Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Petronski
I understood your point, but you did not understand mine.

If Mitt Romney had done the same as Reagan in 1968 and had written passionately about how conflicted he was at the time, I believe, based on observation, that you would call him a liar. In my view, you're doing the same as you accuse Mitt Romney of doing. That's why it is difficult -- extremely so -- for me to take any of your assertions seriously.

36 posted on 09/22/2007 10:07:02 AM PDT by Quicksilver (Mitt Romney for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: Quicksilver

Mitt Romney was pro-choice for over 30 years. He supported Roe v Wade as the law of the land. He spoke out on numerous occasions in defense of a womans constitutional right to have an abortion. IMO, that is being adamantly pro-abortion. Period. Changing your position and becoming pro-life is great. More people should make the switch. However, changing your position on the eve of a GOP presidential primary race is called, engaging in political expediency. Which is something Romney has engaged in his whole life on issues ranging from abortion, to gay rights and gun control.


37 posted on 09/22/2007 10:22:36 AM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Quicksilver
I believe, based on observation, that you would call him a liar.

If you want to judge me based on a lie you believe I would tell, in your fanciful, hypothetical situation, well, I can't help you. That is such an incredibly dishonorable proposition, there is no way I can respond to it, nor is there any further need.

39 posted on 09/22/2007 10:29:44 AM PDT by Petronski (Cleveland Indians: AL Central -2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Quicksilver; Petronski

“I understood your point, but you did not understand mine.

If Mitt Romney had done the same as Reagan in 1968 and had written passionately about how conflicted he was at the time, I believe, based on observation, that you would call him a liar.”

I have gone over many issues ad nauseum with Mitt-bashers to agree with that view. Any difference or change in view is a “lie”. If Mitt expresses a viewpoint at variance with their interpretation of events, then Mitt “lied”.If Mitt said it was “partly cloudy” and they think it really was partly sunny, then “Mitt Lied”.

Romney made self-serving comments comparing his evolution of views to Reagan’s but at no time was dissing or disrespecting Reagan in the comparisons. So those who accuse Mitt of disrespect are IMHO not being truthful. Should I call them ‘liars’? It seems a stretch.

“In my view, you’re doing the same as you accuse Mitt Romney of doing. That’s why it is difficult — extremely so — for me to take any of your assertions seriously.”

Yes. Dittos.


71 posted on 09/22/2007 9:36:11 PM PDT by WOSG (I just wish freepers would bash Democrats as much as they bash Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson