Gov Mitt Romney on 1994 Debate with Ted Kennedy

[JohnnyPolitico]

Gotta love the quote of chrissen1 "Another bigoted, lying republican...............assas­­inate this NAZI ASAP!".

How do these "tolerant liberals" face themselves in the mirror each morning? They seem to be getting even angrier and worse, don't they? Must be a direct side effect of Obama Disillusion Syndrome, huh? I'll bet this hypocritical psychopath often accuses Republicans of having called for the assassination of Obama. LOL! Everyone please join me with a pathetic laugh for this Loser.

[chrissen1]

Another bigoted, lying republican...............assas­inate this NAZI ASAP!

[2012Romney]

@chrissen1 You are a sick, pathetic, loser. You are embarassing yourself.

[lizardman77]

Mitt 2012!

[JohnnyPolitico]

Finally, you'll notice that my responses have now flooded the board here just as yours have. I don't agree with this type of spamming to get your point acrossed. It discourages dialog and unfairly monopolizes a site with one viewpoint. Spamming also serves to shut down dialog where you don't have anything substantial to add other than "I don't agree with you". You've had an opportunity to express your opinion here, and have abused it. How about moving on to another site.

[tojaktoty1]

Sir, I appreciate you responding to my posts. However your rebuttal is purely opinion. All of your points in defending your present stance are unsubstantiated opinions- not fact.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Ron Paul takes an extreme position in favor of 9/11 terrorists despite many facts that fly in the face of his opinion on the subject. He discounts the ideology of global jihad as a driver despite many interviews, statements, and facts to the contrary. I can show you all of these, and you can still hold to your warped perspective. Ron Paul and his supporters are proof that common sense is subjective, and does NOT always equate to good sense. My opinion based on observation and experience.

[tojaktoty1]

"Have you listened to captured Al-Qaida terrorists? [...] They point to the global establishment of Islam as their true motivation." Yes, a lot of the videos are on here, please post one that is supporting your claim.

"Why did the Japanese attack us?" Japan is a country. Terrorism is not. GWB has time and again stated that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

[JohnnyPolitico]

You may benefit from reading this quote from a former Islamic radical in the British Jihadi Network: "I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology."

See The Drudge Report -- A RADICAL ISLAMIST REPENTS

[tojaktoty1]

Furthermore, no WMD or the means to make them have ever been found in Iraq. The fact is the entire country has been exposed to this truth; why do you cower under the notion that to attack, be aggressive, and being on the offensive is a patriotic thing when it is easy for the government to sway issues in favor of their benefits- i.e. expanding corporatism and the military industrial complex.

[JohnnyPolitico]

"Furthermore, no WMD or the means to make them have ever been found in Iraq." Blah, blah, blah. There is ample evidence that Saddam had the means of manufacturing these very quickly, and the FACT that he had previously used them on his own people means this was a serious threat.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Regardless, Saddam sponsered terrorist attacks through his rhetoric, through funding suicide attacks, by hosting Al Zarqawi from Afghanistan, and by harboring a terrorist training camp in Northern Iraq. Removing him was justified by his defiance of the UN monitoring, oil-for-food, etc, etc.

[tojaktoty1]

"Giuliani's attitude toward RP's statements represents the overwhelming attitude of conservatives in general." A mass of ignorant individuals does not justify the issue as being right. To use *your* line, "They laugh at this flawed philosophy." Giuliani has been ridiculed publicly by people in the intelligence agencies for his unsound and ignorant remarks.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Sure there are libs in the CIA that will support your liberal viewpoint, but there are also conservatives there who have interviewed captured terrorists who are driven by global jihad. They know how willfully ignorant people like Ron Paul are in their one-sided ideology.

[tojaktoty1]

"The reality is that today's terrorists are driven by religious idealism much more than by any "blowback" theories you may site." Prove it. This is an opinion based on no relation to fact or reality. How is the CIA's own stance on current day terrorism more 'self-delusion[al] than reality?'

[JohnnyPolitico]

"we are in a new age....we are new an age of Global jihad"

Here's an eye-opening site for you: h t t p ://atlasshrugs2000. typepad. com/atlas_shrugs/global_jihad_­2007/index. html

[tojaktoty1]

"Don't elevate RP to God-like status here, because he doesn't have any experience working with terrorists"

People like you and your candidate elevate RP to God-like status. We know he is just an intelligent man.

