If Mitt Romney is in, I'm out!

Hey, Barnacle, ping me when you actually have a point. Until then, you're just blowing sunshine up your own patoot, such as your pic of Reagan with, I assume, George Romney, though you aren't even competent enough of a communicator to incude simple IDs in your photo posts.

Like the candidate you support, you are a desperate LOSER and a crappy communicator. Yes, Romney is as crappy a communicator as they come -- actually listen to his words sometime and, more telling, watch the audience response. He doesn't connect because he doesn't communicate conservative principles, and he doesn't communicate those principles because they go right over his head. He hasn't a clue. But he has many people, like you, fooled into thinking he does.

How am I a liar when you are the one posting manufactured propaganda?

Can you establish a connection between Romney and those pink fliers? When and where were they given out and what was Romney’s involvement?

You can’t expect to post anti-Romney propaganda pulled from gay websites and have no one challenge them. They are obviously fake.

pic of Reagan with, I assume, George Romney
___________________________________________

That is George Romney...

However there were several other people at that event...

That is just a pic of the two of them standing near to one another, and not necessarily TOGETHER...

Ronnie smiling and friendly as usual...

and George Romney AKA Bendict Arnold, his usual gloomy unfriendly self

(Who would have such an attitude if they had a chance to talk to Ronnie ????)

“you aren’t even competent enough of a communicator to incude simple IDs in your photo posts.”

My bad. I assumed you’d recognize Reagan and Romney by looking at their picture.

Nice pic. But what does it have to do with the fact
that you have now been exposed as a chronic liar about Romney?

Is this the moment when the Romneys enjoy a family hallucination about marching with MLK.

"Mitt Romney Lies About Father ‘Marching With Martin Luther King, Jr.’"
"Mitt Romney has been caught in yet another lie.
Only yesterday Romney’s claim of not supporting Planned Parenthood abortion mills was abruptly smashed by a photograph surfacing of him at one of their fundraisers in 1994.
Today, it’s Romney’s claim that his father “marched with” famed civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.
During his “I’m a Mormona but it doesn’t matter” speech, Mitt Romney claimed he saw his father,
George Romney, marching with MLK during a 1968 civil rights march through Grosse Pointe, Michigan.
It was a stirring account of the efforts of his father to show that the Romney family have always reached across ecumenical lines.
Only one little problem… it never happened."

"Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald.
Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said:
"My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."
"Yesterday (12//07), Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true.
"Mitt Romney did not march with Martin Luther King,"
he said in an e-mail statement to the Globe.

Against Myth Romney is 1:

"On Sunday, June 23, 1963, 125,000 people marched down Detroit's Woodward Avenue
to the Civic Center, in what was described at the time as the largest civil-rights demonstration in the nation's history.
According to the next day's account in the Holland Evening Sentinel,
the crowd at the Center "lustily booed," when representatives of Governor George W. Romney
read a proclamation declaring "Freedom March Day in Michigan." But Martin Luther King Jr. didn't fault Romney for his absence,
which the governor ascribed to his policy against public appearances on the Sabbath.
"At a news conference following the march . .
[King] refused to criticize Romney for not attending the demonstration," the Sentinel reported."

Against Myth Romney is 2:

Susan Englander, assistant editor of the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University, who is editing the King papers from that era,
says Myth Romney was untruthful, when she told the Globe yesterday:
"I researched this question, and indeed it is untrue that George Romney marched with [Dr.] King."

Against Myth Romney is 3:

"King never marched in Grosse Pointe, according to the Grosse Pointe Historical Society,
and had not appeared in the town at all at the time the Broder book was published.
“I’m quite certain of that,” says Suzy Berschback, curator of the Grosse Pointe Historical Society"

Of course, RomneyBOTs continue to attack these educated women,
who have spoken the Truth about Myth Romney and venal, odious deeds.

QUESTION: Why all the hatred of women (eg. Gov. Palin, her children, these historians,
the GOP woman candidate who followed Romney and who was only endorsed by Romney **after** her loss)

Yes, of course the fliers were fake...

I guess this was as well:

http://online.logcabin.org/romney_us_senate_letter_-122590-1_12_08_2006_02_30_30_pm.pdf

Given the evidence I would side with the fliers being legit...

Sorry, evidence, once again, is against your “truth”..

Thems the breaks...

I’ve been in it already. I’m looking forward to the termite extermination.

