Great video David, I can't believe how many American's are being bought by this guy and not seeing through him.... it's sickening... His record on taxes/economy are bad, he moved jobs overseas and laid off a lot of people... and he's only conservative when it will help him gain votes, he's flipped on virtually every issue.
Thanks for the encouragement. The biggest thing to me is the Huawei/Bain partnership to take over 3Com. I cannot believe the national media is not reporting on this! Could it be that they are saving it to use against him in the general should he be the nominee?
According to BusinessWeek, 3Com just scheduled a vote for 2/29 on the deal with Bain/Huawei. Huawei would own just under 16.5% of the new company, and would have the ability to appoint 3 board members. Romney would own the other 83.5%, and could appoint 8 of the 11 board members.
How you can argue that invading the middle east increases national security is beyond me. It seams like a complete contradiction, but perhaps you are one of the people who unwillingly link Bin Laden, Iraq and 9/11? If you do, then I don't blame you, everything becomes possible, why not link a few more? Iran, Pakistan... why not accept the inevitable; the whole world is against you (Israel excepted) and want's to attack your freedom and prosperity! ?
We did not invade the Middle East. You don't think the Middle East has any effect on our national security? Saddam did not attack us on 9-11, but do you doubt he was an enemy with deep ties to terrorists, including UBL? As to the rest of your post - a little dramatic. We have to prioritize who we deal with.
Quite a monologue you've got going here!? I'd like to get your opinions on Ron Paul, is he not conservative enough for you, or would you need to ask Hunter about it first? ;-)
On Ron Paul, about 25% of what he says makes sense. His failure to recognize US involvement in the Middle East as vital to US National Security is my biggest problem with him, other than his whiny voice and irritatiing personality.
Don't forget those who desired to marry. He increased the fee on that, too. For good measure, just to increase the tax base on marriage, he helped usher "gay marriage" into MA. The Supreme Judicial Court made a ruling and ordered the Legislature to act. The Legislature did nothing, so Romney stepped in and ordered same-sex "marriages" to begin -- essentially violating his oath of office.
What a lie. He did what the law demanded. If he would have disregarded the other branches of government THAT would have been violating his oath of office. Or do you think that the mayor of San Fran was right in doing what he did in defiance of the courts? Because you are demanding that Romney should have done the same thing.
In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as "too extreme" the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.
"Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the "Protection of Marriage" amendment. "He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the 'defense of marriage' amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept."
He SAYS he is opposed to gay marriage. His record says otherwise. Romney administration ordered Justices of Peace to perform homosexual "marriages" when asked - or be fired! At least one Justice of the Peace, Linda Gray Kelley, was forced to resign for religious reasons due to Romney's directives.
My view of Romney is based on his own record. Your analogy is ridiculous. Romney's own statements on the subject reveal, at a minimum, an extreme lack of passion. You must be a Mormon.
"In seeking the support of the Log Cabin Republican Club (gay activist group), Romney wrote them a letter promising that 'as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.'" [His opponent at the time was Sen. Ted Kennedy, perhaps the foremost advocate of homosexual rights in the U.S. Senate.]
How Mitt Romney brought "gay marriage" to Massachusetts - The Supreme Judicial Court made a ruling and ordered the Legislature to act. The Legislature did nothing, so Romney stepped in and ordered same-sex "marriages" to begin -- essentially violating his oath of office.
You either lack an understanding of constitutional law or you are willfully misleading. Romney was required, by his position and office and the constitution of the state he was over, to do what he did.
Again, do you feel that the mayor of San Fran was keeping his oath of office when defied the courts and his responsibility as laid out under law?
I understand Constitutional law far better than you obviously do. The judiciary is not allowed to legislate from the bench. As Governor, Romney was unwilling to even investigate powers available to him to overturn the ruling, which would NOT have been unconstitutional.
GARBAGE! Recourse is not to defy the courts THAT is the mentality of the mayor of San Francisco. Where is law and order, of what use is the constitution, if branches assert new, non-proscribed, powers? And where do you get off implying he didn't investigate powers available to him? He took the recourse made available by law. He did not take an oath of office to do his best to break out of the confines of his office.