[JohnnyPolitico]

"People like you and your candidate elevate RP to God-like status. We know he is just an intelligent man." You're sorely mistaken. He needs to stick to gynecology.

[tojaktoty1]

And you are the expert professing that "Ron Paul is ignoring the fact that radical Islamic idealism is driving terrorist groups today." Yet, the driver is the *effect* of a cause. Ron Paul is *aware of the fact* that the cause is our mingling with their affairs and our hypocritical actions.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Ron Paul is unaware of the real driver of terrorism which is first, radical Islamic ideology, and second, the wests historical weakness in fighting back at terrorist acts. Terrorists have been emboldened by our weakness, and pulling out of Iraq will cement this. This is what captured terrorists are currently saying, and Ron Paul asked us to listen to them afterall, so why do you have a hard time believing this?

[tojaktoty1]

"NO, sorry, some things are wrong for America in any state. Slavery was a prime example of this, and other social issues, economic principles, and national security matters need federal legislation and support."

So to you and Romney Gay Marriage is comparable to slavery? How can you even make such a correlation?

[JohnnyPolitico]

"So to you and Romney Gay Marriage is comparable to slavery?" Traditional marriage is under attack today, as are familys. They should be protected through Federal law just as slavery finally was. No they're not the same things, but they both need Federal protection to enforce the universal rights they protect. Nature doesn't provide gay parents, and neither should our laws.

[tojaktoty1]

Second, it is your *opinion* that you do not favor gay rights and no state should. But the Constitution and law states otherwise. Ron Paul is for the Constitution and law. Third, most countries had slavery as an established industry in the past. However America is the only country in the world that had a civil war over its resolution. Why is the federal government and war such a viable solution for you at most issues?

[JohnnyPolitico]

"it is your *opinion* that you do not favor gay rights and no state should. But the Constitution and law states otherwise." Really? John Adams and others were obviously gay activists then? NO, they would've written against this if they'd had any idea the courts would've legislated from the bench the way Massachusetts justices did.

[tojaktoty1]

"Mitt Romney is the ONLY candidate to vote for." How so? You blast away at Ron Paul with opinionated remarks and then expect intelligent people to back a candidate which you are incapable of presenting in any other fashion. This does not bode well for you and your candidate. How much is he paying you to police youtube threads about him?

[JohnnyPolitico]

"How much is he paying you to police youtube threads about him?" Oh brother, more conspiracy fears. How much is Ron Paul paying you? See, I can't even say that with a straight face, because I don't really think you even register with him. He just naturally attracks loons.

[tojaktoty1]

JohnnyPolitico, please refrain from spreading propaganda and spinning the truth. You are posting fictitious replies on youtube and people reading your statements only have to search for a given specific video to see what was 'actually' said and not the way in which you interpreted it and decided to spin it.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Tojak, please refrain from spreading RP's "classical liberalism" propaganda and parsing and distorting the truth. You look at the world through a narrow lense in an effort to make it fit, but it doesn't. You need to expand your view to include a reality that you've been ignoring. RP will only continue to lead you to believe in conspiracy theories. Mitt Romney is the most capable businessman and political leader in America today. Look to him and learn about the real world.

[tojaktoty1]

You have no grounds on which to attack Ron Paul and seem to find a necessity to lie.

Quoting Ron Paul @ SC Debate:

"Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we have been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for ten years. We've been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right- we don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics....

[JohnnyPolitico]

"They attack us because we have been over there" WRONG. Have you listened to captured Al-Qaida terrorists? They laugh at this flawed philosophy. They point to the global establishment of Islam as their true motivation. You need to look at reality rather than sitting in a fetal position doing your naval-gazing routine. You're dead wrong on this point, and so is RP.

[tojaktoty1]

So right now we are building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We are building fourteen permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.

[JohnnyPolitico]

I guess you didn't notice, but we basically declared war on Iraq, overthrew it's dictator, and have established a government there. Of course we have built an embassy, established military bases, etc. This has been necessary to establish the peace. This is also what we did in Japan. How did that work out??

