Romney backs away from gay adoptions [Friday night, after endorsing Thursday]

CBS news ^ | May 11, 2012 | Matthew Shelley

[kevcol]

(CBS News) Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Friday backed away from his support of adoptions by same-sex couples, saying that he simply "acknowledges" the legality of such adoptions in many states.

A day earlier, Romney, in an interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto, had indicated that while he does not support same-sex marriage, he considers the adoption of children by same-sex couples a "right."

He said on Thursday: "And if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child -- in my state individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, that's something that people have a right to do. But to call that marriage is something that in my view is a departure from the real meaning of that word."

But then on Friday, he was asked, in an interview with CBS' WBTV in Charlotte, N.C., how his opposition to same-sex marriage "squared" with his support for gay adoptions. Romney told anchor Paul Cameron, "Well actually I think all states but one allow gay adoption, so that's a position which has been decided by most of the state legislators, including the one in my state some time ago. So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one."

[SoConPubbie]

Now should there be some sort of priority given to a married couple? (the best possible placement choice) sure. But once a kid has been passed over time and again by all the married couples... I see no problem with opening up their adoption to singles, gays, or whoever wants to give them a home. Especially if the child is old enough to agree to such a placement.

Now if you are a Christian, and believe the Bible is the word of God, then you know that a so-called "Gay" couple have NO honest desires to help children by raising them.

Their goals are nothing less then to molest the child mentally, and spiritually, and more than likely physically.

There is not an ounce of goodness in their souls, they are the embodiment of evil because they CHOSE evil over righteousness, that is why God gave them over to the perversion, the evilness, they now suffer with.

Romans 1:18-32

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

[SoConPubbie]

More and more it’s clear that in this election, it’s going to be a question of naming your poison.

Only if you allow yourself to be manipulated into voting for the two poisons Obama and Romney.

There are other choices, like valid conservative Third-Party candidates like Virgil Good or writing in Sarah Palin that will not violate your principles.

The choice is yours.

[dfwgator]

I would love to see Goode catch fire....but I just don’t see it happening.

[little jeremiah]

I was just conversing with someone else about the “Romney is inevtible so don’t bash him” topic. My response to her:

---

My view is that we fight Romney vigorously to send the delegates and other Rs at the convention the message that WE’RE MAD AS HELL AND NOT GOING TAKE IT (disgusting establishment RINOs) ANY MORE!!!

Then, if they don’t get the message, people can support Romeny if they want.

But NOT until then. It is not over yet. If we give up pre-emptively with a “sigh, I guess we’ll have to swallow our vomit and vote for the lesser of two evils YET AGAIN...” they’ll think they can stuff him down our gullets. Giving up the fight at this point is assisting the establishment traitors.

---

And, what about this?

Reality Check: Why all RNC delegates are ‘Free Agents’ and unbound

http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound

[dfwgator]

I agree that even if I do vote for him, and I’m not saying that I will, I want it clear, that if Romney wins that we put him there, and we can just as easily kick him out.

[Colonel_Flagg]

If Mutt changes positions any faster, he’s gonna rip himself in half.

[RightLady]

I don’t think any politician should be free from criticism on Free Republic, but why don’t express your disdain of the liberal policies rather than your hate for the politician (unless it’s Obama or his cohorts, of course). I fear all these things will be used against us in the general election. Obama will have his work cut out for him.

[mulebones]

You have seen what is being taught in our schools concerning tolerance to homosexuality. Gays offer children a place in their home to advance their perverted agenda. Can you imagine the horror should that child reject the perversion and grow up to be straight!

[GeronL]

Romney is an unprincipled liberal through and through, I judge him by his record not his words.

If I post articles that are negative on RomneyCare, I expect the shills to show up and tell me how it helps Obama or something. If we post things negative about liberalism that Romney supports, we expect those kinds of posts these days.

[GeronL]

The centrifugal force of that spin added to the flip flopping would seem to endanger the lives of those around him. /sarc

[unique1]

Question: So, Romney clearly isn’t your cup of tea. Therefore, the only other viable nominee looks to be Obama. Is there nothing that Romney has to offer that would prompt you to vote for him or vote against Obama by voting for Romney? Since you are a conservative, wouldn’t no vote at all for POTUS be, in effect, a vote for Obama?

