What is remotely barf-worthy about this article? Romney may not be everybody’s favorite Republican, but the depth of hatred of Romney on FreeRepublic is utterly irrational. It’s like the irrational hatred of Sarah Palin by liberals.
Mitt Romney talking about "America's greatness" from a PR political perspective is like Mormon leaders doing a PR spin on historical Mormonism -- you're only going to get 25% truth at best.
Romney may not be everybody’s favorite Republican, but the depth of hatred of Romney on FreeRepublic is utterly irrational. It’s like the irrational hatred of Sarah Palin by liberals.
What's "irrational" about...???
...opposing a politician who changed his position on embryonic stem cells three times --
--the last being Dec. 2007 when he was interviewed by Katie Couric --
--and told her that "parents" (his word concession) who could either give up their embryos for adoption or, as he saw it as a perfect legitimate "choice" -- give them up to "research" for slice-and-dicement.
(I'd say, my dear poster, that you're the irrational one if you think any parents can give up their offspring for...
Choice A - adoption or
Choice B - "research" --
--or defend candidates who hold this kind of "pro-choice" electioneering)
What's "irrational" about opposing a politician who changed his mind three times on making "sexual orientation" as protected class status in the workplace?
First, Romney was for it;
then he was against it;
then around Dec of 2007 he decided it was OK to be for it as long as it was done at the state (& not federal) level. [Hence, now Mormon leaders followed his lead & have embraced "gender identity" perception ordinances & "sexual orientation" ordinances in the war against business-owners & landlords]
Tell us, Unam Sanctam, your "rational" stance of defending a politician who wants to force retailers to hire cross-dressing & gender-bending employees?
What's so "irrational" about opposing a politician who gets paid as a board director for a corporation that's part of the porn industry? (Perhaps you didn't see the protest article against Marriott earlier this year...now you'd think the protest was done by right-wing, anti-porn protestors, right? (Not on your life). Marriott was protested by pro-porn folks who didn't like the fact that the X-rated porn stuff Marriott was making $ off of didn't include condom protection for the paid prostitutes who happen to do their prostituting in front of a camera.
What's so irrational about opposing a politician who changed his mind more than three times about abortion?
First he was for it;
then it came to pass that he told Utah readers in a letter-to-the editor in 2001 that he wasn't "pro-choice";
then it came to pass that in his gubernatorial run in 2002 he was all-out pro-abortion...even directly soliciting to get on a third pro-abortion voters guide cause the Planned Parenthood-NARAL types in the Bay State wasn't enough
then it came to pass that he supposedly had a pro-life "conversion" in late 2004;
then it came to pass in a May 2005 press conference he announced he was protecting the state's "status quo" on abortion (my how "pro-life" of him);
then it came to pass that he ensured that a Planned Parenthood board member became a permanent oversight member of his socialized health care -- a plan that expanded the # of people getting MA taxpayer-funded abortions;
then it came to pass in campaigning in 2007-2008 he told the lie that everything he did as Bay State governor was "pro-life"...
finally it came to pass that he told Chris Wallace in an August 2007 interview that he'd "always been pro-life" and he NEVER FELT like he was "pro-choice."
How can you rationally either support all of the above or at least the candidate behind all of that and be a FREEPER -- other than Mormon identity politics?
I think it has to do with the fact that Romney had so many seminar posters on FR that repeatedly pushed the lie that he was a “conservative.”
No, he is a liberal. Be honest about it.
I think the hypocrasy of the fake that is Romney just drives people crazy.
I've given plenty of rational reasons to oppose what he says as believable -- given that on at least three issues (embryonic stem cell research; abortion; and protecting "sexual orientation" in the workplace) he's changed his views three times on each issue between 2002-2007. I respectfully request n apology.
And I just HATE when that is pointed out alluded to.
urs2pid