Posted on 08/03/2007 9:36:12 PM PDT by bubman
Yesterday, Mitt Romney went into Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson’s studio for a conversation about politics. At least it should have been about politics. Instead, Mickelson decided he wanted to grill Romney on the Mormon church and Mormon theology. (I also thought Mickelson’s comments on politics, namely that the President should overrule the Supreme Court when in the President’s opinion the Court oversteps its bounds, were a tad on the screwy side as well.)
Mickelson’s station, WHO, had a video recorder on the governor that was recording his off-air comments, something that Romney was unaware of. On the air, Mickelson stated that according to Mormon theology, Romney should have been excommunicated from the Mormon Church because he was once pro-choice. Off the air, Romney tried to gently tell Mickelson that he didn’t know what he was talking about. Although I’ve never heard even a snippet of Mickelson’s show before today, I bet Mickelson holding forth on something he knows nothing about happens on a not infrequent basis. The off air exchange (that once again Romney didn’t know was being taped) was at times heated. WHO today posted the footage on its website.
(Excerpt) Read more at hughhewitt.townhall.com ...
You keep changing the subject. I posted QUOTES from Romney from when he ran for the office. He said what he had to to get in, and then he did what he had to to get people like you to want him as president.
If you think things he said while running for governor--quotes consistent with YEARS of Romney quotes-- are somehow ancient history, I guess there's nothing to discuss.
I note you mock the word “recent,” but if you’re really interested in the breadth of someone’s career (and I don’t think you are), you’ll kindly point out the bills that Romney signed that directly related to abortion.
I couldn't care less what you think of my interests. I have nothing to prove to someone who simply wants to see what he wants to see, as opposed to what IS. I never questioned his signing bills aimed squarely at the Republican voters he needs to get the nomination, so why you keep fixating on that and ignoring what I post to support the points I DID make is odd.
Go ahead. Knock yourself out. I’ll fair far better with vetoes, I assure you.
What are you talking about?
So I guess the logic is we should be voting for a pro-choice, anti-WOT, anti-tax cut candidate, or something?
Why bother? The Rombots only see those white teeth and nothing else matters--flip-flopping be damned, he LOOKS like a Conservative president should look!
Yep. He sure does look like the candidate from central casting, that’s for sure.
Too bad he’s a liberal, and always has been.
Furthermore, at the time, Mitt approached the leaders of his church and asked them if he could take the political position he took. They gave their permission.
Thus, the answer is NO!
If Mitt were Catholic, the Catholic Church (though I believe our church leaders are wrong for NOT doing it), wouldn't publicly excommunicate him either (for example Ted Kennedy and John Kerry), though technically, he would have excommunicated himself. But Mitt isn't Catholic.
"ROFL...Implemented gay marriage.
Signed a permanent "assault" weapons ban.
Passed socialized medicine, complete with taxpayer-funded abortions.
Homosexualized the public schools.
Appointed radical gay activists to the bench and to positions in his administration.
Your definition of the word "conservative" is about as accurate as Mitt Romney's."
Care to document that?
LOL!
I wouldn't go THAT far. But I simply don't see a reason why I SHOULD vote for him. That's my key question--not a checklist of issues, which always gets me burned, it seems, but 'Why this candidate as opposed to another?' I see no compelling reason to support him. He has no history of supporting issues I support; his leadership in the Dem-controlled state where I live was unimpressive, and that's as good a test for working in DC as any; he's stood out on NOTHING.
So I see these mega-fans of his and I just wonder what they see that I didn't in his 4 years as my governor.
Abortion
Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.
Let me ask you this: Did Mitt Romney encourage abortion as a politician?
Like here for example.
"In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments."
Sounds an awful lot like Romney to me...
is that a discernment or a judgement from the darkside working through you? How could you possibly know that? I think you are listening to the dark thoughts in your head about him. I’m not implying that he doesn’t have faults, but you are projecting some onto him...much like a wife who refuses to forgive a husband when he commits an indescretion even after he apologizes and his actions are clearly right.
Can you find a quote from Romney recognizing that unborn children are persons and therefore have a God-given, unalienable right to life?
I’ll bet you can’t.
The rest of your post isn’t worth responding to.
