Lies About Mitt's Record (vanity)

[DoughtyOne]

Yep, it was all his plan earlier. Like you mention, Mitt is a moving target. He has changed things in order to manipulate opinion, and that’s dishonest. Sorry, if a guy has to mislead me to get my vote, he doesn’t deserve it.

[DoughtyOne]

Let me get this straight, he started a thread on the merits of Romney, but didn’t want anyone who didn’t agree with him to participate.

Even to you, it must seem sorta like you’re asking for a lot here. Why should he be able to sell Romney here unchallenged?

Why should we have to focus on guns, then focus on other issues one by one?

As I said, if he didn’t want to defend a guy on a number of topics, he should have backed one that didn’t have problems on a number of topics.

Why do you think I am unreasonable, and he was reasonable? What he and you have suggested was reasonable, seems silly to me and I’m sure others as well.

[tiger-one]

U R STILL ON THE WEED

[nikos1121]

Couldn’t say it better than you did...

[broncobilly]

Let me back up a bit.
The person wanted to talk about Romney and the gay agenda.
Posters started to divert the discussion to things like guns.
I was against that. I wanted him to get his discussion on the gay agenda.
However, that is what you are talking about now. So I am fine with that. I want to understand how much Romney is the instigator of what happened in MA and how much he was forced to do things he didn’t want to do. That makes a big difference to me.
So I have been very interested in your latest posts. I live in CA and I am very disturbed about the way things are going.
But who do we elect who can change things?
If Romney is the instigator, he is a poor choice. If he is partially the victim and would react against what happened in MA, he may be a good choice. That is why I am interested. And unfortunately it is hard to separate the facts from the propaganda on this topic.

[abigailsmybaby]

I’m writing you in for President in the general. Since my #1 dropped out, you’re it!

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Why don’t you ask your buddy Mitt how he feels about machete permits? We have a mess of them around the yard, most likely can’t afford all those registration fees!
Hell, this issue is even dumber than gun control, something is wrong in Massachusetts! I don’t want it to be contagious!

[longjack]

Re: Same Sex Marriage MA

A judge ruled homosexuals had the constitutional right to marry on Nov 18 2003 and gave the state 180 days to do something about it.

Romney told town clerks to start issuing licenses to homosexuals on May 17, 2004, about 180 days later.

In 2004 Massachusetts tried to enact a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which failed on the second legislative step.

A ballot initiative was started to have voters vote on the gay rights issue and necessary signatures were received. The Mass legislature postponed the vote in 2006, then on the day of the rescheduled vote, 2006, the Mass legislature voted to recess until January 2, 2007.

Romney won a court decision to have the vote brought up immediately on January 2, and the initiative passed. It lost on a second vote in 2007. Patrick was the Governor then.

The 2nd ballot initiative to have the Gay marriage issue on the ballot only needed 50 yeas (25% of legislature), but only got 45.

Romney had bankrolled conservative candidates in the 2004 mid-terms to get legislative help on the issue but re-pubs lost 3 seats. Other legislators changed their view on gay marriage after that election.

I'm not a Romney backer. I just decided to take a quick refresher course at Google U because I vaguely remember the BS the Mass legislature pulled at the time.

It seems to me Romney fought gay marriage assertively in Mass but was beaten by the tactics of the Mass legislature. The Mass legislature needs to be considered when the discussion involves Romney and gay marriage in Mass.

[broncobilly]

Tell me about machete permits some other time. That is why we con’t get to the bottom of an issue. Posters want to keep changing the subject.

[broncobilly]

con’t = can’t

[SWAMPSNIPER]

The “subject” is keeping filthy Massachusetts, New York, et al, political philosophy from contaminating the entire nation.
There seems to be some reason that the Mitt folks don’t want to discuss machetes, Did Mitt approve that law, or didn’t he?

[from occupied ga]

I've been reading this thread with growing disbelief that anyone would consistently whizz on everyone's head (that would be mbraynard) and tell them it's raining and expect not to get called on it. Reading Willard's record shows he is not anything like a conservative, but don't take my word for it, read what Vin Suprynowicz in the Las Vegas Review Journal has to say about him. And his lifelong hunter comment shows that he is not only a liar (like all politicians), but arrogant enough to think that he wouldn't get caught in it. Of the three left wing main stream republicans running for president Willard is apparently the mos liberal followed by Julie Annie and then John (keating Five) McCain. Frankly if the coice is between these left wing Republican liberas and whatever left wing liberal the emocrats finally extrude out of their sphincters I'll write in, vote third party or stay home.

