Hey, Dumbass, in the last week, I've posted two Romney Flip-flop posts, one about his horsesh!t record on judicial appointments, two about his contradictions on RomneyCare, and one exposing his pro-choice views, as evidenced by his Planned Parenthood Questionnaire. All of those are posted on Right Speak, Why Not Romney, and Free Republic.

I'm THE ONLY front page Palin contributer OUT OF 15 on Right Speak. I'm over there battling the Rombots every day.

What have you done lately, other than cause trouble around here?

21 posted on 03/30/2011 5:23:36 PM PDT by Right Wingnut 2

To: Right Wingnut 2

"Mitt Romney...alienating America one group at a time." - AlaskaErik

22 posted on 03/30/2011 5:28:28 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people''s money." M Thatcher)

To: Right Wingnut 2; Diogenesis

Well, I’m mostly here protecting my turf. Diogenesis is supposed to be MY stalker, and I’m jealous that you are now drawing all this attention.

But i’m trying to draw the fire back!!

I wouldn’t worry about getting booted. The people in the Diogenesis ping list are smart enough to see what’s up — I mean, everybody is smart enough to see what’s up. I can’t imagine there’s a freeper reading your posts who doesn’t understand where you are coming from, and what your intentions are.

And I can’t imagine anybody other than Diogenesis ever suggesting you were a Romneybot. IN fact, up until today, I couldn’t imagine that even Diogenesis would stoop so low.

23 posted on 03/30/2011 5:41:14 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT

Wow, I’ve actually got my own Diogenesis spam post now! This is exactly the same false post you made in another thread on another day.

I can’t fathom why you keep pinging people to your displays of willful ignorance.

Unless I’m wrong, and you were NOT actually alive when the Mass. court made their ruling. That would make you extremely young, and would explain a lot.

24 posted on 03/30/2011 5:43:41 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT

To: Right Wingnut 2; Diogenesis

Now you are playing into my theory that Diogenesis is a closeted Romney supporter, trying to drive people away from Sarah and to Romney by incessantly posting pages and pages of anti-Romney diatribes and attacking good freepers like yourself by calling you a RomneyBot.

I would disagree about your “causing trouble” comment. On the other hand, we probably needed an extra server just to hold all the repetitious, graphics and image/laden spam posts Diogenesis is “known for”. It may look like there’s “trouble” being “caused”, but as I said, nobody is taking it seriously, given the number of times that same ping list has been called into threads in the past month without ever making a comment, I have a feeling they’ve all put anti-Diogenesis filters on their ping pages.

I have a feeling that, outside of this strange fixation Diogenesis has for Romney, Diogenesis is probably a fine upstanding Freeper who would be a pleasure to have a drink with.

25 posted on 03/30/2011 5:48:53 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT

To: CharlesWayneCT; Jim Robinson; ConjunctionJunction; Al B.; SolidWood; Leisler; greyfoxx39; ...

CharlesWayneCT, you have been exposed defending
Romney with your false statements over and over.
From RomneyCARE to RomneyMarriage to RomneyTAXES,
and Obama’s and Romney’s unnatural citizen status.

As but one example I posted #20 above.
You are incorrigibly FOR Romney.

Anything you want to add to support his coverup of
the BIG DIG?

26 posted on 03/30/2011 6:01:45 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people''s money." M Thatcher)

As but one example I posted #20 above

It's definitely an example -- of your inability to grasp simple facts, or to comprehend the evidence of constitutional scholars, lawyers with detailed knowledge, or common sense.

27 posted on 03/30/2011 8:42:40 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT

To: Right Wingnut 2; CharlesWayneCT; Jim Robinson; ConjunctionJunction; Al B.; SolidWood; Leisler; ...

CharlesWayneCT, you are not really a lawyer,
but you play one on FReeRepublic as YOU LIE.
It has been YOU who HAS attacked FReepers
who dare to DEFEND America against your
beloved carpetbagging, backstabber Romney.

At the end of the day, despite your endless RomneyBOT-lies, CharlesWayneCT,
and your claims that FReepers have an
"inability to grasp simple facts, or to comprehend the evidence of constitutional scholars,
lawyers with detailed knowledge, or common sense"
the truth is: YOU ARE A LIAR.

As one example:

Note Romney’s use of improper executive authority. [The Romney Way™]

"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."

One again, we see that you, CharlesWayneCT, are a nothing
but a deceptive proRomney fraud and proRomney liar.

28 posted on 03/31/2011 5:08:26 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people''s money." M Thatcher)

To: Diogenesis; Right Wingnut 2; Jim Robinson

You continue to incorrectly claim that the Mass. Supreme Court did not legalize gay marriage, and you provide as "evidence" quotes from one organization. And you say that I am "a Liar".

Here are links to over a dozen sources which refute your baseless claim.