[tojaktoty1]

I suggest we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. They are delighted that we are over there because Osama bin Laden has said 'I am glad you are over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time have killed over 3400 of our men and I don't think that it was necessary."

[JohnnyPolitico]

"I suggest we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it." Why did the Japanese attack us? Perhaps we should've begged them to stop and come to the table so that we could listen to them as well? Your pacifism was wrong for America then, and it's even wronger today.

[tojaktoty1]

Following this you've got Guiliani using a strawman fallacy attack on Ron Paul. Giuliani clearly showed his lack of knowledge on political relations and foreign policy first by not understanding what Ron Paul had asserted but also by even being aware of or reading fully disclosed US government intelligence fact sheets handed out to all politicians.

[tojaktoty1]

There are numerous of such reports, one of which was the CIA's, which clearly explain that terrorists attack us because our foreign policy advocates taking over foreign sovereign nations, the US conducting covert false flag terror operations in other countries in order to spark change and create pressure, and intervening with other powers.

[tojaktoty1]

JohnnyPolitico, you may be as dense as Rudy when it came to the first *facts* that Ron Paul had presented. What is unfortunate is that in his rebuttal Ron Paul goes further to exactly clarify just what he is saying so that Rudy, and perhaps people like you, can understand in a nutshell what the USA does *all the time*...

[JohnnyPolitico]

Giuliani's attitude toward RP's statements represents the overwhelming attitude of conservatives in general. You can stick to your self-professed "deeper understanding" of this if you want, but it's more self-delusion than reality. The reality is that today's terrorists are driven by religious idealism much more than by any "blowback" theories you may site.

[tojaktoty1]

"I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about 'blowback'. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shaw, yes, their was 'blowback'. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages. And that persists...

[tojaktoty1]

And if we ignore that, if we ignore that at our own risk. We think that we can do what we want around the world and not insight hatred then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we are rich and we are free. They come and attack us because we are over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us."

[tojaktoty1]

JohnnyPolitico, so when you state: "[Ron Paul] is accusing your Country of the 9/11 atrocities", you ought to be more precise and say what he said. The fact is people, like Ron Paul, are smart enough and courageous enough to speak the truth that no one, like you or Rudy, like to hear: [Ron Paul] is accusing your Country's *foreign policy* of the 9/11 atrocities."

[JohnnyPolitico]

Ron Paul is ignoring the fact that radical Islamic idealism is driving terrorist groups today. They don't abide by standard non-intervention philosophies. Don't elevate RP to God-like status here, because he doesn't have any experience working with terrorists, and his idealistic non-interventionist philosophy is out of date.

[tojaktoty1]

Next, you state "Claiming to be pro-life and voting to leave the issue up to States is not something to brag about." This is an opinion. Only an unsound opinion of yours.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Pro-life issues were attacked by judicial activists on the US Supreme Court. Remember Roe v Wade? No, the federal legislation that existed previously should ensure the rights of all unborn children across the country. Not only those in some states. Legislation that effects basic human rights is a Federal matter, ie. the Bill of Rights.

[tojaktoty1]

Ron Paul's principals are grounded in the Constitution whereby the federal government has no right, responsibility, or obligation to pass nationwide laws, such as the one you mentioned, when these type of issues are suppose to be left for the individual states to decide and act on. This is the way our government was setup to run. You may have never heard of the Constitution JohnnyPolitico, most political people like you haven't, even moreso I doubt you have read it. I recommend you do.

[JohnnyPolitico]

RP's principles often take narrow and extreme interpretations of the Constitution. This gynecologist just isn't as well suited to the federal government as you would like us to believe. BTW, don't assume I haven't read the Constitution. Too bad balanced viewpoints can't be had by mere reading, or I would suggest it for you.

[tojaktoty1]

Such a policy allows people to then vote with there feet and move to a state they find has the best laws. Hate the schools in Illinois? Move to Florida. Dislike the taxes in New York, move to Montana. Despise the gun laws in California, move to Texas.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Your logic fails on some issues. For example, "Dislike gay marriage laws in 49 states, move to one that allows it through judicial activism." NO, sorry, some things are wrong for America in any state. Slavery was a prime example of this, and other social issues, economic principles, and national security matters need federal legislation and support.

