkrQ9
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Thats not half of it, he is flat out a HYPOCRITE

Mark Levin: Obama voted against waiving Stafford Act 10 days before 2007 ‘race speech’Posted by The Right Scoop on October 3rd, 2012 in Politics | 45 Comments
Ten days before Obama went to race bait in his now infamous ‘race speech’ from 2007, he voted against an appropriate that would have waived the Stafford Act and was one of only 14 Senators to do so. The appropriation obviously passed which did waive the Stafford Act – no thanks to Obama. And still he went to that event and falsely used it to race bait.
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-obama-voted-against-waiving-stafford-act-10-days-before-2007-race-speech/
 

Steve

Well-known member
Since winning the nomination he has flip flopped on raising taxes, Dream Act, Obamacare, and now abortion...

everyone on this board knew Romney was a moderate democrat..

but now the question is..

has Romney flipped,.. or has he corrected the Obama version

all we have heard for months is a twisted Obama version of what Romney will do..

Now Mitt is actually stating his actual position.. and it doesn't jive with Obama's version of Romney's position the leftist media has reported..
 

Ouachita

New member
I'm very much pro-life, however my understanding of The Constitution is that the federal government has no jurisdiction on this issue. So, even though Mitt was at the bottom of my list of the Republican prospects, I can appreciate his personal opinion being pro-life, and him also knowing as a soon to be federal employee, that this particular issue is a right reserved by the states/people.
 

gmacbeef

Well-known member
Steve said:
Since winning the nomination he has flip flopped on raising taxes, Dream Act, Obamacare, and now abortion...

everyone on this board knew Romney was a moderate democrat..

but now the question is..

has Romney flipped,.. or has he corrected the Obama version

all we have heard for months is a twisted Obama version of what Romney will do..

Now Mitt is actually stating his actual position.. and it doesn't jive with Obama's version of Romney's position the leftist media has reported..

Oldalhthzeimer is just like all the other kool aid drinking Oblamea cult members. If Oblamea says it enough times it must be true. Oldtimer ,SHOW us the proof that ROMNEY SAID all these things.
 

gmacbeef

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Talking about flip-flopping, how about this that Mike started another
thread about:

President Barack Obama has refused to extend to victims of Hurricane Isaac in Louisiana the same relief he criticized former President George W. Bush for withholding from New Orleans residents in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The move has frustrated state and local politicians and contradicts his own campaign rhetoric about disaster relief from just one election cycle ago.

In a fiery 2007 speech at Hampton University unveiled last week exclusively by The Daily Caller, Obama excoriated the Bush administration for supposedly refusing to waive requirements of the Stafford Act, which requires disaster victims to repay the federal government for emergency assistance, after Katrina struck the Gulf Coast.

“What’s happening down in New Orleans?” Obama shouted during the speech, which was recorded at the Virginia university in June of 2007. “Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act Money? Makes no sense! It tells me, the people down in New Orleans, they don’t care about as much!”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/obama-fails-to-provide-aid-to-victims-of-hurricane-isaac-despite-2007-anti-bush-rhetoric-on-katrina-relief/#ixzz28u9DkrQ9

Just one problem with the liar in chiefs speech back then. The congress had already passed a Waiver of the stafford act for Katrina IN THAT CITY & STATE A WEEK BEORE & guess what.. OBLAMEA VOTED AGAINST IT. THE LYING HYPOCRITE SOB.!!!!
 

Tam

Well-known member
Don't you wish we had something like the internet so we can research Obama'S past speeches and Senate votes to see if they match up. OH WAIT WE DO AND MORE OFTEN THAN NOT HE IS SHOWN TO BE THE HYPOCRITE HE IS :roll:

In 2008 he claimed if you didn't have a record to run on, you make people fear your opponent by making a big deal out of a small issue.

In 2012 he has no good record he can run on so he makes a big deal out of Big Bird while trying to distract voters attention away from his administrations cover up of what they knew about a terrorist attack that resulted in a Ambassador's death due to his State Department refusing to provide requested security in a very dangerous country, while they willingly provided Obama's top advisor with security while she is on vacation IN THE USA.

Just how many times can you compare the guy's past speeches and his present speeches and point out the Hypocracy in them. I'm guess 9 times out of 10. But what really amazes me is his koolaid drinking followers don't seem to care about his BOLD FACE LYING.
 

Denny

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Romney Says He Will Not Pursue Any New Restrictions of Abortions


In an obvious play for women's votes, Romney said yesterday that as President, he would not pursue any new legislation concerning abortion. This position is in contrast to what he has been saying all year in order to woo pro-life voters. He is counting on people not remembering his earlier positions. This change is what his advisor Erik Fehrnstrom meant by shaking the Etch-a-Sketch. Fehrstrom felt that Romney could completely change his positions on taxes, abortion, and anything else that was inconvenient near the end of the campaign and hardly anybody would notice.

Since winning the nomination he has flip flopped on raising taxes, Dream Act, Obamacare, and now abortion...

By campaign time he may be a fullfledged card carrying Democrat ! :wink: :lol: :lol:

Well than you should vote for him being your a full fledged card carrying Democrat.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Why Did It Take So Long for Romney V2.0 to Repudiate Romney V1.0?

