Romney: Chick-fil-a controversy not part of my campaign

Youtube ^ | August 3, 2012 | charliespiering

[EternalVigilance]

Watch the short clip here.

[presently no screen name]

STAY FOCUSED - TODD isn’t running. YOU want to discuss clothing - discuss the underwear ROMNEY wears and WHY!

Try being credible!

[EternalVigilance]

Great point. But, of course, like French generals, they’re always fighting the last war, and learning absolutely nothing from any set of circumstances.

[presently no screen name]

We need to keep the momentum going and should not attack other conservatives because they are not 100% in lockstep with us.

TELL US - WHAT CONSERVATIVES are you speaking about?

[presently no screen name]

this whole Chick-fil-a thing is just another leftist-press-generated brouhaha.

WHAT???? Tell us - what IS this about! Your liberalism is screaming!

[Diogenesis]

When Mr. RomneyCARE acts conservatively (almost NEVER),
conservatives support him.

The rest of the time, patriots call the
CHOSEN RINO LOSER Milt on his hyperliberal pandering
and worse, and RomneyBOTs like you call it “hate”.

You can’t handle the truth.

Mr. RomneyCARE NEVER supports conservative
causes from FAST & FURIOUS to Obama’s lack of credentials.
Mr. RomneyCARE ALWAYS supports ObamaCARE/taxes
but he calls them something else.

[evad]

"Fear and insults. That's all you've got. "

Really? You sure of that?

You know, you may be successful in your campaign to elect BHO and IF you succeed you can always point out to others and say, "SEE, I helped do that".

Personally, I hope you fail.

[engrpat]

The only way to accomplish that goal is to stay off the side issues and stick to the winner...the economy. A little off subject but I would love to see a Romney ad where he just stands there and says: “Obama has proven he can’t fix the economy, I can and have a proven track record of success to prove it.” That would be a winning ad I think.

[BlatherNaut]

He never referred to them when he all on his lil ol lonesome brought in same sex marriage to MASS..

Here are the facts:

Romney supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The state legislature prevented Massachusetts citizens from voting on the issue, because they were afraid the amendment would pass if it was put to a vote.

Deval Patrick was governor when the amendment was formally killed and it was he who orchestrated its defeat by twisting arms. A number of legislators who had previously been in favor of the Constitutional Amendment vote by the citizens suddenly changed their minds. One legislator who was in favor of the amendment even "fell down the stairs" and had to be taken out on a stretcher, so was forced to "miss" the vote.

From the Washington Times:

Only two days after voters in Arizona rejected a ballot initiative to define marriage as between a man and a woman and seven other states approved their own ballot initiative, Massachusetts lawmakers denied their constituents the opportunity to decide for themselves -- a blatant attempt to stop debate once and for all. In the process, they also trampled the state constitution.

Bay State legislators recessed Thursday without considering whether to place the 170,000-signatory marriage amendment on the 2008 ballot even though the state constitution requires that they vote, and even though the liberal state supreme court, which decreed same-sex "marriage" in the first place, had also previously ordered legislators to vote one way or another. But they wouldn't even put themselves on record as to whether to allow voters a choice two years from now.

To avoid intervention by Gov. Mitt Romney, lawmakers voted 109-87 to recess. Under the state's laborious constitutional-amendment rules, this all but kills the effort to let citizens have a say one way or the other. It deprives the measure of the second consecutive thumbs-up by 25 percent of lawmakers which the constitution requires for a ballot measure to go forward. That means proponents need to start over. The ballot measure must now garner tens of thousands of signatures again.

http://www.voteonmarriage.org/editorials.shtml#hc060107

[evad]

You sir, have poisoned this thread with facts.

Off to the torture chamber with you.

[Diogenesis]

You are making things up from whole cloth.

Mr. RomneyCARE, HIMSELF and no one else, installed GAY MARRIAGE.

It was, and has been HIS agenda.

Romney imposed gay marriage by his fiat against the Mass. Constitution by using improper executive authority.

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor Bishop Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'

"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.

"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."

Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...

Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.

Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."

"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."

And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:

* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.

"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)

"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."

* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.

"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."

* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."

"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.

"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."

[Qbert]

"When your house is on fire you don’t worry about what’s in the shed out back and you don’t care what color the fire engines are....all you care about is putting out the fire because without the house nothing else counts."

We certainly wouldn't want to capitalize politically on an issue that's extremely important to an overwhelming majority of Americans. That's not the GOP-e way...

[what's up]

Generally, indies are considered those who don't identify themselves as liberal or conservative.

Independents swung the congressional election in '06 and won Pelosi the Speakership; they also went for Obama over McCain.

