Posted on 02/25/2009 6:52:18 AM PST by BarnacleCenturion
“So I have to completely agree with Jim Robinson to post here or be considered a Conservative?
You sound like syncophant. Good luck with that.”
No, but pretending that you aren’t supporting a candidacy and that your only interest is people not criticizing republicans is embarrassing for you, do you also show up as so dedicated on the Olympia Snow and Mayor Bloomberg, and Arnold threads?
“you’ve sided with democrats and helped them put their guy in the white house. you then come to a center-right/right forum and attack former candidates... just in case their political care has any chance of moving forward.
this all sums up to you being an idiot or a plant.”
So what is your take on post 40?
Mitt Romney personally destroyed the Massachusetts Constitution (the oldest in the USA).
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.
Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."
“Who asked you to support Romney?”
You did. “Party unity”, remember?
“Why not just leave him alone and stop beating him up? You don’t get my point AT ALL.”
MITT IS A POLITICIAN BEFORE HE’S A “CONSERVATIVE”. I don’t quite care who or what he donates money to. His positions on abortion, illegal immigration, healthcare, etc. speak louder than $11,000.
“If you want to weed out the good old boys I’d say Romney is about 287th on your list. He is the least of your worries right now and he is raising money for us.”
If Romney is running for President again, then he’s quite high on the list. Maybe for once we can just nominate someone who is an actual conservative. That’s how you get party unity.
And.... ?
Reagan was a registered Democrat
______________________________________________
Back when Democrats were conservatives...
until the early 1960s...
George Romney was a liberal and wasnt registered as anything...
until the big money Republicans who were backing him complained that he needed to pick a party...
George Romney was running for POTUS without an actual party...
Here are the candidates:
http://www.freestrongamerica.com/candidates/
Be fun for me...
Dont know about you ...
Are you a bleeder ????
Out of the goodness of his heart; too!
You're supporting a guy who instituted socialized medicine with $50 abortions while governor, advocated for abortion on demand and gay marriage, and you're telling ME that I am somehow supporting Democrats by opposing this man.
Maybe one day you'll sober up from all that Romney Kool Aid and realize just how humorous that is.
There is a bottomless pit of malice here on FR when it comes to Mitt Romney. It is dishonest and irrational — and incurable. The tone of the anti-Mitt/anti-Mormon crap that gets posted here — and is allowed by the site — is why I no longer donate.
Anti-Mitt does not mean ‘anti-Mormon’.
You are an anti-Christian, anti-Conservative bigot.
” ...when Democrat donors do similar, it’s always $10 million to each campaign...”
That’s not actually true. There are federal campaign contribution limits. Prsently $2300 per year per campaign.
If you want to support Cantor, you can write one check for $2300 for his primary and another for his general election this year, and same next year.
Where you see the larger donations, they are usually to the party, i.e., Republican Party of Virginia, or RNC. The contributions referred to in this article are specifically targeted to individual campaigns.
Dont know about you ...
Are you a bleeder ????
Why, are you threatening me?
Then go away.
Or are you just another Liberal - looking for a free ride on the backs of others?
'allowed by the site'
Yup - you MORMONS really want to stifle the opposion into silence; but you ain't gettin' your way.
Tell Wonderful Mitt® to start your OWN FR-lite!
So you have a persecution complex ???
Paraniod are we ???
Sounds like you need a support group...
It’s still a useful place for gathering articles and commentary. But, to the extent people like you control the tone of FR, you are only harming it.
Paraniod are we ???
Sounds like you need a support group...
No, you asked, "Are you a bleeder?"
What did you mean by that? It's a pretty simple question, really.
Elsie: "Then go away."
lady lawyer posts the same hate on multiple threads today
as she again libels against FReeRepublic and posters of INFORMATION.
GOP candidate backstabber Romney: “Make all the promises you have to...”
Great Romney interview with Laura Ingraham. Laura calls Mitt the man who should have been our “CEO in Chief”. Mitt & Laura
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.