Now, I fully understand your firm position on the Romney issue, but I don’t understand how Obama ends up a better choice then Romney at any level and on practically any issue, especially since Obama will go hard left if re-elected and not subject to being elected again, except perhaps in another country.

I’m not a shill for Romney, I’m just attempting to understand the outcome of those posting here that appear to be electing not to vote at the POTUS level or even vote for Obama. I just don’t get the value of the possible result - the re-election of Obama.

[JediJones]

If I recall correctly, kabar is a longtime Romney booster around here. Not exactly an objective voice on the issue of Romney.

Funny thing is the very brief ABC radio news report on Romney’s speech for no reason brought up that Romney is a Mormon within the few seconds they had to do a report. They tacked on at the end, “Romney did not bring up his own faith during the speech. Romney is a Mormon.”

More of the kitchen sink they’re throwing at Willard, seeing how many voters his Mormonism can alienate. However the media piling on him like they have been lately certainly helps him with the base.

[GeronL]

Since you are a conservative, wouldn’t no vote at all for POTUS be, in effect, a vote for Obama?

No. Votes not cast are not counted. It's as purely simple as that. If 50 million people did not vote, those votes do not count for anyone. It is not a hard concept to grasp.

You are trying to make an argument that the GOP is entitled to my vote, they are not. If your argument were accepted by everyone there would be no conservative movement at all, the GOPe would reign supreme and Free Republic would be nothing but an echo chamber for the country club establishment elite.

If we voted for whatever they served up, then we have shown that conservative principles are utterly meaningless. We will show that they do NOT have to listen to us at all, because they have our votes no matter what. How will they further conservatism? It won't.

I am a conservative, Romney is not. It's simple to grasp.

[JediJones]

Was at the barber today. He’s a pretty consistent Republican who’s not that picky and will vote for Romney. But he mentioned his customers are coming in talking about how badly Obama has screwed things up but then saying even worse stuff about Romney, that he’s out-of-touch, and that it sounds like they won’t switch their vote to him. Keep in mind this is a blue collar Reagan Democrat area of PA, but it shows that Romney will not be able to grab those important voters. His status as a mega-millionaire who SEEMS out-of-touch with the common man will sink him with that voting block, which most definitely puts PA out of reach for him.

[SoConPubbie]

I would love to see Goode catch fire....but I just don’t see it happening.

From a principled conservative perspective, it's not about winning at any cost (Progressive Liberal Mitt Romney) but about being a principled conservative, actually believing in conservative principles and acting on those beliefs.

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton

[JediJones]

Yup and if Romney is that unpopular in 2016 to get voted out, a Democrat Congress will sweep in. The sweep for Dems will probably start in 2014. And because the Dems had to move so far left to distinguish themselves from moderate Mitt, it will be the most radical leftist government we’ve ever had. It’ll make Obama look like a conservative. Massive tax hikes, national gay marriage, single-payer health care, control of our military ceded to the U.N., etc. History tells us that’s what we’re in store for if Romney wins. And because he is so wimpy and limp, he won’t have accomplished a single meaningful conservative reform or part of the agenda in the 4 years that he will have.

[unique1]

Hmmmmmmm.....

Now, that doesn’t make sense to me. If 5 million conservatives do not vote for Romney because as the Republican nominee he’s not conservative enough or at all, yes - those votes aren’t counted - but, very few liberals on the other side will hesitate to vote for Obama - he wins in a landslide since conservative votes are required and necessary for the Republican to generate the volume needed to win.

And True, the GOP is not entitled to your vote but more than likely received your vote last time around and many times before that. This time, they will not and you don’t have a nominee to vote for, you will sit this one out - Obama wins big. Interesting way to go.

Also, you seem angry. I’m just curious, not intending to be confrontational.

[GeronL]

Romney does not deserve my vote. He is a terrible candidate and a liberal.

If Romney doesn’t inspire people to vote for him the problem is with the candidate. If those 5 million people leave the Presidential line on the ballt blank, then the problem is still with Romney. Romney does not automatically get our votes because he is the GOP nominee.

If the GOP decides to go to hell, I am not going with them.

[unique1]

Therefore, you will more than likely secure the goal you may or may not be seeking - Obama will be re-elected. Now, that is an outcome that needs to be avoided, in my opinion.