We don't want them swinging Obama's way again.

[wtc911]

I have known a number of C level executives. One of the traits they share is the ability to prioritize and focus.

This "controversy" is being played out by lower echelons.

[BlatherNaut]

You are making things up from whole cloth.

To the contrary, I am describing how this matter unfolded, having watched it very closely at the time.

Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School.

Deval Patrick, who helped place the final nail in the coffin of the proposed constitutional amendment, is also a Harvard law graduate, and his opinion is no more accurate or unbiased regarding this matter than Titus'.

"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry.

It is not the only reasonable conclusion. In fact, anyone who watched the debate could quite reasonably draw the opposite opinion. It was clear that a large number of legislators were totally opposed to allowing the citizens of Massachusetts to vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being the union of a man and a woman.

The attempt was made to amend the Constitution because the Supreme Court determined that the law as it stands permits homosexual "marriage" (due to the fact that John Adams, et al never could have imagined the need to be explicit regarding the definition of marriage).

Goodrich v. Dept. of Public Health:

In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling on November 18, 2003,[3] the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodridge_v._Department_of_Public_Health

[Qbert]

"This "controversy" is being played out by lower echelons."

This controversy is the Constitution...

[miliantnutcase]

His answer would of been a disaster so he stayed clear. Not to mention it was a trap question as it was posed to him. We all know who he is... he’s just keeping his mouth shut which is probably best.

[presently no screen name]

Why is it best to keep his mouth shut - you don’t want to hear what he is all about?

Like the obama crew - they REFUSED to believe what was told them.

And it was NOT a trap - it is VERY easy to say if you are FOR TRADITIONAL marriage or not. HIS record PROVES HE IS NOT for Traditional marriage and his silence confirms it!

He’s filth right to the core - like his evil brother/Barry!

[presently no screen name]

he’s just keeping his mouth shut which is probably best.

You think NEWT would keep his mouth shut? No, he would blast them that they wouldn't know what hit them!

Newt would be coming from a clear conscientious and THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

THE LIAR and flip flopper has chosen to zip the lip - as those who DECEIVE do when there is something for them to get! If he fooled enough people, he doesn't need to say anymore. And his supporters don't care - they have no problem with the man being a deceiver and a known LIAR and who loves the same sex agenda!

[Diogenesis]

Mr. RomneyCARE violated the Mass. Constitution, RomneyBOT.
That is ok with you because you, like Mr. RomneyCARE,
HATE conservatives and Constitutions.

You lied out of whole cloth.

Milt Romney created BOTH ObamaCARE and gay Marriage.

[Diogenesis]

Mr. RomneyCARE is a COWARD except for his
attacks on women and children through surrogates.

[miliantnutcase]

Of course he’s a coward. But, most shrewd politicians are...

[Stentor]

Try being credible!

LMAO.

[Sea Parrot]

My choice for the 1 to 3 candidates who were running, Romney was not one. But it is what it is. So go to your corner and sulk beneath the blanket.

And I say this to those conservatives who do not vote for Romney. if Obama wins, IMO we will very likely lose the house and the senate will remain democrat.

So if such comes to pass, I will know who to thank for the continuing hellhole, those oh so PURIST ones, who chose to cut their noses off to spite their faces.

[MaxMax]

Yep, Mittens is showing his junk and there are no balls.
A-typical RINO response to important issues. Does he not realize
that the majority of American support the Family on this issue?

Good freekin grief.

[Just mythoughts]

My choice for the 1 to 3 candidates who were running, Romney was not one. But it is what it is. So go to your corner and sulk beneath the blanket. And I say this to those conservatives who do not vote for Romney. if Obama wins, IMO we will very likely lose the house and the senate will remain democrat. So if such comes to pass, I will know who to thank for the continuing hellhole, those oh so PURIST ones, who chose to cut their noses off to spite their faces.

We will get exactly who we deserve, whether it be BamBamKennedy or I ran my business just like BamBamKennedy bailed out the auto industry Romney. The TeaParty formed and reacted to the destroyer BamBamKennedy and gave control of the House to the Republicans in 2010... And we got a sniveling linguine spine Speaker. Wall Street bought BamBamKennedy's presidential ticket in 2008, and so called conservative still bend down in worship of that golden bull. By the way the derogatory term 'PURIST was divined up by the open borders crowd to spew upon US who were against the Bush/DickCheney amnesty plot.

[Sea Parrot]

Whatever you choose is your choice, so live with it.

Odd, my dictionary lists no relation to open borders, but shows purist as:”strict observance of or insistence on purity”

[BlatherNaut]

You lied out of whole cloth.

To the contrary.

