Posted on 01/31/2008 11:37:43 AM PST by AFA-Michigan
“You didn’t answer the question - whether he vetoed or not, the law was going into effect.”
Ahh so if he is president and he faces a measure that will force him to do something evil but his veto will be overridden he will cower like a dog and pass it without a whisper putting *his good name* on the legislation but later on deny it...
“What you are advocating is a chief executive who either disobeys the law”
No just looking for one with the stones to fight the battles that have to be fought even if you’re going to lose (veto). The lack of veto plus his pro-choice history give no doubt willard is neither pro-life nor fit to fight the left.
“So in your view, the only ethical thing is for pro-life advocates to skip getting elected and work outside of the system.”
Or veto pro-choice legislation, if he wont do it as the governor of MA he wont do it as president of the US..
Please see post 125. There was a veto proof majority.
Ah, so you admit you are just ignorant. Got it.
The only thing Romney could have done was to veto the bill. See post 135. The bill was veto proof.
The article does not state the Catholic hospitals were exempt from the law. The only thing mentioned is that the Dept of Health said they could dissent. That's not exemption.
Of course not. It's amazing to see that the Prime Directive of the Romney Sleaze Machine is still operative. After driving Willard's negatives through the roof, one would think you people would try a different tack. Nope.
Which, to my mind says, Mitt wont fight for a judge if there is a ‘gang of 14’ in the way... Thats not leadership...
So tell me, specifically. What is a governor to do when there is a veto proof majority?
Of course you are. You cannot tell the difference between an opinion about a subjective word and a lie. That's ignorance.
1) Veto it anyway
2) To whatever extent the law allows interfere with its execution
—
If Mitt had been pro-life for years he might have some slack to say ‘they made me do it’ but the decades of supporting baby killing along with a last minute (and a few months before running for president) conversion to the pro-life cause is not convincing.
I think Mitt saw what was happening to Rudy who was already in the race and was being savaged for being pro-choice and decided he could take the advantage by changing his position son Abortion, Guns, Taxes, ...
Keep rolling with the personal attacks. You’re speaking volumes about Willard Romney with every post.
LOL Like anyone who knows the difference between an opinion on a subjective word and a lie would put any stock whatsoever in what you have to say.
Brilliant move for a panderer, but otherwise a waste of time.
To whatever extent the law allows interfere with its execution
To what extent does the law allow that in Massachusetts?
It seems to be a concern of yours, since you feel the need to post trying to pooh-pooh the idea.
Again though, I note you engage in personal attack (RSM Prime Directive).
Since our entire exchange began because you launched a personal attack on Romney, you obviously think personal attacks are perfectly acceptable. ;)
That's the way the RSM works. And hit has failed brilliantly.
So calling someone a liar because you disagree with their subjective opinion is not a personal attack?
Okay. . .you're a liar. ;)
OMG! You think you proved something.
LOL
Let me say it again: criticism of political figures is expected. Personal attacks on fellow posters are forbidden AND proof of failure.
By all means, though, please continue. I love what you’re proving about the Romney Sleaze Machine.
LOL I didn't have to prove you are a liar. You already have. ;)
Ah, more personal attacks. Please, continue posting so that all might know the nature of the Romney Sleaze Machine.
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.