[tojaktoty1]

It is quite simple really. There is absolutely nothing to gain from a federal government like ours getting more and more powerful as it continues to become a wet-dream of Marx and Engels. People have been brainwashed that the federal government is now responsible for your health. The fact is our health care system is in such horrid shape *because* of government intervention and the lack of laissez faire.

Good luck to you. The truth is out there.

vote for RON PAUL

[JohnnyPolitico]

tojak, it's true that "The truth is out there", but Ron Paul doesn't have it. If you want someone to lead America to prosperity in economic, national defense, and social conservatism them Mitt Romney is the ONLY candidate to vote for.

[midnightbright]

I wonder when Romney will admit that he is wrong on most issues today? Ron Paul is the only candidate who is right on, he has always been pro-life and voted to let the states handle it. Reinstating the death penalty is not something to brag about.

[MKB2814]

To sum it up:

Rob Thompson, director of the New Hampshire Coalition of Families, a Christian group.

As for same-sex marriage, Romney's longstanding opposition won't suffice, Thompson added. Conservatives will focus on the fact that "on his watch, gay marriage became law." [Concord Monitor 12/10/06]

Then see what DW Hudson also stated.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Your sum doesn't add up. On Romney's watch activist judges on the MA Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage -- and Romney FOUGHT them on this. When the liberal legislature wouldn't vote on this, he presented his arguments before the media and people to vote on it in the next election. This is what conservatives will focus on.

[JohnnyPolitico]

mkb2814, I have been so astounded by your extremism on Romney that I googled you to see what you were saying elsewhere. What you have said here is mild to what you have said elsewhere about Romney and Mormons. What could possibly drive you to disparage Romney and Mormons so much?

[MKB2814]

Now exactly what have I said that is so terrible about Mormonism?

Have you read the book authored by Joseph Smith?

It is an entertaining story involving other planets, the familial bond between Jesus and Lucifer,

As for extremism, I can assure you I am not. Your own long winded attempt to attack the messenger with accusations as opposed to debating the actions of a poor governor while evoking such "demons" as activist judges certainly betrays a quality of extremism in your replies.

[JohnnyPolitico]

mkb2814, yes I have read and prayed about the Book of Mormon. It is scripture authored by prophets and translated by Joseph Smith. It doesn't focus on other planets, and only mentions that Lucifer was a Son of the Morning that fell from heaven, as does the Bible. Your personal attacks on LDS practices including ridiculing our Temple garments is crude and disgusting. You are a very vicious and hateful person.

[MKB2814]

The Mormon undergarment thing is your own business, no less a practice of one's faith as a turban, a curved dagger, bindi, or prayer beads. You also don't know what I've said about faith in general. You have been underhanded and desperate beyond any rational discourse. In invoking an incredulous posturing, you undermind a sense of what is good in any belief.

[JohnnyPolitico]

You don't know anything about the Temple covenants associated with LDS undergarments and yet you have reviled them in the most vulgar of terms. This is ignorant, "underhanded and desperate beyond any rational discourse". You are a vile person, and frankly you're not responsible enough to discuss any matters of importance such as religion or politics. Why is it that liberals always turn out to be anything but liberal or tolerant in their dealings with others?

[JohnnyPolitico]

Finally we get to the iffy point that you are trying to make, "Now that's just very lazy legal work for someone who claims conviction." Conjecture. I think Romney just took another tactic. He came out in full protest using his political network and the power of the press. Who says this isn't a better way to go than to flirt with contempt of court issues? He took a contrary position on same-sex marriage leaving no doubts about his committment on the issue.

[MKB2814]

On the point of contempt of court, exactly what court order would Romney be defying?

The MA courts never ordered him to issue same sex marriage certificates.

[MKB2814]

Romney told Monday night's gathering in Spartanburg County (SC) that he's always been opposed to same-sex marriage as well as what he called "it's equivalent, civil unions." [AP 2/23/05]

[VolgaTatar]

Would you can anti-Semitic someone who supports Jews in many aspects but is against giving Jews the right to marry each other? I think the answer is obvious. You can't be pro-gay if you advocate maroital discrimination.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Who said Romney is pro-gay? Does he try to encourage homosexual behavior? No, he simply supports basic human rights such as non-discrimination in the workplace, etc. If you don't support hate-crimes laws are you anti-gay, racist, etc? No, this is called principled opposition. Marriage rights for Jews are no different than anyone elses rights. Gay marriage is a completely different matter. What's next, recognizing interspecies marriage?