===================================
The Mormon "Church" was founded in the 1800s by Joseph Smith who claims he was visited by an angel named Moroni who had some golden plates that Smith then transcribed into The Book Of Mormon, the book upon which the cult is based.
Their origin is questionable and their beliefs even more so, so as to conflict with mainstream Christianity, which they desperately claim to be a part of or even superior to.
Their origin is very similar to the origin of Islam, where Muhammad claims to have been visited by an angel who then gave him the Koran to write down.
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
=======================
I would have a tough time voting for someone who has not only bought into such an obvious lie hook, line and sinker, but also perpetuates it.
It’s been documented right here on this forum, which is where I obtained the information. Do a search.
Once more, EV, you distort the facts to feed your anti-Romney fetish.
State-sponsored abortion was part of Mass’s laws well before Romney endorsed the issue of healthcare. But you wouldn’t want to deal with that bit of information, would you?
Answer the question honestly: if Romney had explicitly demanded that there was a provision in this bill that would bar state-sponsored abortion, would this bill have passed the Mass legislature? Or if he had vetoed that portion of a bill, would that veto have stood?
Don’t back around the question. I’m not interested in your commentry. In one single line, answer it.
Comment all you want after the fact. But I’m just going to say upfront that making the case that Romney is blatantly Pro-Choice off of an ancillary bill is not only dishonest and unconvincing, but it’s also pathetic.
As for the “homosexualization of schools,” I suppose that’s what abstinence education was about, right?
NO, you don't. You only tell PART of the story. For, instance, I've NEVER seen you post the following part of Mitt's record, the REST OF THE STORY:
Abortion and Sanctity of Life
Governor Romney was presented with legislation concerning life issues on several occasions from the 85% majority Democrat Legislature in Massachusetts. In every instance he took the pro-life position by vetoing bills or lobbying for the pro-life approach, including the following actions: He vetoed the bill providing state funding for human embryonic stem cell research (Theo Emery, "Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Vetoes Stem Cell Bill," The Associated Press, 5/27/05) He vetoed a bill that provided for the "morning after pill" without a prescription because it is an abortifacient and would have been available to minors without parental notification and consent (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill," The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)
He vetoed legislation which would have redefined Massachusetts longstanding definition of the beginning of human life from fertilization to implantation (Governor Mitt Romney, Letter To The Massachusetts State Senate And House Of Representatives, 5/12/05)
He supported parental notification laws and opposed efforts to weaken parental involvement (John McElhenny, "O'Brien And Romney Spar In Last Debate Before Election," The Associated Press, 10/29/02)
He fought to promote abstinence education in public school classrooms with a program offered by faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Gov. Romney's administration was the first in Massachusetts to use federal abstinence education funds for classroom programs. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, Romney Announces Award of Abstinence Education Contract, April 20, 2006)
From the homepage of Freeper Unmarked Package.
No. But your claims about Romney governing as a conservative smell more than a bit funny.
You tell me how Romney’s plan was socialized, seeing as how the thing ran on the back’s of private corporations.
It forces all businesses and individuals to pay for health insurance, for themselves, or for others. If they don't, they will face stiff penalties. That's socialized medicine, no matter how you spin it.
And you know d@mn well that you don’t even have to buy healthcare in Massachusetts.
Sure you do, unless you're under a certain income. Then the taxpayers pay for it. Again, socialized medicine.
But you like calling it socialized, don’t you?
Sure I do. Because it is.
A plan that requires that people actually pay for services rendered.
It actually forces businesses and taxpayers to pay the way for others. Socialized medicine.
I’d like to see you come up with a better alternative. But frankly, you can’t. And you won’t.
Sure I can. It's called freedom. Kinda risky, I know. But, it's worked well for over two hundred years. Created the best health care in the world, among many other wonders.
Typical of you, you stand for nothing. You fight for nothing.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Stonewall and oppose. Stonewall and oppose.
Liberals and liberalism, all day long. You bet.
Much like the Democrats with regards to social security. Head in the sand. Fight, fight, fight.
Well, unlike Romney, at least they're honest about their liberalism.
And sure, give us the usless rap about you supporting liberty and freedom and other such vague notions. All the while failing to address a real problem with the way healthcare is delivered and paid for in this country.
Ah. The truth comes out. You think liberty and freedom are "vague notions."
No wonder you're a Romney supporter.
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.