But you're certainly entitled to believe that, if it pleases you.

It's time we agree to disagree.

[Kinder Gentler Machinegun Hand]

Where are these debates held? In a convention hall? Your living room? On the phone while you sit on the couch on your bath robe?

[Just mythoughts]

Whatever you choose is your choice, so live with it.

You are exactly correct, each person is responsible for their own actions. So go rag the high minded moderates that have no problem crawling around in the sewer with the liberals.

Odd, my dictionary lists no relation to open borders, but shows purist as:”strict observance of or insistence on purity”

But of course that is the correct meaning of the literal word purist. I guess you were out of touch when the high-minded social liberal moderates of the GOP-e decided to make it a pejorative for the conservatives they could no longer call 'single issue voters'. Social liberals are not and will never be fiscal conservatives. But they sure are first in line to jut out their chin and poke their fingers in the eyes of those they obviously despise more than liberals... the cough cough 'purists'... I am NOT impressed with their mushy minds and spines and smell to high Heaven after rolling in the sewer water of liberalism.

I will vote come election day.

[EternalVigilance]

Where are these debates held? In a convention hall? Your living room? On the phone while you sit on the couch on your bath robe?

We hold almost all of our meetings via phone conferencing, broadcast over the web. It's completely free for us, and involves no burdensome costs of any kind for any of the participants. Anyone in the world with an internet connection can listen in, and in many or most instances, join in.

Our people are just regular folks, using what resources they have to try and get their country back.

They aren't sucking on the teat of government, or begging the Republican-Democrat cartel for anything.

They don't receive tens of millions of dollars from the public treasury to run their conventions and buy their booze.

They haven't sold their souls to CNN, or Fox News, or NBC, or CBS, or ABC, or the New York Times.

And they are beholden to none of the money interests.

I would remind you that the founders of this free republic won our independence from Great Britain using hand-written letters, delivered via men on horseback.

I, for one, think we can preserve what they won, and generations before us have preserved, when we have access to communication resources such as cell phones, the internet, free websites, free social networks, free conferencing capabilities, free internet radio, free internet video conferencing, etc.

So, exactly which part of us exercising our God-given, unalienable rights as free Americans do you have a problem with?

Tom Hoefling for President 2012

[Sea Parrot]

In navigating the real world as it exists, there is no black and white, just varying shades of gray. If one does truly chose to live their life as a black and white purist, they have chosen a cruel task master who in the end will be their undoing.

[roamer_1]

Generally, indies are considered those who don't identify themselves as liberal or conservative.

No, Independents can be generally considered to be neither Democrat or Republican - The finer point would be *no* party affiliation, but smaller parties are often lumped in... The point being that Independents have no party affiliation.

Independents swung the congressional election in '06 and won Pelosi the Speakership; they also went for Obama over McCain. We don't want them swinging Obama's way again.

McCain lost because the Religious Right did not turn out in force, not because of any other thing... It simply astounds me that Republicans always step on Conservatives, thinking like rove: "Where they gonna go?" What happens is that they don't turn out. That's the problem the 'ABO' crowd around here doesn't understand... Conservatives stand on principle, and vote *FOR* those things. Without those things, there is no base, and therefore no win. Being fearful of middle straddling independents (which is not true in the first place) will get you nothing.

[roamer_1]

In navigating the real world as it exists, there is no black and white, just varying shades of gray. If one does truly chose to live their life as a black and white purist, they have chosen a cruel task master who in the end will be their undoing.

Then Conservatism is a lost cause, and you would be better off at some other site. After all, Conservatism is a dedication to the idea that certain principles exist and must needfully be preserved. What are principles, except those things which cannot be sacrificed?

'Varying shades of gray', at it's heart, is a tenet of liberalism.

[EternalVigilance]

In navigating the real world as it exists, there is no black and white, just varying shades of gray. If one does truly chose to live their life as a black and white purist, they have chosen a cruel task master who in the end will be their undoing.

What you call "real" is actually a destructive illusion, a fatal trap.

Here's real reality:

"Good understanding giveth favour: but the way of transgressors is hard." -- Proverbs 13:15

"Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” -- Matthew 11:28-30

[what's up]

Put it this way...more of those who have not committed themselves toward either candidate (but who will vote) will be disillusioned if Romney veers from making the economy the #1 issue and wades too far into social issues than will be disillusioned if he doesn't speak out on Chick Fil A.

Romney is winning as he hammers Obama on the economy and I think it's wise for Romney to keep that strategy and not be distracted.

Fact is, the religious right voted about the same in '08 as they did in '04. Sure, there are some who will not vote for Romney no matter what. But more and more conservatives are now more concerned with getting rid of Obama.