And before someone starts blathering that if people do that they give the presidency to the democrats, so what? It hardly matter if the anti-gun socialist in the white house has a D or an R after their name.

[DoughtyOne]

Let me back up a bit.  The person wanted to talk about Romney and the gay agenda.  Posters started to divert the discussion to things like guns  I was against that. I wanted him to get his discussion on the gay agenda.  However, that is what you are talking about now. So I am fine with that. I want to understand how much Romney is the instigator of what happened in MA and how much he was forced to do things he didn’t want to do. That makes a big difference to me.

I'm a simple guy.  I don't approve of homosexuality, but I don't advocate taking them to task within certain guidelines.  Leave my kids the hell alone.  Don't try to change the definition of what a family is.  Don't try to redesign what marriage is.  Live and let live, and I'm happy.

If I'm running for office or I hold a public office, I DO NOT attent homosexual benefits, act as if I back the agenda or sign cute little checks that make it clear I do.  When you start going down that road it telegraphs a willingness to play along to get along.  I'm not going to dump on an event.  Free association is an important right, and I'm not going infringe on people's rights as long as they are congregating with other like minded individuals, or others who wish to support them.  I don't.  I won't attend.  And that being my personal policy, I don't support others who do play into this game plan.

So I have been very interested in your latest posts. I live in CA and I am very disturbed about the way things are going.  But who do we elect who can change things?

Did we change things in the last eight years?  No.  Schwarzenegger was and is a disaster.  Bush was and is a disaster.  Schwarzenegger did a couple of good things.  Bush has done some good things too, but overall the state has languished.  The nation has as well.  Our border is out of control, people are dying, being raped, assaulted, molested, robbed... it goes on and on.

In the state we either recall Schwarzenegger or we replace him with a conservative in 2010.  The chances of that happening grow exponentially worse if we have another RINO in the office of the presidency.  If we have a consevative there, he'll come out to California and lend stature and support just like Clinton did for Gray Davis.  RINOs could care less about the state.  It's been written off as unwinable by them, so we never get conservative values sold in the state.  We get some guy who would probably make a good Governor, but the state leadership doesn't help and the national RP doesn't either.  Simon didn't lose that badly, and he received very little support at all.  With more support by the President, we would have avoided Davis, the Schwarzenegger recall win and the terrible overspending that is destroying this state.  We would also have avoided the coming crisis that we're face about July this year.  It's going to get ugly.

That's one reason why it is so critical to me as a California resident that we put a true conservative in the White House and not some luke warm moderate.

If Romney is the instigator, he is a poor choice. If he is partially the victim and would react against what happened in MA, he may be a good choice. That is why I am interested. And unfortunately it is hard to separate the facts from the propaganda on this topic.

Ma. is a very liberal state.  Who can win in a liberal state?  Right there Romney is on thin ice with me.  That doesn't mean that he's a problem for sure, but there's a very good chance of it.

There's a state healthcare plan in Ma.  Two or three weeks ago, that plan was described to me as a very crafty plan sold by Romney to the state that was based on private insurance and was required except for the poor who would get insured by the state.  Now it's being described as something Romney had to put up with and was forced upon him by the legislature.  The idea of a state run health plan is very troubling to me, and the fluid description of what actually took place is disconcerting as well.  I DO NOT want any more big-government fixes to problems.  That is not the way to go.  Right now we've got the same type of plan being proposed by Schwarzenegger.  It's going to cost us additional tens of billions of dollars.  It will cost Ma. a lot of money also.  Is that what we sign on to as conservatives?  No.

I'm tired.  I'm going to go now.  There are other issues I have mentioned.  I think they are equally troublesome.  I just don't trust Romney to be what he pretends to be.  Having noted a number of factoids that have morphed over the last 18 months, I'm have reason to doubt him, and I do.

Romney may be a nice guy, but I do not see him as anything close to a conservative.  You take care.

If you'd like to converse again later today, I'll be back.

[from occupied ga]

I meant to ping you on 152 also

[Leisler]

Don’t feel bad. Even if Mitt was a straight talking type, then of course you would have to wade through junk from one of four sources. Mis informed supporters and detractors, and pro and anti partisans.

That would be, and is, confusing enough.