Associated Baptist Press: Massachusetts court legalizes gay marriage:

The decision, unless overruled by a state constitutional amendment, will make Massachusetts the first legal jurisdiction in the United States to sanction same-sex marriage.

Fox News: Mass. Court says Gay Marriage cannot be denied

Mass Law Library: Massachusetts Law About Same-Sex Marriage:

MGL c.207. Marriage. The same laws and procedures that govern traditional marriage also apply to same-sex marriages. There are no special procedures for a same-sex marriage.

CNN LAW: Massachusetts court strikes down ban on same-sex marriage

FindLaw legal opinion of Mass. Court:

The opinion reformulates the common-law definition of civil marriage to mean "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. Nothing that "civil marriage has long been termed a 'civil right,"' the court concluded that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare."

CNN: Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage:

Underscoring its original ruling last November, Massachusetts' highest court said Wednesday that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would conform to the state's constitution.
...
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," [President George] Bush said. "If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

Protect Marriage (Prop 8): "Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.":

MSNBC: High court won't review Mass. gay marriage law :

Justices had been asked to overturn a year-old decision by the Massachusetts high court that legalized gay marriage. They declined, without comment.
..
Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state Supreme Court's usurpation of power."
Federal courts, he said, should defend people's right "to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court."

Redstate: Judge Robert Bork::

I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court's ruling legalizing same-sex 'marriage.' His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time."

Pravda: "After the court made Massachusetts the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, opponents saw a ballot question as their best shot at circumventing the ruling."

National Review: Dwight Duncan, Kris Mineau::

But Dwight Duncan, one of the Brownback endorsers, told NRO last week that the contention that [the Governor] is to blame for the state of marriage in Massachusetts is really “over the top.” According to Duncan, a professor at the Southern New England School of Law.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute: “From the onset of the infamous Goodridge court decision in 2003, [the] Governor ... has opposed same-sex marriage and, I believe, correctly sought to overturn it through a constitutional amendment.

edgeBoston: BOSTON - The same court that made Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage is now mulling whether citizens have the right to get around its ruling by amending the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Crosswalk: "May 17, 2004 - Court ruling takes effect, making Massachusetts the first state in nation to legalize same-sex “marriage.” U.S. is now one of only four countries where same-sex “marriage” is legal in at least one locality."

NOLO: "In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the state law barring same-sex marriage was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution and ordered the legislature to remedy the discrimination within six months (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health). In February 2004, the court ruled that offering civil unions instead of civil marriage would not meet the requirements set forth in Goodridge. As a result, same-sex couples in Massachusetts can enter into civil marriages, and thousands have done so in the last five-plus years."

Harvard: In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the state constitution forbade excluding gay couples from marriage.

"I believe that, at least in the short term, that decision harmed the cause of same-sex marriage and the electoral prospects of progressive politicians. Before Goodridge, only three states had constitutional provisions barring same-sex marriage; today, 30 states do. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle almost certainly lost his seat in 2004—the only Senate majority leader in 50 years to do so—because of the gay marriage issue. He lost by roughly 2 percentage points to an evangelical Christian who made the issue a prominent one in his campaign; the same-sex marriage ban on the ballot in North Dakota won by roughly 50 percentage points.
It is even possible—though not certain—that Goodridge helped re-elect President George W. Bush. Without the electoral votes of Ohio, Bush would have lost. He won Ohio by about 2 percent; the same-sex marriage ban on the ballot won by roughly 24 percent. If enough religious conservatives were motivated to turn out because of the ballot initiative, or if enough swing voters shifted their allegiance to the Republican Party because of the gay marriage issue, the Massachusetts court may have helped re-elect the president. Bush’s two Supreme Court appointees—John Roberts [’79] and Sam Alito—do not seem likely candidates to support same-sex marriage any time soon.

Redstate: MassResistance indulges in an illogical reading of the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health same-sex marriage decision and thereby completely mischaracterizes the Governor’s response to the Massachusetts same-sex marriage crisis.

Reason Magazine: "The debate over same-sex marriage moved closer to center stage last November, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that denying marriage rights to gay couples violated the state constitution."..."The Massachusetts ruling states that the right to "marry the person of one's choice" is a fundamental right, albeit "subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare."

Baptist Press: "BOSTON (BP)--A U.S. appeals court June 29 declined to halt Massachusetts’ same-sex “marriages,” saying that precedent prevents the court from getting involved. The three-judge panel for the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that contrary to the plaintiffs’ arguments, the controversial decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalizing same-sex “marriage” does not infringe on that state’s republican form of government.

Christian Science Monitor: "Dozens of constitutional amendments restricting gay marriage have been put forward since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized gay marriage last year, even as half a dozen cities and towns have begun performing the ceremonies without legal authority."

Christian Life Resources: Massachusetts' Supreme Court OK's Gay Marriage

American Family Association: "Their narrow 4-3 victory before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S. for the first time in history."

