Posted on 06/10/2012 9:38:54 AM PDT by Colofornian
You are in the religion forum, one of many forums on FR. If you are not interested in a discussion of mormonism, then why not stay off the thread.
You know that the unspoken and sometime spoken issue is Romney, not Mormonism.
How many of you swearing to God will say that you intend to vote for Romney and will encourage others to do the same?
- - - - -
Wow, you are an idiot, ami.
We have been doing this long before Romney and would do it even if he weren’t the nominee. The flying inmans have been here for about a decade now. Long before Romney ran the LAST time.
I have been fighting Mormonism for almost 20 years now and will do so until my dying day, Romney has no part of it.
I WILL NOT vote for Romney, but that is because of his liberal politics. I”m not voting for Obama either. I’m voting my conscience, I’m voting for a conservative.
“Will you be voting for Obama because Romney is a Mormon? “
I can only speak for me... I’ll be voting for conservatives. Neither of those you mentioned is a conservative.
That said, mormonism is still a cult and RINOmney is a cultic high priest.
Are you seriously kicking me off of the religion forum? I thought that anyone could post in any forum.
none of us have the authority to kick you off, buyt we can have the decency to reccomend you leave if you are offended at Mormonism being exposed
We didnt make forceful statements like you did, so, keep that in mind
by the way, since NO ONE except one of the Romney defenders brought up Romney, why did you think it was about Romney?
I said: You are in the religion forum, one of many forums on FR. If you are not interested in a discussion of mormonism, then why not stay off the thread.
The choice is yours to stay or not, I am reminding you that if the discussion of religion is apparently so agitating to you, maybe you should not be on the tread.
Stay or not, you choose.
Take a look below @ what Romney has said he believes regarding the pre-born...
Allow me to summarize it...then if you want, you can weave your way thru for the "details."
Up until '01, Romney said he was a pro-abort...then he told Utah readers he didn't wish to be labeled "pro-choice."
Then, running for Mass guv, he immediately went back to pro-abort status...Then Nov of '04 he said he had a pro-life conversion.
By May '05 he was telling Mass citizens in a press conference that he would keep the "status quo" on abortion (my, my, how "pro-life" of him).
He pushed thru $50 taxpayer-funded abortions in '06 and ensured that a Planned Parenthood rep would be a permanent oversight member of MA Commonwealth. From there, look @ the chart below...and based upon especially the three interviews the Romneys did with Chris Wallace (Aug 07), Katie Couric (Dec 07), and Parade Mag (Nov 11) YOU, TREBB tell me what the Romneys believe about the pre-born!
| YEAR | Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney | Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life' |
| Bottom-Line Summary: ANN Romney Lies Thru Her Teeth | Ann Romney, 1994: Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation | Ann Romney, 2011: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side) |
| Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth | “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) + ...”my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007) | So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've “never changed” re: abortion and that they've “always been pro-life,” but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: “I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice”...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was “always for life.” |
| 2006 | April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details). | "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates |
| Early 2007 | On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true? | Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life! |
| Summer 2007 | "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?" | Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer? |
| December 2007 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life' | December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!" | In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side) |
Details: A Lil 'Meander' Thru 'Romneyville'
(1) Romney's on record saying his "pro-choice" opinions go back to when his mom ran for Senate (1970).
Assessment: [Pro-abortion, then, eh, Mitt?]
(2): "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review last year, says the Concord Monitor (Source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/REPOSITORY/612100304/1217/NEWS98)
= Assessment: So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"
(3) Romney now invokes in this thread's article a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice.
Well, what are the 1994 facts?
FACT a: Romney's wife gave a donation in 1994 to Planned Parenthood...
FACT b: On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attended a private Planned Parenthood event at the home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney.
"Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts
"Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts
"In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts
FACT c: 1994 campaign in Massachusetts "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
= Assessment: Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent
(4): Fast forward to 2001, when Romney needs to reassure Utah Mormons that...he's not really "pro-choice," after all: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)
= Assessment: So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)
(5) “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05)
= Assessment: Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?
(6): In November of '04, he & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" where he links it to stem cell research
= Assessment: (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)
(7): On May 27 '05, he affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.")
= Assessment: OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!
(8): What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were so pro-life decisions. ("As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.")
= Assessment: So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine
(9): April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. Assessment: (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).
(10): On January 29, 2007 during a visit to South Carolina, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07)
= Assessment: OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?
(11): Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering that "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
= Assessment: Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!
(12) "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007
= Assessment: OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"
(13): Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."
= Assessment: That whatever he was from 1970 when his mom ran as a pro-abortion senator & he sided with her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion inlook or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?
(14): By December of 2007, you'd think after THREE supposed FULL years of being "pro-life," he'd have his talking points down by then...But no: December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!"