Not you, of course, but sometimes I wonder about those posting here that have the same bottom line result in mind that you do - are they really Obama supporters or simply not caring for Romney? In either case, they are sure doing a good job of electing Obama and seem to have delayed the 100% mark on contributions to FR as well. Geez, perhaps we are doomed?

Thanks for the discussion. I’m still confused by your intended or unintended goal, but let’s see how in works out in November.

[GeronL]

I have no goal except not to vote for liberals.

I do not support candidates that I cannot morally vote for.

It is up to the candidate to gather his votes, to earn them. The outcome is no one else’s fault.

[kabar]

Romney has received 6.4 million votes compared to Santorum’s 3.6 million, Gingrich’s 2.5 million, and Paul’s 1.6 million.

[little jeremiah]

How many were open primaries. For one thing.

[kabar]

We could end up with 4 years of Obama followed by 8 years of another Democrat, especially if Obamacare is overturned and Congress put the breaks on Obama’s remaining ambitions.

If Obamacare is upheld by SCOTUS, it will be implemented if Obama has four more years. Congress can't stop it. And if the Reps don't get 60 seats in the Senate, then even getting something thru Congress will be impossible. Obama will veto anything that tries to undo Obamacare.

Once we have Obamacare plus probably two more Obama Justices in the Supreme Court, it really matters not who follows Obama. Everthing else that follows will just be arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

A good economy plus an amnesty could pave the way for another 12 years worth of Democrat presidents. ABO

If we have an amnesty, it will be game, set, and match for the US of A. Not only will 12 to 20 million illegals have their status legalized, according to the Heritage Foundation, an amnesty will cost $2.6 trillion just for the entitlement program costs and allow 66 million more LEGAL immigrants to be sponsored by those who receive amnesty thru chain migration, i.e., family reunification. And that is only if we have 12 million illegals. We just can't assimilate those numbers.

Here is Eliseo Medina, SEIU, speaking about how amnesty will make the (Progressives (Dems) the permanent majority party

[kabar]

Romney has won in 26 states: Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming Territories: District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico

He has come in second in 9: Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee Territories: U.S. Virgin Islands

And third in 4: Alabama, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota

Santorum has won 11, come in second in 13 (plus two territories), and third in 8 plus one territory.

[muawiyah]

I watch what these guys do ~ not so much what they say. After all they are well practiced professional politicians so they can say anything you might like.

BTW, if you'd given the speech you'd hit it out of the ballpark too ~ but nobody would be there to hear it ~ still it'd be the same speech.

So much for the speech. Now, it's up to Romney and his Mittbots to figure out how they are going to win an election against Obama without the support of the social Conservatives. He's going to have to make some promises to us and take some actions showing good faith.

Bouncing Priebus out of the RNC chairmanship would be a start ~ a small one ~ and sending the gay staffers and financiers off to greener pastures another.

It's gotta' be done or it's 2006 all over again.

[muawiyah]

Believe it or not it's happened before ~ 2006 and 1964.

Although the Goldwater campaign and its result are a lot more complex than most analysts can fathom, it wasn't just a simple case of Barry being TOO CONSERVATIVE ~ if anything he was quite in tune with the greater part of the party ~ the Regular Republicans, the Presidential Republicans and the Blue Hairs from Kenosha (the old money from the Midwest ~ his wife was a principal heir for Borg Warner for pete's sake.).

Barry did have difficulty following his own analysis of the electorate, something I've continued to study for another 48 years, but he was on the right path.

He was so absolutely stupendously correct Lyndon Johnson took his analysis to hot and beat him like an egg!

LBJ saw that all he needed to do was hold the Democrat base ~ which he did easily since JFK had been assassinated ~ and slice off a Republican faction.

As you recall 1964 was a big year for Black Civil Rights laws ~ a number had been passed but they wanted improved access to voting in the South. LBJ had delivered for them with the Comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 ~ he promised a voting rights act in 1965 if he were re-elected.

In that one thing he sliced off the remaining black Republican faction in the Republican party permanently ~ all of them! He got the ones in the North, the ones the South, the ones in the West, and the ones who were far more organized in the Northeast and Chicago. ALL OF THEM. And as their numbers grew and they obtained greater access to the ballot box the black vote became more and more important. Where JFK had gotten 70% of a far lower number of black voters, LBJ got 94% of a greater number.

