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.
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.