[MKB2814]

You paint an unrealistic and fear mongering picture of the marriage argument.

Keep in mind, gay marriage happened under Mitt Romney's watch. The court interpreted the law of the MA Constitution as no strict exclusion of the general rights of reasonable adults. At no point was Romney ordered to issue same sex marriage licenses. He did and ordered city and town clerks to do so as well. Then whores out the "anti" rhetoric for political opportunity.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Again you seem to be saying that Mitt Romney supported same-sex marriage. Perhaps you have not seen the many videos of Romney speaking against this to his very liberal state? If you can, show us where Romney was for same-sex marriage before he was against it.

[VolgaTatar]

You didn't respond to my question. The answer to my question is S.C.U.M.B.A.G. That's what he is. Any homophobe is a scumbag. Promoting marriage discrimination against gays is homophobic. Don't you think?

[JohnnyPolitico]

I got your weak acronym, but chose not to dignify it with a response. Trying to label Romney as a homophobe is even more laughable and ignorant. He has supported many non-desciminatory measures having to do with gays, and yet you still personally attack him do to his opposition to gay marriage. It's not homophobia, but rather principled opposition that drives most of the criticism on gay issues. With his strong views on traditional marriage, Romney is a great example of this.

[MKB2814]

Well then, someone should demand to state right now where he stands on gay rights. He's been for civil unions, the rights for same sex couples to adopt, and even issued same sex marriage licenses without legislative approval or specific court order. Today, he's against it all for expediency's sake.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Mitt Romney has always been for traditional marriage. Show me a statement where he claimed to be for same-sex marriage or civil unions if you can. Misleading statements and lies are the same thing.

[MKB2814]

"[David] Rogers, who was president of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts when Romney was a gubernatorial candidate in 2002, said that while Romney made clear he was opposed to gay marriage, he said that he would fight any form of discrimination and left the impression he wouldn't crusade against gay rights._- Boston Globe, 3/11/2004

[JohnnyPolitico]

Well, thank you for admitting your error on this topic. We now have official corroboration from gays that Mitt Romney "made clear he was opposed to gay marriage" in 2002. If he made this clear, then how can Rogers' or other gays believe that Romney's opposition to same-sex marriage constitutes a crusade against gay rights? Please explain this irrational reasoning since you seem to share it.

[MKB2814]

John Adams had the foresight in 1780 to write specific provisions in the Massachusetts Constitution, the world's oldest functioning written Constitution, to prevent judicial activism of this sort. Romney made no attempt to exercise most of his constitutional options in order to block same-sex marriages before they began or stop them while in office,[D.W. Hudson]

[JohnnyPolitico]

Also, I hope that you don't mind if I share this quote in my comments on other political videos. This is a fabulous quote that clearly shows Romney's position. Thanks for bringing this to my awareness. I usually forego liberal newspapers like the Boston Globe.

[MKB2814]

I hope you also share quotes like this:

Many pro-family leaders , including columnist Patrick J. Buchanan, Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst College, and Mathew Staver, Esq. of Liberty Counsel all urged Romney to defy the Court ruling and halt the marriages via Executive Order. But there was no public response from Romney._- Patrick J. Buchanan, 2/9/2004_- Agape Press, 3/30/2004_- Prof. Hadley Arkes, in National Review Online, 5/17/2004_- Matt Staver, Esq., Liberty Counsel, July 2004

[JohnnyPolitico]

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that Romney wanted to implement gay marriage in MA. No doubt that he and his advisors interpreted the courts ruling to mean that he couldn't impede gay marriages this way. The fact that others may have urged him to go against the court proves nothing. So he didn't want to come close to violating a court order, big whoop. He took the right course in coming out against this issue going to the people.

[MKB2814]

I never said he wanted to implement gay marriage. You also cite erroneous information. The court in the Goodridge case and subsequent State SJC never ordered Romney to implement gay marriage.