Mitt Romney V1.0 ("the severe conservative") has been upgraded to Mitt Romney V2.0 ("the Massachusetts moderate"). The question Stu Rothenberg asks is not "How come?" but "Why did it take so long?"
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_28/Whyd-Romney-Take-So-Long-to-Move-to-Middle-218127-1.html

It is a truism of American politics that politicians run to the extremes in the primaries and run to the center in the general election. But why did Romney wait until the first debate to do this?

Rothenberg has a couple of reasons. For one, the right never trusted Romney from day 1 so a quick turnaround would only confirm their worst fears. Some of them might stay home and pray for an Obama win in 2012 so a real conservative could run in 2016. Another reason is that fundamentally, Romney is a businessman who likes to make deals, even if they require compromises. To many people in the modern Republican Party, "compromise" is just a synonym for "treachery" or maybe even "treason." Under these conditions, it is understandable that Romney would wait as long as possible before announcing he might be willing to work with the Democrats to get things done.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Why Did It Take So Long for Romney V2.0 to Repudiate Romney V1.0?

Mitt Romney V1.0 ("the severe conservative") has been upgraded to Mitt Romney V2.0 ("the Massachusetts moderate"). The question Stu Rothenberg asks is not "How come?" but "Why did it take so long?"
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_28/Whyd-Romney-Take-So-Long-to-Move-to-Middle-218127-1.html

It is a truism of American politics that politicians run to the extremes in the primaries and run to the center in the general election. But why did Romney wait until the first debate to do this?

Rothenberg has a couple of reasons. For one, the right never trusted Romney from day 1 so a quick turnaround would only confirm their worst fears. Some of them might stay home and pray for an Obama win in 2012 so a real conservative could run in 2016. Another reason is that fundamentally, Romney is a businessman who likes to make deals, even if they require compromises. To many people in the modern Republican Party, "compromise" is just a synonym for "treachery" or maybe even "treason." Under these conditions, it is understandable that Romney would wait as long as possible before announcing he might be willing to work with the Democrats to get things done.

Now what was it that you said obama had done enough that you support him and defend him. Or was it just his promises that he has squelched on.
or is you like siding with the Communist party or the lowlife occupy protestors. etc
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Larrry said:
Oldtimer said:
Why Did It Take So Long for Romney V2.0 to Repudiate Romney V1.0?

Mitt Romney V1.0 ("the severe conservative") has been upgraded to Mitt Romney V2.0 ("the Massachusetts moderate"). The question Stu Rothenberg asks is not "How come?" but "Why did it take so long?"
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_28/Whyd-Romney-Take-So-Long-to-Move-to-Middle-218127-1.html

It is a truism of American politics that politicians run to the extremes in the primaries and run to the center in the general election. But why did Romney wait until the first debate to do this?

Rothenberg has a couple of reasons. For one, the right never trusted Romney from day 1 so a quick turnaround would only confirm their worst fears. Some of them might stay home and pray for an Obama win in 2012 so a real conservative could run in 2016. Another reason is that fundamentally, Romney is a businessman who likes to make deals, even if they require compromises. To many people in the modern Republican Party, "compromise" is just a synonym for "treachery" or maybe even "treason." Under these conditions, it is understandable that Romney would wait as long as possible before announcing he might be willing to work with the Democrats to get things done.



I thought you wanted bipartisan politics--so Romney says he can work with both parties and that isn't good enough either. Make up your mind.
He's already proven he can do that since he worked with Democrats as
governor of Massachusetts. Or did you not hear him say that?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Larrry said:



I thought you wanted bipartisan politics--so Romney says he can work with both parties and that isn't good enough either. Make up your mind.
He's already proven he can do that since he worked with Democrats as
governor of Massachusetts. Or did you not hear him say that?

Faster Horses-- which Mitt are you voting for the rightwing Repub Mitt or the leftwing Dem Mitt... :???: :wink: :lol:
Will he end up being another GW Bush who went down the tubes trying to appease everyone?....
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Larrry said:
I thought you wanted bipartisan politics--so Romney says he can work with both parties and that isn't good enough either. Make up your mind.
He's already proven he can do that since he worked with Democrats as
governor of Massachusetts. Or did you not hear him say that?

Faster Horses-- which Mitt are you voting for the rightwing Repub Mitt or the leftwing Dem Mitt... :???: :wink: :lol:
Will he end up being another GW Bush who went down the tubes trying to appease everyone?....

Ah, heck, OT, this time I'm doing like you do and voting for the man!
And just to set the record straight, I don't consider Bush "went down the
tubes trying to appease everyone...". I felt one heck of a lot safer when
he ran the country.
 

djinwa

Well-known member
And just to set the record straight, I don't consider Bush "went down the tubes trying to appease everyone...". I felt one heck of a lot safer when he ran the country.

And thus we get to the heart of politics. Scare the people so they are willing to give up their money and freedom in order to feel safe. Works every time. Mess with other countries so they retaliate, then tell everyone how much danger we're in. The people fall for it every time. Minding our own business is not an option.

H. L. Mencken:
The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.

Power is usurped from the people, first by implementing fear, then it is maintained by slandering as 'unpatriotic' those who refuse submission.
~Ramman Kenoun

It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.
~James Madison

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
~H. L. Mencken

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency.
~General Douglas MacArthur

It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
~General Douglas MacArthur

We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.
~Otto von Bismarck

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

Benjamin Franklin:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
 
Top