Posted on 05/11/2012 8:46:14 PM PDT by LouAvul
After reading about Romney having no problem w/fags adopting children, I'm not going to vote if he gets the nomination.
2 John 11: "For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."
Maybe I've voted in my last election.
“It may not help this election but who knows what seeds may be planted.”
If Romney, like McCain before him, goes down in flames - perhaps, just PERHAPS the GOP will figure it out that a Conservative is the one they need to put the effort into.
Romney assaulted religious liberty, particularly the Catholic Church, in the cram down enforcement of RomneyCare, only he did it first in MA, before Obama.
Vote for the Romney, the template for Obamacare, individual mandate, assaulting religious liberty, and the redistribution of wealth.
Romney assaulted religious liberty, particularly the Catholic Church, in the cram down enforcement of RomneyCare, only he did it first in MA, before Obama.
Vote for the Romney, the template for Obamacare, individual mandate, assaulting religious liberty, and the redistribution of wealth.
That’s what I’m going for. I won’t vote Romney. I expect him to lose. And I hope the GOP-e is more open to Conservartives in 2016 (if we still have elections).
If Obama gets in you probably have unless you consider voting "Da" for the only candidate that will be allowed on the ballot as they did in the Soviet Union for several generations as meaningful voting.
This is who Romney is...
In 2005, the Boston Globe revealed that Catholic Charities of Boston had placed a small number of special-needs children with homosexual couples for adoption. The Archdiocese of Boston responded in early 2006, stating it would no longer place children with homosexual couples (as the Church considers homosexuality “gravely immoral”). A media storm quickly followed.
Responding to charges that it was illegally discriminating against homosexuals, the Archdiocese then asked the state to grant a religious exemption to Catholic Charities, but the Legislature balked. Existing Massachusetts non-discrimination laws referencing “sexual orientation” plus “legal gay marriage” would not allow the Church to follow its moral precepts, it was claimed.
Governor Romney said his hands were tied by the law, the Legislature’s refusal to act, and the Supreme Court ruling which had forced same-sex marriage on the state. All he could do was to file a bill to “protect religious freedom” in Massachusetts, specifically targeting the laws covering adoption, and hope for the best. The Legislature then killed his bill, and the Church had to end its adoption services in order not to violate its own tenets. But Romney had done all he could for religious freedom!
But that’s not exactly what happened. In fact, Romney erroneously blamed the Church’s predicament on non-existent law and could have rescinded the administrative regulations that would not let Catholic Charities deny placement of children with homosexual couples. Romney also failed to point out that religious freedom was already protected in both the state and federal constitutions. The Archdiocese could have fought this in court but did not — perhaps out of fear of losing major donors with liberal views (who were well represented on Catholic Charities’ board). In the end, the homosexual activists and their allies got their way, and it was another public whipping for the Catholic Church — all of which Romney could have prevented.
Romney falsely claimed the law required Catholic Charities to place children with homosexual couples. ...
This story is significant because it lays bare Romney’s hypocrisy and self-contradiction. He simultaneously accepted homosexuality and laws or policies banning discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation,” yet blamed those very laws or policies for threatening “religious freedom.” If he understood that conflict in March 2006, how could he ever have supported laws banning discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation”? (It is unclear whether he still supports such laws; see Chapter II.) Did he (and does he) not see how they set up conflicts with basic constitutional rights?
Romney blamed Massachusetts law for the problem. But there is no overarching law in Massachusetts concerning “sexual orientation” discrimination. The phrase “sexual orientation” appears in only certain specific Massachusetts statutes (signed into law by Democrat Governor Michael Dukakis in 1989). In any case, these statutes do not trump freedom of religion, constitutionally protected both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution.
One could even question Romney’s motives. He had said in 2003 that he favored “adoptive parent rights” for same-sex couples, but on many other instances tried to sidestep that question. In a clear statement at the height of the Catholic Charities adoption story, he said that same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest” in adopting children...
...and you felt compelled to eat up bandwidth on this site to put this up?
Vote for whoever the hell you want to vote for, but keep it to yourself in the future.
This site is better than this high-school crap.
Then write someone in. We need to take back the Senate. Not voting in NOT an option.
Yeah right, reelect Obama.
Do you realize Obama is disarming us? I mean really disarming the United States? That tens of millions or more may die in a nuclear war because we are so weak. That Israel is on the precipice. The list is too long that’s enough.
And Romney opposes Obamacare and will support it’s repeal, whereas Obama, let me think .... Obamacare. But yeah, keep Romney out of there. Which means keeping Obama in.
Jeez, we’ve all known it since September 10, 2004!
Join the club.
No Romney, no way.
He’s always been a pandering homo-hugger.
And - if we can gain more conservative (or at least GOP seats), they will probably be more likely to vote down Obama’s liberal ideas. Whereas with Romney’s liberal ideas they may be more likely to vote yes just because he has an (R) after his name.
That is why I am your king!
===============================================
Dan 2:21 And He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and sets up kings. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding.
It should get more exposure here on FR - maybe there will be fewer arguments and bannings these days...
See my post 33. I feel that a vote for Romney is just adding more hot water to the pot with the swimming frog. What will come after Romney? Well, perhaps another 4 years of Romney. And then another Liberal candidate. Because, you know, only “moderates” can win elections.
Bingo! The gope gave Obama not a single vote. They will give Romney everything he wants. They LIKE what he did in MA. They own him, and they want to move the party to the LEFT. That’s why they backed him.
“Listen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.”
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.