Trying to change the SUBJECT again for Romney?
You are NOT successful.
1 - It was SOLELY Romney’s fault.
2 - For atttempting to continually deceive
with your posts, you deserve to live with
Pissant and Milt — far away from here.
You changed the subject long ago. The subject was whether, in 2002, it was "common knowledge" that the supreme court would overturn thousands of years of understanding and decide that "man" and "woman" were meant to be interpreted in a genderless fashion.
I say it was not; I have no idea what you believe, because rather than discuss that issue from the article, you started quoting other misstatements of fact as if it mattered.
I'll ping pissant since you mentioned him, as I can't tell whether you did so because your ping list is so long. As I can't remember pissant ever saying a nice thing about Romney, I'm not sure why you dragged him into this.
It was SOLELY Romney’s fault.
You seem to believe Romney has a lot more power than is rational. Even the inaccurate stuff you post as reference doesn't go as far as your claims, which as I pointed out are refuted by the actual lawyer from the case, and other constitutional lawyers (I know, you don't want to be bothered by the actual facts, but they are still the facts whether you ignore them or not).