Replies

I'm still not convinced though he's "not a flip flopper". How many times does it take to make one a flip flopper? 4 times? 10? Besides, the point remains that on the issues even you acknowledge he flipped on, he didn't formally "flip" on them UNTIL HE STARTED RUNNING FOR THE R NOMINATION! That should CERTAINLY tell an objective observer something about his true motivations.

Let me give you a piece of advice: don't believe everything you read on the internet.

The point is that the majority of hits that come up with the Google search I recommended are ultimately sourced from reputable sources. You apparently do not wish to do the research. I do not either, since ultimately, it doesn't matter now that Romney is definitely out of the race.

I still maintain what I said in my OP on this thread (and agree with the thread starting OP), two whit: Romney ultimately didn't loose because of "anti-Mormon bigotry". He lost because he's a flip flopper and, to a lesser degree, because McCain and Huckabee double teamed him. But, just like all the pro-Romney threads (and anti-whoever else hijack attemps) earlier in the race, those who support him refuse to acknowledge that changing one's position IS a FLIP FLOP, and NOT "bigotry".

So I'm done. I'm not rehashing the lunacy that drew so many who claimed to be thinkers, but weren't, away from REAL conservative alternatives to a "slick package" that looked good on teevee.

The point is that the majority of hits that come up with the Google search I recommended are ultimately sourced from reputable sources.

Information from reputable sources can be twisted and misrepresented. That is exactly what the vast majority of of alleged flip-flops turn out to be.

You apparently do not wish to do the research.

I already did it.