However to be honest, Mitt comes from a very liberal Republican family, and he himself has been up until about two years ago.

So, throw that into the mix.

Even recently, Mitt has gone from supposedly channeling Reagan to a vague, anti-Washington type.

In their own way, all the others have been more true to their records, and their selves than Mitt. Rudy stands by his record with little prevarication, and says he will be conservative. So, he has been honest with his past all along. Ditto McCain and even Huck. And, of course Fred and Hunter.

Only Mitt, at age 56, and supposedly a businessman, has just now seen the light. Was he stupid? Was he lying before, or is now? Was he so politically dumb he didn’t know? Take your pick. Although, Mitt says he was sort of dumb struck in a Paul on the road to Damascus type way. Which begs the question, will he be ‘visioned’ again as President?

Everybody on FR works on Mitt from a ideological frame work. I rather think it is psychological with Mitt. This notion of mine is energetically whacked down by mittbotts because Mitt doesn’t have any psychological being, or so they imply. He’s just a pure, sort of machine type, I guess, droid.

Two telling fractures into Mitt were his hunting and MLK fictions. Why would he lie about something so pointless? Why was he so desperate to say those stupid, idiotic, patently untrue things? Very strange.

Even the recent dust up with the reporter about the lobbyists on Mitts staff and close about them. Everyone has them, it’s no big deal and Mitt has had them, and others around him all his life. And Mitt get’s bunched, about it.

Of course though he’s not led a knock around life. Exclusive prep schools, the rough and tumble of BYU and then the high testosterone of those brutes at Harvard is not a way to wear off some prickly prissiness. But to get back to Mitt the political animal. Liberal/moderate almost non-ideological opportunists. He already is, and if nominated will run towards the center, which as we know is yet more government. Will he be a good President? I don't expect much as a conservative. He didn't have much experience in Massachusetts and more or less his supporters say he was a victim, usually, of the mean old Democrats. Poor baby. I doubt he's going to be grabbing anybody by the scruff or twisting any arms in Washington. The Hastert/RNC lobbyist Republicans will be happy with him. Mitt is a very establishment, go along with the old guys, the old clubs, the old icons type. He had the power to nominate all his judges, but he couldn't handle it. He set up a politically correct committee. He had the old and ancient power to correct errors of jury's and out right refused to use his pardon ability. The only Governor I know that has ever done that in American history. I think he couldn't handle it. He was asked what he would do as President with a 9/11 and he said he would sit down with lawyers. Massachusetts gave the country Harvard graduate Michael Dukakis, and now presents Willard 'Mittens' Romney. Good luck America.

[DoughtyOne]

You’re touching on the reality that Rush Limbaugh is seeing. He stated yesterday (if reports to me are accurate) that this is the first year in his life that he might not vote for the top of the Republican ticket. If Rush has that much angst over the ticket possibilities this year, why should I deny my own?

I have been screaming to the Republican party that they are screwing up something fierce. I have express the same thing in my correspondence to the White House. They just don’t get it. Even telling them they won’t get any support until the border is fixed, garnered a cancellation of the fence.

The party has basically said, “Screw you!” to me and to every person who thinks as I do about the border.

And they expect my vote for a RINO? Well, let’s just say I seem storm clouds on the horizon.

[DoughtyOne]

How nice of you, but I suggest Hunter or Thompson for a write-in. Take care.

[dmw]

“I’ve been reading this thread with growing disbelief that anyone would consistently whizz on everyone’s head (that would be mbraynard) and tell them it’s raining and expect not to get called on it. Reading Willard’s record shows he is not anything like a conservative, but don’t take my word for it, read what Vin Suprynowicz in the Las Vegas Review Journal has to say about him. And his lifelong hunter comment shows that he is not only a liar (like all politicians), but arrogant enough to think that he wouldn’t get caught in it. Of the three left wing main stream republicans running for president Willard is apparently the mos liberal followed by Julie Annie and then John (keating Five) McCain. Frankly if the coice is between these left wing Republican liberas and whatever left wing liberal the emocrats finally extrude out of their sphincters I’ll write in, vote third party or stay home.

And before someone starts blathering that if people do that they give the presidency to the democrats, so what? It hardly matter if the anti-gun socialist in the white house has a D or an R after their name.”

I agree. Thanks for posting this article
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/9380526.html

[Scarchin]

That’s right -

Go tell Daddy!