Posted on 01/21/2008 11:33:00 AM PST by pianomikey
I'm sure it is possible that HITLER,just before he decided to run for President of the United States, could have come to the realization that the mass extermination of JEWS was wrong and run as a friend of Israel.
“Refer to post 63.”
You wrote that between them, there are glaring differences.
Yea. Names are different.
Mitt is for Man Dates.
Mitt is for Mandates.
Mitt is a confirmed Panderer.
Mitt has little familiarity with truth.
Mitt has too great a comfort level with Porn.
Mitt is no pure Second Amendment supporter.
Mitt, despite his business background, supports a nanny state.
You might as well swap the names between Mitt and the others.
That is just a scam picture. I’ve shaken hands with liberals too, that doesn’t make me a liberal. You ought to know that.
The pic of him at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser is FAR more incriminating than him just shaking hands with a decades-long member of the Senate.
Don’t speculate on what I might do.
Stay focused on your man, Myth.
I am sure he would pull the lever for MYTH over Hillary/OBAMA.
At some point in the past year, people like Limbaugh and other conservative thought leaders have had face to face meetings with some of the Republican candidates, at least the ones that cared about the conservative base of the Republican party.
Romney was one of those candidates and he got grilled by those present and he was able to defend himself.
Rush is also a Buckley/NR friend and he agreed with their analysis.
NR's endorsement isn't an emphatic one, but that's the nature of this year's Presidential election cycle.
Okay, the Swimmer would be hard-pressed to find a single issue on Mitt’s website he would agree with, that’s my point. There’s a picture out there of Kennedy shaking hands with Reagan too, that doesn’t disqualify him for the presidency??? The pic is just ridiculous.
Politicians never lie.
Mitt is the most conservative real contender.
We surely don’t want Mckennedy.
To the best of my knowledge, he has never said he doesnt' "support" the Second Amendment.
He HAS stated his desire to ban semi-automatic "assault weapons", repeatedly. More recently, he expanded the list of firearms he would like to ban, to include weapons of "extraordinary lethality".
His statements regarding semi-automatic "assault weapons" sound as though they came from the desk of Sarah Brady:
"These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense," ... "They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
(Source: Boston Globe)
One cannot "support" the Second Amendment, and want to ban firearms, at the same time.
But since you seem incapable of grasping that simple fact, there is no point attempting to discuss it with you.
I’m a gun lover, but, I do have a problem with an individual owning a TANK.
Nice strawman.
See the Chart. Click HERE
No, we don't support medifascism, and we don't support $50.00 abortion-killing co-pays either, which punish the innocent with death.
Cordially,
COOL, I’ll check it out.
Bookmark for later reading. I’m a FRederalist looking for a fall-back option, if it comes to that. Romeny will have to convince me that he will govern in a conservative way. He will need to explain his position(s) on abortion, for example.
There is an epidemic of Romney Derangement Syndrome in these parts. It is challenge trying to have intelligent discourse once the name-calling begins....the afflicted are the same ones to cry foul if you post a critical comment in an Arthur Branch-Fred Thompson thread.
I haven’t seen many Romney supporters bashing Fred, but it is open season on Romney by a few Fred supporters. Not many of them are/were in MA during Romney’s tenure as governor. He was the most conservative Republican in that office compared to his three Republican predecessors (Swift, Cellucci, Weld), and he held to his campaign promises.
Mitt is definitely the only real option left....assuming Fred bows out. Fred isn’t currently polling well in Florida.
I feel exactly like Rush. Mitt will govern the way he campaigns and he is genuine.
_______________________________________________________
You Anti-Romney (Mormon) guys got me to look into your charges. I looked into what he DID as governer. What he DID was be the most conservative governer of his state in the history of the state. What he DID is what is important to me.
He agreed to domestic partners rather than have queer marriages. He agreed to uphold the law on abortion just like Bush does now because IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND!
What’s wrong with fees? I’m a business man, I have my own business and don’t mind paying for what I use. I find it much better to pay for what I use than having you pay for it, so what is wrong with fees?
What he did in Mass. is pretty important. He was a lone conservative voice in a socialist state yet he ruled as a conservative much to the discontent of the citizens of the state.
I was a Thompson supporter, he is not willing to work hard enough for it. Romney is now my guy, he is putting his own money into it, I find that refreshing. His kids and wife are out supporting him. He doesen’t have any ex-wives to worry about or children that will make him look bad. Generally a man that is good to his kids and wife is a good man I don’t care what religion he has.
People tell me they can’t vote for someone who thinks someday he will be a god. Well I don’t care what he thinks he will be once he is dead, what difference does it make. Some people say they will be sitting on clouds playing harps, I don’t buy that either. I don’t dis a guy because he thinks he will play a harp in the next life even though he couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket in this life.
Go-Mitt!!
Bush said he would sign an awb if it came across his desk. The AWB was going to pass in Mass anyway, with or without Mitt. What did he do....he rolled up his sleeves, worked with the congress and the NRA and got a much better bill that actually helped gun owners in Mass. The NRA endorsed the bill!
Romney has been getting a lot of votes from the people you say won’t support him.
Most states have ENDA's already, anyway. I don't favor them, but I don't see why some people make such a big deal about it. Discriminating against someone because of what he does in the privacy of his own home with another consenting adult doesn't make much economic sense and strikes me as unprofessional anyway, though I don't think such discrimination should be illegal.
At any rate, it's not a Federal issue.
Romney embraced state-funded programs for GLBT youth & said in '02 he would see what he could do to replicate them at the federal level.
Nope. He cut funding for them.
Straight from the horse's mouth:
"2002: The Gay and Lesbian Youth Support Project changed our name to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth Support Project to more accurately represent our priorities. That same year, Governor Mitt Romney slashed funding for services for GLBT youth; Community-based programs for GLBT youth lost significant funding, and the Safe Schools Program for Gay and Lesbian Students was entirely de-funded."
source: http://www.hcsm.org/glys/about.htm
Romney was pro-taxpayer funded domestic partnership benefits for alternative sexual minorities.
Romney supported things like hospital visitation rights. Frankly, I don't understand why you find this so offensive.
In 2002-2004 he was pro-civil unions and then started speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue in '05.
That's a lie. Romney always opposed civil unions. I defy you to find a single statement from 2002-2004 in which he supported them.
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.