I merely point out that legal arguments exist that Romney did not exercise the full legal authority the office he was elected (and did poorly) to allowed as specified in the State Constitution.

Now that's just very lazy legal work for someone who claims conviction.

[MKB2814]

"Mitt Romney's wife, son, and daughter-in-law signed a petition in support of a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban both gay marriage and domestic-partner benefits in Massachusetts - an amendment that Romney himself condemned as too extreme after being told of his family's support for it [Boston Globe 3/22/02]

[MKB2814]

Look at that quote and disregard the family's involvement.

Mitt Romney thinks that banning gay marriage and domestic partner benefits IS TOO EXTREME!

The disorder of Mittzophrenia in action.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Look at what quote? You haven't provided any Romney quotes at all. If anyone is suffering from a pyschological disorder here it's you. What shall we call it: Romneymania, Mittzophobia, or Mittitis? Grow up.

[MKB2814]

And yet, here you are, trying to blur the sources.

I cited the specific date and the newspaper it was printed in. A newspaper you yourself just recently stated as a resource to quote.

Willard Mitt Romney is certainly under a psychological illness. Narcissism laced with dementia.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Siting the Boston Globe as some sort of absolute source on Romney's beliefs, statements, or actions is a little over the top. Where and when did he say that a constitutional amendment was too extreme? I can show you videos of Romney campaigning for just such an amendment.

[MKB2814]

Also, from Mitt's office:

He nominated Stephen Abany to a District Court. Abany has been a key player in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association which, in its own words, is "dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated." [Governor's Press Release 5/4/2005]

[JohnnyPolitico]

"He nominated Stephen Abany" So are you saying Romney did this because he wanted to promote same-sex marriage? Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Conner, so does this mean he want to promote abortion? And did this appointment happen after before or after the MA ruling? You seem to be full of insinuations and innuendo.

[MKB2814]

He nominated Abany AFTER he claimed to be "anti-gay marriage". Abany is a pro-gay marriage advocate, long before Mittens nominated him

Even by-passed several GOP people to do so.

[MKB2814]

Abany was nominated in 2005, as cited in a governor's press release.

[JohnnyPolitico]

You know what mkb2814, you would like to appear credible but you are so one-sided that it's not reasonable to trust your opinion. I don't know anything about Romney's reasons for nominating Abany, and neither do you.  You don't know what discussions they had or if Romney even knew his position on this. You're not a fair-minded person. Delving this deep shows some conspiracy-minded tendencies on your part.

[MKB2814]

So following your logic, Romney nominated a judge without even researching credentials and having an idea of that person's activist leanings? That's not conspiracy fantasy, that's poor judgement for someone who certainly isn't willing to leave behind a legacy of conviction.

So in that line of logic, if you wanted to invest lots of money, you'd give it to Jefferson?

[MKB2814]

It's cute to how Romney wants to pretend to be like Reagan. That is a complete insult to the 40th President.

At least when Reagan changed his mind, he also had the courage to switch parties to reflect his beliefs.

That's on the abortion issue. Mitt changed his position so fast on so many issues that even Kerry got whiplash.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Romney changed positions faster than Kerry? Really? And how long was it that Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it? See, no sense of truth in advertizing by you. You know who did give Kerry whiplash? Al Gore in the debates with Bush. He morphed each night into a poll-driven zombie.

[MKB2814]

Romney changed positions on at least ten key issues in less than 3 years. Including immigration, gun control, and tax cuts.

When Reagan changed his mind on one issue, he at least had the personal courage to do it off the campaign trail.

[JohnnyPolitico]

So you claim. You don't provide details. Why should anyone take your word on this? Kerry and Gore morphed before our very eyes, and changed positions in months, weeks, and days.

[MKB2814]

What's your point? That Romney is no better than Kerry and Gore on flip-flops? Romney changes position from state to state. Details were provided, more can be elucidated upon.

Some examples:

Gun control, environmental policy, tax cuts (actually against them in 03 before he was for them), immigration, and stem cell research. I can cite relevant example, or you could always google his postions prior to 2006.

