I didn't see it that way. You're remarks were nuanced rhetoric. ;^)
>>>>>>I'm not revising anything and I'm aware of Romney's record.
Really. You gave your opinion and agreed with Romney that Reagan was adamantly pro-choice. When there is no evidence to support such an assertion. Obviously you view Romney`s record through the prism of anti-conservative politics. If you didn't you would have dropped the "Romney is like Reagan" nonsense by now.
>>>>>I have read them many times, plus I have done my own research. I'm comfortable with the truth as it stands.
You're an historic revisionist with no respect for the truth. If you did your own research, you wouldn't be backing Mitt Boy. His shifts on abortion, gays and guns, along with his penchant for nationalized health care make him a very poor candidate for conservatives to support.
>>>>>I believe that was the essence of what I said.Easy for you to say. ;)I didn't see it that way. You're remarks were nuanced rhetoric. ;^)
>>>>>>I'm not revising anything and I'm aware of Romney's record.My opinion was on the merits of Reagan's decision to sign the legislation -- nothing to do with Romney there. And, no, I did not say that I agreed with Romney with regard to Reagan being adamantly pro-choice.Really. You gave your opinion and agreed with Romney that Reagan was adamantly pro-choice.
>>>>>I have read them many times, plus I have done my own research. I'm comfortable with the truth as it stands.As I told EV once, we obviously interpret facts differently, which is okay. :)You're an historic revisionist with no respect for the truth. ...
>>>Obviously you view Romney`s record through the prism of anti-conservative politics. <<<
See what I mean? Like Romney referring to Reagan as adamantly pro-choice, you’ve made an overstatement.
But unlike Romney, I don’t expect you to say that you admire, anyone. You full well know that the line I quoted is a load of horse manure, but you’re going to keep running with it.