The voting totals for blacks in those days were nothing like they were in 2008, but LBJ got them all, and with that edge ~ a piece of the Social Conservatives inside the Republican coalition, black Evangelicals, abandoned the party and voted for the Democrat~ a notorious letch and drunk!

Goldwater didn't have a chance. He'd also fought the Civil Rights act in Congress in 1964 and that didn't help him, but LBJ's promise for 1965 pretty much sealed the deal.

Now we've got another situation just like that. Romney is the candidate of choice for the Presidential Republicans, the Northeastern Republicans, but not really for the Regular Republicans (the folks who take care of down-ticket electioneering0. He is also the candidate of choice for the Kenosha Blue-Hairs! (In this case quite literally, since Romney's old man was the President of the predecessor company to much of SE Wisconsin's industry, American Motors, headquartered in Kenosha).

All that's missing is a piece of the Republican party share of the Social Conservatives who will go to the Democrats, or who will simply not vote.

I suspect they will not vote for Romney, and it'll look like 1964 all over again.

Karl Rove will blame it on the anti-gay Social Conservatives who didn't show up to vote. So will everybody on FOX, and on National Review On Line, and on National Review, Spectator, Cato, Commentator, Human Events, etc.

My price for political advice will increase substantially after the election

[TexasFreeper2009]

So... basically your saying that it’s better for the government to raise the child than ANY gay person?

Are gays more likely to molest children ... ? maybe, I don’t know. But surely your not suggesting that ALL gay people want to molest children? If if there is a way through background checks, interviews,ect to week out the pervs from the gays who just want to help raise a child that would otherwise be raised by the state that no one else wanted... you would deny the child the choice to be adopted if he or she choose to by a gay person?

[bog trotter]

ME neither.
Just yesterday I received a call from someone claiming to be from the RNC wanting me to help save the country from Obama.
I told her that I hadn’t voted for either Dole or McCain and didn’t plan to vote for Romney either.
She gasped and I told her that when they offered me someone I could vote FOR, I would.
But, until then, lose my number.

[Dajjal]

Etch-A-Sketch bump

[Politicalmom]

How much is Mitten’s campaign paying you?

[caww]

I’m impresssed with your information. Very interesting...thank you.

[caww]

Geron.....I’m voting against both. But I am curious why the Gop put Romney out there knowing full well the people would oppose him? Could be they did this purposely knowing Obama could use all sorts of tactics to take Romney out...then the fall of this nation would be on the Democrates and Obam? In other words the GOP does not want this mess Obamas made....to clean it up only to have the democrates come in in 2016 and take credit for the work Republicans did to stablilize the ship for them..so they could then take it further down?

[caww]

They've been calling me as well, both state an national...and it's all about taking Obama out rather than speak about Romney's record....and they're hyper as they speak....as said..as if the nation is depending on Romneys win to save the country.

This is fear-mongering and unfortunately many are going to vote Romney for that reason...they're afraid.

Like you I told them when they can put a candidate out there that's electable and conservative...then we'll talk about donations...until then my money was going to conservative candidates....and why.

[caww]

You need to do some research on the gay community.....but aside from that would you put a child in “potential” danger by allowing gay couples to adopt them?...knowing that there are many in the gay community who could well molest or harm that child.....let alone the “confusion” that the kid will insticntively know something isn’t right.

I say no to gays adopting children...period.

[caww]

You need to do some research on the gay community.....but aside from that would you put a child in “potential” danger by allowing gay couples to adopt them?...knowing that there are many in the gay community who could well molest or harm that child.....let alone the “confusion” that the kid will instinctively know something isn't right.

I say no to gays adopting children...period.

[GeronL]

The country club establishment GOP has never liked conservatives very much. To me it feels like they decided to punt on this Presidential last summer or thereabouts. That’s just a feeling I got.

I have no idea of their motives. Maybe there was a handshake or maybe they were finally able to shake off the conservative vote in the primary and are now at a loss with what to do now.

We need elect as many conservative House and Senate members as we can, because it looks bad either way. Kick the RINO’s out in the primaries as often as possible!

[caww]

We need elect as many conservative House and Senate members as we can, because it looks bad either way. Kick the RINO’s out in the primaries as often as possible!

Of course...I intend to do just that. But I can't for the life of me understand the GOP pushing for Romney. ..and frankly none of them are really excited about him. So punt may very well be the case.