[JohnnyPolitico]

No, you are my point. You're trying way to hard to discredit Romney and have delved into depths that go way beyond the level of detail needed to make valid judgments. What was the conversation between Romney and Abany, and what representations did Abany make to him? You have no way of knowing, and yet you put a negative even devious spin on it, when it can actually be a very positive thing for Romney's character.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Didn't Romney make representations that he wouldn't discriminate against gays? So he nominates this guy to a District Court spot who also has a non-discrimination propensity, and you want to attack him over this? Why? Does this go against your values? Are you anti-gay? No, you're looking for anything -- no matter how small to -- to spin against him. In being so quick on the draw, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

[MKB2814]

I'm not attacking Mr. Abany. I am merely stating that this judicial appointment was made after the Goodridge case in which Romney supposedly became "tough on gay marriage" and of course, "their equivalent, civil unions" (as he said in SC).

Surely a pattern of sheer posturing and political cowardice can be suggested by Romney through his initial actions.

[MKB2814]

It's a cute little touch, Johnny, that you'll also attempt to discredit the commenter and obfuscate the issue with many of your conjectural points.

The fact is Romney nominated a known proponent for gay marriage for a

judgeship after the Goodridge case was decided. Then, in a show of political theater, blustered against such rights. That is, the gay marriage issue which Romney himself implicitly enacted without legislative approval or court order by issuing licenses with his signature.

[MKB2814]

And finally,

If the issue is just focused on the one issue, why such long winded attempts to accuse and spin yourself.

It's a long election cycle, if Mitt's so sure he did everything he could "within the law", perhaps he could argue the point before much more experienced legal expert beside yourself and me.

And do it without demonizing judges, spin, and a campaign team.

He wouldn't have the conviction to do it I guess.

[JohnnyPolitico]

What do you mean by "perhaps he could argue the point before much more experienced legal expert beside yourself and me"? I can't even follow your logic on this one. It sounds like you're suggesting that he put together a panel of judges to prove to you that he used best practices or something. This word for this is -- silly.

[JohnnyPolitico]

I'm not trying to be cute by pointing our your desperate attempts to discredit Romney. I call them as I see them. Romney has done nothing to establish homosexual marriage, and I think your attempts to say that he has are desperate acts.

[MKB2814]

There you go again, misreading the initial staement.

Did Romney establish gay marriage in MA? NO.

Did Romney facilitate the issue of state recognized gay marriage? YES.

Romney signed same sex marriage certificates, ordered his clerks and JP's to conduct cermonies (all public record), and failed to exercise all the laws and authority placed in the state governor. The first two are fact, the last is a legal argument.

[JohnnyPolitico]

No, Romney did not do anything to facilitate gay marriage other than that which he felt the court required. You can pretend that he didn't exercise his full options against the activist court, but you don't know his mind or what legal advice he received on the matter at the time. You had no inside knowledge of these things, and are going way beyond impartial judgment. It's really very underhanded and yes -- desperate. Goodbye, go somewhere else with your lies.

[MKB2814]

Well, there you go again, making long statements trying to discredit. It's sad, really.

Again, for a governor who demonizes "activist judges" and claims to want to confront them, Romney certainly didn't show such resolve in this circumstance.

[JohnnyPolitico]

Well, there you go again making irrational desperate statements trying to discredit Mitt Romney.  Since the MA State Constitution never had any provisions for allowing homosexual marriage, you can't claim that the Supreme Court ruling in favor of establishing it was anything but judicial activism. It's sad really to see you acting with such blind extremism.

[MKB2814]

You evidently don't know how legal procedings work. The decision merely interpreted that under the equal application of the law, there were no specific restrictions in place.

No order or restructuring of the law was done. If Romney felt it was an overstepping of such law, the MA Constition gave him options to halt it.

Why not halt the issue?

[JohnnyPolitico]

As for your juvenile acronym, try this one on for size: Socialially Conflicted Uber Malcontent Bellowing Angry Garbage. Wear it proudly, you've earned it.

[VolgaTatar]

What is the acronym for Socially Conservative Unethical Mormon Biased Against Gays?

[JohnnyPolitico]

What makes you think Romney is either unethical or biased against gays? You can certainly oppose gay marriage while also being against descrimination against gays in the workplace, etc. Romney has always supported traditional marriage, and he has always been against descrimination in the basic civil rights of gays. The fact that you bring up his religion shows you to be biased, don't you think?