LOL, another damning "evidence" against Romney hosted at a gay website. There is something to be said about how you antis spend your time on the internet but for now I'll just post this:

Log Cabin Republicans Release Anti-Romney Ad

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/log-cabin-republicans-release-anti-romney-ad/

So are you saying, on the record, that Mitt Romney DID NOT write that letter, that it is a fraud?

Regardless of where the copy comes from it is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD.

Also IT IS a LETTER to the LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS from MITT ROMNEY so it is actually from the ORIGINAL SOURCE (recipient of the letter in question) as it pertains to research fundamentals.

How far out on this plank do you really want to walk?

Now if they toss the Romneybots, what fun would we have?

HOW are they obviously fake?

What we are really dealing with here is a candidate that is 51-percent-or-more in acceptability

Jim Robinson isn't with you on the 51% - he wants 100% or nothing.

It's interesting - Jim was a good sport by even responding to my questions, but he's not given up a name or names that we all should at least look at and possibly build up to nomination. Now, perhaps it's a little early but the candidates are out there, they are already politicians, at least those who can actually win - who are they and why can't FR get behind someone early in the game at 100%. That would possibly discourage others from even running?

My fear is that we will go through the same BS as leading up to the 2009 election - end up with no candidate or a McCain type candidate that is simply unacceptable to lots of us, everyone here on a different page and once again Obama as POTUS.

Even you rant against Romney but no names are mentioned that would even be in the 51% category. By the way, I just mentioned Newt and Romney - I'm open to supporting someone that has the 'right' stuff.

Because he says so...

You know how this Romney bit works, facts are what you make of them, not what they are...

Jim already gave a listing of interesting prospects.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2241437/posts?page=403#403

You ask, "How am I a liar ...?"

You are a liar when you say that Rush Limbaugh said on his program that he voted for Romney in the primaries. You are a liar when you say that Rush "supported" Romney. You are a liar when you say that you know the pro-gay fliers are forgeries when, unlike the Rathergate episode that helped make Free Republic famous, you cannot post evidence to demonstrate it.

You expect people to just take your word that the flyers are forgeries ... just like Dan Rather expected America to take his word that the forged National Guard letter regarding George Bush was genuine.

The FReepers who claimed the National Guard letter was a forgery proceeded to prove it. If you are going to claim that the docs posted by Diogenesis and/or fieldmarshaldj are forgeries, you need to prove it.

Well, there’s still some Huckster supporters around (and even a couple of McCainiacs). They’re good for a few chuckles. But think of all the bandwith we’ll be saving. FR might only have to have a once-a-year fundraiser once the spambots are excised. That’s worth it, ain’t it ?

Finny "HOW are they obviously fake?"

BarnacleCenturion: "Because Romney's twin brother, General Jean A. Romney, says so“

Honorable Maj. Gen. Jean A. Romney

I guess, and I can always go back and get Showtime and such for the entertainment...

- I can compromise just a little when so much is on the table.

If supporting Romney required "just a little" in the way of compromise, I bet this thread wouldn't be as long as it is or that Jim Robinson would have started it.

Here's the deal: supporting Romney requires so much compromising on the part of conservatives that it makes the whole thing moot. Some of us conservatives actually pay attention to the details of what Romney says. Here's a doozie from his PAC speech regarding cap and trade and how any plan must be worldwide in scope: "Let's have a worldwide solution, not an American one." In other words, roll over, America, and allow the hoax that is "global warming" to enable a globally-endorsed power grab of energy production and use and distribution. That, FRiend, is the antithesis of free markets, self-determination, and independence; in short, it is the antithesis of American conservatism.

Romney doesn't require "a little compromise" on the part of conservatives, he requires wholesale abandoment of basic conservative principle. THAT is why he must be rejected, and why rejecting him is necessarily part of the process conservatives must engage in NOW in order to allow the rise of a real conservative who will most certaintly require "a little compromise" instead of abandonment of principle.

It's interesting - Jim was a good sport by even responding to my questions, but he's not given up a name or names that we all should at least look at and possibly build up to nomination. Now, perhaps it's a little early but the candidates are out there, they are already politicians, at least those who can actually win - who are they and why can't FR get behind someone early in the game at 100%. That would possibly discourage others from even running?

Speaking for myself, I can't get behind someone 100% until I see how they perform in the rough-and-tumble competition of the primary campaign. All I can do at this point is point out who will not be acceptable, based on past actions (and in Romney's case, past GOP primary performance).

We really need to focus on taking back Congress in 2010. But in regard to 2012, the fact is, we need a presidential candidate who can unite us. Romney is demonstrably not that person.