[rcrngroup]

It's a tough choice, but not as simple as "do you really want 4 more years of Obamao?" Willard would permanently redefine the party leftward. This would marginalize Conservatives for a generation (at least) and give the GOP-e the real mandate it wants: to tell Conservatives to sit down, shut up and get with the program. Is gridlocking Obamao for 4 years with a more Conservative congress and the possibility of a true Conservative on the ticket in 2016 a worse option than that?

Actually it is as simple as "do we want 4 more years of 0bamao?" First of all, 0dumb0 doesn't give a rat's ass as to the problem of gridlock or not. He will use his "Executive Orders" to effectively rule as a dictatorship, supported by the partisan in-the-tank media, and dare the House GOP or GOP Senate to do anything about it. If they pass a bill or bills to counter the Executive Orders, 0dumb0 will simply veto the bill and his veto will hold up. I don't believe the Senate will be flipped to the Repubs anyway in the Nov 2012 election.

In the House, Boehner is the most incompetent, inept, ineffective Speaker of the House we could possibly end up with. He is a cry baby, and he is dumber than dirt and looks it with his deputy dog droopy eyes, and along with Biden, ranks as the 2 dumbest politicians in DC! Boehner has SINGLE-HANDEDLY destroyed ALL the momentum & surge coming out of the Nov 2010 elections with his ineptness. 0dumb0 has played Boehner to be an incompetent fool. Boehner lost the fight on raising the debt ceiling right from the very start, and instead caved in to give 0dumb0 another $2.4 TRILLION with meaningless stipulations that 0dumb0 just pays lip service to. Boehner kicked the can down the road on the Bush tax cuts expiring & 0dumb0 will play him for an inept fool when this debate is reignited. He goes golfing (more than once) with the traitor 0dumb0. 0dumb0 conducts an illegal war against Libya without congressional authorization within the 60 day deadline and nothing happens. 0dumb0 & Holder are laughing at the threats by the House GOP re. Fast & Furious, and the murder of Border Patrol agent Terry. 0dumb0 has made illegal NON-recess appointments and the GOP Senate has done nothing. Etc., etc., etc!

So if 0dumb0 wins this coming Nov 2012, we will likely no longer have a country or constitution by 2016. 0dumb0 will be on a drug induced HIGH as he destroys & rips apart our country and steals the few remaining freedoms we have. And he will openly mock the pathetic inept GOP House or Senate trying to stop him.

I have been a firm supporter of Newt from the very start...unfortunately that has not worked out, we have Mitt Romney instead. And believe me, it IS as simple as do we want 4 more years of unrestrained 0dumb0 on steroids (or cocaine)? That RAT bastard will destroy our country for good. It better be Anybody But 0dumb0, even if that anybody is Mitt Romney. If not, and if 0dumb0 gets re-elected, than I hope & pray for a secession of 14-18 Southern & Western states and to dare 0dumb0 to do anything about it. Hopefully most of the rank & file military would support the seceding states, but I am convinced that most of the senior officers (colonels, generals, admirals, etc) will firmly be in 0dumb0's camp. I would join these seceding states in a heart beat. OTOH this would likely never happen anyway as our country is too far down the socialist path to Hell.

[DBeers]

...but if someone gay, straight, single or otherwise wants to help a homeless orphan out by offering them a place in their home... I sure wont stand in their way.

WOW... I think you are confused...

Are you sure you are a conservative?

[DBeers]

...you would deny the child the choice to be adopted if he or she choose to by a gay person?

Would you care to define "gay person"? You keep promoting these "people" as normal -just like all of us... What exactly makes them "gay"?

In other words, does a fondness for anal sex make one a good parent as YOU seem to suggest repeatedly here?

[DBeers]

I’m still confused

I would agree with you.

Romney sucks.

[DBeers]

Romney has won in 26 states...

Blah... Blah...

Obama won too...

So did Hitler...

You defend the man whose policies suck. Care to defend his policies and in essence defend progressive leftism?

Lesser of two evils remains evil and will strengthen the RINO progressive foothold in the GOP.

Get a clue -the RINO progressive foothold in the GOP is the more imminent danger. IF the GOP goes down then conservatives will have to start from scratch at the Presidential national level like they have already started doing right now at the State level e.g. the Tea Party. It is no simple disagreement that premises the Tea Party and the GOP being at odds -it is all about conservative principle that Romney severely lacks... IF the GOP did not a conservative problem there would be no Tea Party!