Christian Post: "This is not the first time a tyrannical court ... has force-fed the people a liberal agenda disguised as the rule of law," [James] Dobson noted, "But it may be the most devastating example of that kind of judicial activism. What makes this a truly dark day is that gay marriage in only the beginning."

Christian Post: "It is troubling that an activist court in Massachusetts has succeeded in overturning hundreds of years of tradition by redefining marriage to include same-sex couples," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, in a press statement.

So, on the one side, we have you claiming the Massachusetts Court did not legalize gay marriage, along with the people who signed this letter authored by MassResistance

It's an alluring argument -- say "ignore the courts", and just do what we want. It's a lot easier than spending millions of dollars on a fight to put a gay marriage amendment into the constitution. It also provides a great attack against a politician the organization strongly opposes. Heck, I wish the Governor could have done it, even though it would have been futile.

On the other side, saying that the court DID legalize gay marriage, we have the rest of the world, including:

As I said, the easy road is alluring. But the opponents of gay marriage actually launched an EXPENSIVE court challenge, which worked it's way up through the appellate level. They didn't sue to overturn the Governor's actions -- which is what your argument would call for. If your argument had any merit, they certainly would have used it in their lawsuit. Instead, they sued to overturn the actual court ruling -- a suit that would make no sense if, as you contend, the court's ruling didn't actually do anything. Why file a lawsuit to overturn a meaningless ruling? Why spend money on a constitutional amendment if the court didn't necesitate any action? Why work so hard to get the legislature to act to stop gay marriage if all that was needed was to do nothing? Why were all the pro-marriage organizations up in arms over the court's ruling, if as you contend the ruling was meaningless?

You face overwhelming evidence, from law reviews, the lawyers involved in the case, constitutional scholars, the news reports from the time, the statements of pro-marriage groups, and every action taken after the court ruling, which all clearly show the court legalized gay marriage, and the world responded as if they had.

There are many groups fighting to protect the sanctity of marriage. Your fanciful claim is a useless and annoying distraction from the real fight in the real world; a argument that we should simply ignore what is happening and it would all just go away. Advancing unsound arguments simply because you want to stop a particular candidate distracts and detracts from the real battle.

I know you want to make this about a particular candidate. But it's not -- it's about what the TRUTH is about how courts legalized gay marriage, which truth tells us what we need to do to STOP gay marriage -- change the courts, make it clear in the constitutions of each state what marriage is, and get a federal amendment to do the same. Note that "replace governors with ones who ignore the courts" is NOT among that list of things we can do.

29 posted on 03/31/2011 5:12:14 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT

To: CharlesWayneCT; Leisler; greyfoxx39; Tennessee Nana; EternalVigilance; Reagan Man; Elsie; ...

If there was EVER proof you are a RomneyBOT (and a deluded one at that)
your last post proves it.

CAN YOU READ ENGLISH?????

You rely and quote all the magazines that support your backstabbing Romney
including FOX NEWs, CNN, MSNBC, Christian Science Monitor, etc.

However, NOTE: You left out the ONLY important citation, you lying RomneyBOT,
and THAT is the The Massachusetts Constitution (destroyed by Mitt Romney ).

The Massachusetts Constitution states:

"The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending)
the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."

That does NOT read that Laws are to be changed by
Bishop Romney threats, does it?
But, oh my, how you so LOVE him, don't you, RomneyBOT.

At the end of the day, Bishop Carpetbagger Willard Romney acted "on his own"
in illegal legislative authority
issuing "a directive to the Justices of the Peace that
they MUST perform same-sex marriages
or 'face personal liability' or be fired."

No wonder he fled Massachusetts.

30 posted on 03/31/2011 5:39:37 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people''s money." M Thatcher)

To: CharlesWayneCT

Your Hero, RomneyBOT:

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism
or socialism on people has been by way of medicine..."
President Ronald Reagan

Romney-Imposed Gay Marriage (through Threats against Clerks)
And Romney Death Panels and ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE
Imposed by the carpetbagging, backstabbing “Milt” Willard Romney.

31 posted on 03/31/2011 5:51:37 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people''s money." M Thatcher)

Palin on the Issues: National Security http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2697715/posts

32 posted on 03/31/2011 5:52:15 PM PDT by Right Wingnut 2

The court neither suspended the law, nor suspended execution of the law. As several of the citations I provided for you pointed out, if you had read them (the legal ones from the various law resources). They interpreted an existing law (badly), in the manner that courts do all the time. The court ruled that the words "man and wife" in the statute were gender-neutral, and therefore applied to any two people.

I guess this is complicated, although it doesn't seem so to me. The argument for me is easy, but problematic in that I think the court was wrong, and should have ruled otherwise.

33 posted on 03/31/2011 7:10:11 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794