(15): Now we come to the 2011-2012 campaign. The Romneys do an interesting Parade Magazine interview (Nov. 2011). Ann Romney is interviewed: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have NEVER CHANGED; we’ve ALWAYS BEEN PRO-LIFE: (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)
What? Did you Romneybots & would-be Romney voters not get the Romney campaign memo issued late in 2011: Per Ann Romney, the Romneys have "ALWAYS been pro-life..." They personally "NEVER CHANGED."
Which all means you can't trust a damn word Romney says. He has no personal integrity -- no core values.
Get off what? Are you tossin' a stone @ Graybeard?
So...does this mean you don't live in a glass house?
How many of you swearing to God will say that you intend to vote for Romney and will encourage others to do the same?
____________________________________________
None of the Christians in these threads I hope...
That would be blasphemy to do so...
God is Righteous...
God will not be mocked...
Maybe you dont know any better...
(Please read the entirety of post #67 -- and then you tell me if Romney can be any more all over the board as to what he believes about the pre-born...A man who can't even properly define who a pre-born baby is can't be trusted discernment-wise to know either who the TRUE GOD is-- or even the proper scope and sequence of what a POTUS entails)
So this thread is about Romney and the data about MormonISM is just the vehicle to attack Milt Rominy? ... I stand corrected.
Colofornian has increased her attacks on Mormonism since Romney became the preemptive candidtate; going so far as to post the same articles more than once.
Like it or not, Mormonism has become a political issue. If the RF is the only place to discuss it, so be it. but Romney’s religion is a political issue and the articles belong in the news forum.
Aside from who he's running against, why would any TRUE conservative want to vote for...
...a pro-abort?
...a socialistic healthcare pioneer?
...somebody's who's appointed 75%+ liberal judges in his track record?
...somebody who supports global warming?
...somebody who's changed his mind three times on embryos?
...somebody who's changed his mind three times regarding employees with a "sexual orientation" as minority status?
...somebody who promised the homosexual Log Cabin group to take up some of their causes in the 1990s?
Almost to a FREEPER, the reason why they say they support Mitt Romney doesn't have to do anything with Mitt Romney.
That...is sad. (And will sequester the turnout come November...no passionate "get out the vote" will be there)
Prove it other than what comes out of your empty headedness...ALL of your claims here are unfounded.
In fact, one source that likes to deride me beyond FR said I was posting less articles.
Can't you squareheads keep your narrative straight?
Incorrect.
Colofornian has been exposing mormonism the entire time they have been on FR.
My guess would be that you have just now noticed because your candidate apparently is Romney.
There are no attacks on mormonism there is however exposure of mormonism. If you find their own words, and apparently you do, offensive to them and to you, there is nothing I can do about that.
Exposing mormonism is paramount to your feelings.
Actually, just the opposite.
As long as Romney is in the forefront, guess what? (More ops to post about Mormonism)
Certainly, tho...
Mormonism is an issue in and of itself...
...Romney is an issue in and of himself...
...Romney's Mormonism is an issue...
...And Mormonism's Romney is an issue...
Mix and match...take your pick...all answers are correct...Who REALLY wants to separate and parcel that all out...and why?
Praise God!
Lurker Mormons...there's still time!
Colofornian has increased her attacks on Mormonism since Romney became the preemptive candidtate;
- - - - - - - -
Hogwash, I’m one of the flying inmans and thus get pinged to every thread, the articles on Mormonism have DECREASED since the same time last year.
Get over yourself, Jean, this isn’t about Mitt, it is about Mormonism.
If you don’t like the threads, why are you here other than to shill for a RINO?
Hey, if you were auditioning to become a god, you'd be on your best behavior, too!
I never saw any freaky rituals or cult like activities.
'Twas a certain earlier FR thread on whether Mormonism constituted a cult...and some criteria outlined in that article was compared to Mormonism...
Here...You can compare all these criteria below (+ ensuing posts): CRITERIA #1&2a
Extended explanation:
Mormondom makes a HUGE deal of having access to the Mormon temple. Mormons carry a temple recommend in their wallets, and deem it a sacred document. It gives them access to the temple; without it, there's a huge debate if they could even make it into the highest degree of glory. See 25 posts from this very week where Lds debate the following question:
Source: Ldsfreedomforum.com: 'Is Current Temple Rec. Prerequisite to Get Celestial Glory?
(Ya know, Mormons "affiliate" with FReepers -- and are FReepers themselves! Some Mormons "support" FR. Some "agree" with the worldviews of this site) Temple recommend Qs
Ah. So the Mormon church for five years was even trying to root out all "sympathizers" of people who don't agree with the Mormon church!!! **********
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.