[alstewartfan]

Wouldn’t it be great if we had an HONEST nominee, such as Sarah Palin? The enthusiasm factor would be off the charts. Bob

[txrangerette]

I start from the premise that Romney is a horrible candidate.

Where I get off the train is when people are attacked for knowing he’s horrible YET voting for him in order to end Obama’s hateful reign of destruction on America.

I can understand why they would, even though I won’t vote for him. I don’t for a second buy that every Romney vote by a conservative is one done because they aren’t really conservative, or they’re too ignorant to understand what Romney is, you name it.

The entire state of Texas is a good example. I believe good, common sense, conservative Texans will vote Obama out [without MY vote]. Not because they support Romney but because of legitimate Obama-induced FEAR. And deep ANGER.

And I will defend people like that to my last breath.

I know my people.

Therefore I in fairness won’t attack those in swing states who decide to endure that painful vote in order to stop Obama.

I have also said, if you (meaning anyone, not you personally) can’t bring yourself to do that, I understand you, too.

I don’t accuse you of deliberately re-electing Obama, because I accept that you can’t bring yourself to do it.

It will be every man’s/woman’s conscience for itself.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Romney needs to stay on an economic message and not be drawn into this briar patch the Left is nurturing.

Romney is not at home in a briar patch.

[txrangerette]

No, he isn’t at home there.

I heard the clip where he referred to gay adoptions of kids as being “fine” but he’s against gay marriage.

It was basically a toss off line.

It only caused him far more trouble than if he had stuck to a script, any script, economy or gay marriage, anything.

But in this business you need more savvy and quick on your feet ability than THAT.

He later tried to clarify by saying they were legal in all states except one and that’s all he meant.

I’ve read some things indicating even that isn’t correct.

I don’t know if it’s correct or not, but the whole thing is just symptomatic of what’s wrong with Romney.

But our state will vote for ABO.

If you attack any of us here for our views that such a vote is defensible, then you have attacked every person in every such state, and you have attacked every state, that will vote OBAMA OUT.

Even though I won’t vote for Romney, THAT I will never do.

I know my people, and they don’t deserve that.

[kevcol]

If not, and if 0dumb0 gets re-elected, than I hope & pray for a secession of 14-18 Southern & Western states and to dare 0dumb0 to do anything about it. Hopefully most of the rank & file military would support the seceding states, but I am convinced that most of the senior officers (colonels, generals, admirals, etc) will firmly be in 0dumb0's camp. I would join these seceding states in a heart beat. OTOH this would likely never happen anyway as our country is too far down the socialist path to Hell.

Okay, I think I have identified where there is a split between one element of ABO and FUMRIWVFY (I Won't Vote For You), and that is "too far down the socialist path". I do not believe that the non-state-supported/non-liberal/legal citizenry has been put to the test yet... Firearm and ammo sales are through the roof and on back order for months in some cases. This is not a symptom of a country too far down the path to socialism to recover - IMO this is a symptom of a citizenry preparing to defend the Constitution by any means necessary. I am not as convinced as you are that the top brass would align with the wrong side in a CWII, just look at CWI for en example. If my choices are: Willard for 8 years (or Willard then another Marxist [D]) with the same end result - Conservatives finally marginalized for good and [R] party idealogically where the [D] party is today, or resisting and surviving 4 years of lame duck 0 (with the caveat of the possible need for an "patriotic event" in the unlikely event of marshall law, rule by executive order etc...) with a chance to nominate a true Conservative in 2016, I go with #2.

You can easily bypass this entire argument as well if you cast your vote according to your spirituality and trust in Him. Either way my decision is: No Obamao, No Willard, I will vote for someone else at the top of the ticket.

[kevcol]

Wouldn’t it be great if we had an HONEST nominee, such as Sarah Palin? The enthusiasm factor would be off the charts. Bob

YES! Obamao is a sitting duck. ANY conservative (but especially Sarah) could have knocked him off. This should have been OUR year. Instead we get the same s**t sandwich as usual courtesy of cheating/strong arming in the delegate system and GOP-e mega$$$$$$ carpet bombing the real Conservatives when it mattered most.