Flip-Flop Mitt

[50srefugee]

Mittens is the Socialist-Democrat choice for Republican nominee.

Vote for this man, and you are voting to be ruled by the Elite Bastards, no matter who wins the election.

[sxdarknessxs]

@vgcq02 ME TOO!!! and im a Ron Paul supporter...the kinda guy who KNOWS what kinda damage Obama is doing to our economy....but...the thing is...w/ Obama we get four more years the same...wasteful spending and suchl...w/ romney...who knows what you get...Romney doesn't even know what his positiions are!

[Tallacus]

McCain should go with the Catholic guy

[ziglet53]

I find it so interesting that he had this epiphony, or multiples thereof, about 4 yrs. ago. Wasn't that about the time he decided he'd make a run for the White House?

I prefer a staunch conservative. Like Huckabee.

[boxtortoise2003]

what a fuck.

[ChristopherMillz]

What about the president that everyone wants to be like?? REAGAN was pro-choice as governor and ran pro-life as president. Not only that but he changed his party. He went from democrat to republican. Now, was Reagan a flip-flopper? All the candidates seem to want to be like him. Mitt Romney is the only one who is.

[MKB2814]

Willard on being Republican:

"I'm not running as the Republican view or a continuation of Republican values. That's not what brings me to the race."[On Romney 2002 Campaign Website]

[keyan99]

what the heck is so controversial about someone changing their point of view over the course of YEARS? i assume that if mitt was ever quoted saying he believed in santa claus when he was a kid, you would then showcase how that change makes him an unproper candidate. as people change, so do their points of view... not to mention that all your quotes were planted into your rhetoric rich soil, completely distorting context.

[FreeTraveler]

Remember that George Bush promised a "kinder, gentler" foreign policy, and now HE's "changed his mind". Do we really want a president who doesn't have a consistent philosophy of government?

[keyan99]

no, but someone changing their mind under certain circumstances doesn't mean that they are going to then change their mind under what can only later be different ones.. i can use the same logic against you. iraq committed atrocities against iran years ago, so we can assume they are going to do it again today? and take action? you're arguing in favor of a debunked mode of thinking.

[FreeTraveler]

Changing one's mind about factual issues, when presented with different facts, is called maturity. Changing one's philosophy of government to fit the current image to be projected is called flip-flopping.

[keyan99]

okay. you said that well. we're getting to the root of this thing. so how have you then come to the conclusion that mitt is a flip-flopper, and not mature? you are just making assumptions because you don't like the guy. that is opinion itself, and not fact. its an opinion formed with bias.

[FreeTraveler]

A candidate who changes positions to appeal to a specific demographic qualifies as a flip-flopper in my opinion.

The video shows critical issues like gun control (or victim disarmament as I prefer to call it), taxes, amnesty for illegal aliens, minimum wage, and abortion. His political philosphy today is apparently in direct conflict with the philosophy he applied as governor.

Which Mitt would serve if elected? The liberal governor, or the one who's arisen in the last year or two?

[keyan99]

i know what your video had in it, but your case that these decisions were made in the past year or two alone are false. half of them were atleast 5 years old. the only one you make a ligitimate case against him changing his views on

[keyan99]

i accidently pressed the button.. cont. from "on": is gun control. his abortion views are old. amnesty is old, and given some new literature thats come out, it can be considered a maturing of views. the problem is that all of these things don't denote philosophy, but things said while running in a dem state and promoting compromise. context is key. you're video ignores it.

[FreeTraveler]

"the problem is that all of these things don't denote philosophy, but things said while running in a dem state and promoting compromise"

I'm tired of having all my freedoms compromised away. Compromise is how this country has gotten into the trouble it's in today, IMHO. The Founding Fathers could have compromised with King George, and we'd still be a colony.

[keyan99]

i understand your anger. i think philosophically we probably agree. but its not realistic to not compromise. people are never going to allow you be free, if you don't show them first that they don't benefit from suppressing you. good compromises lead to transitions of point of view. dems have the power, so you have to slowly show them that they are wrong, but not by merely telling them they are. hence, compromises.

[FreeTraveler]

I'm not sure where you got anger from me. It's more disgust. Compromise has whittled and whittled at our freedom, and more compromise leads to Real ID, the collapse of the dollar, and war with Iran. Remember, the Weimar Republic compromised with Hitler by passing the Enabling Act.

[keyan99]

i didn't mean anger explicitly.. and thats what i meant by good compromises. obviously the enabling act was a bad one, as have been the copying of currency, and non-complete founding of wars. those all probably stemmed from compromises, but the only way to overturn them is to compromise with a certain level of change. there isn't another democratic way. and i'm curious, whats the beef with ID?

[FreeTraveler]

So lots of bad compromises, each of which led to less freedeom, are a reason for more compromise? The obvious result will be less freedom. As for Real ID, I think it pretty obviously violates the 4th amendment, as does the TSA.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their ...papers... against unreasonable searches... shall not be violated... but upon probable cause...

[keyan99]

thats clearly not what i meant. i meant that there are compromises you benefit from, when you not compromising eventually gets you less freedom. the only way to undue compromises is to compromise in the other direction. you really need a revolution to get any greater change than that, and there isn't one. and is it possible that the constitution is a bit dated in that respect? i mean what is negative about an ID?

[FreeTraveler]

How can a free man benefit from a compromise with those who seek to take the fruits of his labor?

In a free society, how do you justify a card that tracks where you go and what you do? Ask the survivors of the holocost if they minded being a number in a database. Ask the citizens of Poland if they minded having their guns siezed when Germany invaded and got the gun registration roles. Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

[keyan99]

because if you don't compromise then they will take more of your fruit. more of your own fruit=better, right? and i think the holocaust is kind of a bad comparison. but i would never defend tracking people, or gun siezure. but i think everyone should have identification of a standard form though. i don't really see how thats negative, even to a libertarian.

[FreeTraveler]

As I read back through this discussion, I can see that you're not interested in applying logic here. Compromise always leads to less freedom, and registration has all too often led to gov't abuses of authority. When they come for your guns, remember you were warned. Have a nice life.

[keyan99]

you saying i don't apply logic means nothing, except that you disagree with me. i could say the same thing about you. that statement in itself is illogical. i'm not arguing compromise is beautiful, just that there are some compromises that you can gain from right now. go on ignoring gov requires cooperation, and it won't change, and then you can go on complaining.