[Kinder Gentler Machinegun Hand]

How did I know that would be the case.....

[roamer_1]

Put it this way...more of those who have not committed themselves toward either candidate (but who will vote) will be disillusioned if Romney veers from making the economy the #1 issue and wades too far into social issues than will be disillusioned if he doesn't speak out on Chick Fil A.

I disagree profoundly, and Chick-Fil-A is primary evidence to the point. There is no economic motive behind it, only moral positions.

Romney is winning as he hammers Obama on the economy and I think it's wise for Romney to keep that strategy and not be distracted.

Romney can hardly be seen as 'winning' at this point at all. That he is barely eking out a few points against the most anti-American president ever should speak volumes, but it doesn't seem to, at least in the way you are coming across to me.

Fact is, the religious right voted about the same in '08 as they did in '04. Sure, there are some who will not vote for Romney no matter what. But more and more conservatives are now more concerned with getting rid of Obama.

The fact is that Bush only got 21m votes out of the Christian Right in 04 - Up, no doubt from 00, but still not nearing the 30m votes the Christian Right is assumed to be able to produce (on an average turnout... it is supposed to be able to go up from there if you get them jacked up)... And that is not accounting for any new voters (folks turning 18 and eligible) since the 90's.

Relying upon exit poll data has many flaws, but chief among them is that they do not include those who did not vote.

[EternalVigilance]

The perfect Romney Republican sneer. You’ve got it down pat. Congratulations.

[Sea Parrot]

I note when many have lost the argument, they auto pilot to invoking religion as their final fall back line of defense.

[Sea Parrot]

“...you would be better off at some other site.”

My, my, are you the self appointed one for determining who should be on this site? Or, is such acts as yours condoned by moderators and Jim?

[EternalVigilance]

I note when many have lost the argument, they auto pilot to invoking religion as their final fall back line of defense.

That's a very strange argument, since your post that I was responding to was primarily expressing a moral/religious strain of thought; dark, unprincipled, and fallacious though it may be.

In navigating the real world as it exists, there is no black and white, just varying shades of gray. If one does truly chose to live their life as a black and white purist, they have chosen a cruel task master who in the end will be their undoing.

[EternalVigilance]

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

-- Winston Churchill

[EternalVigilance]

"[T]here are certain basic moral truths that all of us really know, even if we pretend to ourselves that we don't. ... [D]ifferent cultures disagree only about the details of morality, not about the basics. C. S. Lewis gave us a good example when he remarked that although some cultures say you can have four wives and some say you can have only one, up until very recently, every human culture has recognized the sacredness of marriage. ... Paul said in Romans 1 that we 'suppress' the truth because of our sins. But if the knowledge is really down there, then it can be dredged back up, no matter how deeply suppressed. ... Don't forget: People know more about right and wrong than they ever let on. And you can learn how to get past their denials in order to remind them of the moral truths that they can't not know."

-- Chuck Colson

[EternalVigilance]

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

-- George Washington

[roamer_1]

[roamer_1:] ...you would be better off at some other site.

My, my, are you the self appointed one for determining who should be on this site? Or, is such acts as yours condoned by moderators and Jim?

Your use of ellipsis is disingenuous and places my remark out of context.

What I said was:

Then Conservatism is a lost cause, and you would be better off at some other site. After all, Conservatism is a dedication to the idea that certain principles exist and must needfully be preserved. What are principles, except those things which cannot be sacrificed?

src

The 'then' is a mechanism to offer up an inferred conclusion to your previous remark. Why spend time here if your 'varying shades of gray' obfuscate or outright deny the principles this site defends?

[EternalVigilance]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."

-- John Adams

[EternalVigilance]

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time...They therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure and which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

-- Charles Carroll, U.S. Senator and signer of the Declaration of Independence

[Tau Food]

I just finished hearing a tape of last night’s debate.

Why would a government with the power to coin money and the power to tax need to borrow money? You have a great question there, Tom, and I sure don’t have an answer! ;-)

Great job as usual. I recommend everyone listen to the tapes of these debates at Talkshoe.com. Lots of good stuff in there. Looking forward to Tuesday!

Keep on keepin on!

[EternalVigilance]

Thanks!

A short clip from the Wed. night debate that lays out my general view of government:

http://youtu.be/sGf4-7cpZZo

There will be some other important clips up shortly. The three hour recordings are a lot to wade through. :-)

[EternalVigilance]

Thanks!

A short clip from the Wed. night debate that lays out my general view of government:

http://youtu.be/sGf4-7cpZZo

There will be some other important clips up shortly. The three hour recordings are a lot to wade through. :-)