Romney was NOT bound to enforce same-sex marriages prior to legislative action. Yet Romney jumped the gun and needlessly advanced the homosexual agenda by granting the marriage rights without a fight. Furthermore, Romney still had the authority to reverse his actions via Executive Order before his term was out. He did nothing. The bell rang, and he took a dive.
Romney was NOT bound to enforce same-sex marriages prior to legislative action. Yet Romney jumped the gun and needlessly advanced the homosexual agenda by granting the marriage rights without a fight. Furthermore, Romney still had the authority to reverse his actions via Executive Order before his term was out. He did not do this. The bell rang, and he took a dive.
The Supreme Judicial Court only issued an opinion and advised the Legislature to act (it never did). Even the Court acknowledged that it had no power to change the law.
Romney created these "marriages" through an unconstitutional and illegal directive to his Department of Public Health (to print new "marriage" licenses), and through his legal counsel threatened to fire any Town Clerk or Justice of the Peace who failed to implement the (non-existent) "new law".
He was not required by any constitutional mandate to do these things. On the contrary, his actions clearly violated his oath to uphold the laws of Massachusetts.
The opinion was requested by the legislature in accordance with the Constitution of that state to have an 'opinion' of the court be given when constitutionality of something was in question. This goes beyond the 'opinion' you get when asking a friend or family member about some passing matter.
If Romney truly felt a conviction that same-sex marriage is wrong, then why did he take the measures he did when he was not required to. He did so of his own choosing. Again, the opinion of the court was not law, and it only advised the legislature to act. Romney would not have been constitutionally bound until the legislature acted.
A survey of states by the National Conference of State Legislatures found Massachusetts led the nation during Romney's first year, raising fees and fines by $501 million. New York was second with $367 million. Nine other states raised fees and fines by more than $100 million.
Also under Romney's plan, the state Department of Mental Retardation would have charged a fee of $100 to determine a client's eligibility and the Department of Public Health would have charged $50 for initial tuberculosis tests. Another $400 fee would have been assessed for those who tested positive.
That is right. Romney claims that the fees in MA were behind the times and had not been raised to today's standards. So he made it his priority to remedy that. How long has MA had CHLs? Maybe 10 years? Yet Romney TRIPLED that fee. He also pushed for a special excise tax on SUVs. Quacks like a liberal...
"It's a shell game," said Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "He (Mitt Romney) can still say he didn't raise taxes, but fees are taxes by another name. It's a trick."
Exactly. A Conservative defines "tax" as any money the government collects. So Mitt says he only raised taxes by $240 Million, but he raised fees by over $500 Million. The result? $740 Million in new taxes. Yet he tries to disparage Huckabee for $500 Million in new taxes, of which Huckabee was only responsible for $100 Million over ten years.
A conservative defines things, not in terms of taxes, but in terms of relative requirements for payment, that broadens the scope beyond taxes to tax exemptions etc.
And I don't see how you get off on this 'Huckabee was only responsible for 100 Million over ten years' crap.
However you define it, Romney was responsible for fee increases of $500 M, and tax increase of $240 M. Plus, he switched a lot of tax burdens to the local level, so there is more that is yet to be measured. On Huckabee, there were $500 M in new taxes. $400 M of that was by court order, not Huckabee initiative. 5 - 4 = 1.
Take a group of fifty people of varying degrees of health and assign a doctor to each and give them a time frame to try and better the health of their respective patient. Would you condemn the doctor who brought the sickest patient from the brink of death to a state where they may still have some issues but are in recovery while praising the doctor who merely kept their healthy patient healthy?
Your premise is completely faulty. MA would be one of the states who was healthy and became sick. Look at the record. Number of registered Republicans fell by over 30,000 during Romney's term. Number of registered dems rose by roughly the same amount. It is b/c MA got sick due to Dr. Romney.
No. Since when is the number of Registered Republicans a sign of healthiness or sickness? Here in Utah we have a whole slew of Democrats at heart who are registered as Republicans. If you want an indicator via partisan politics I'd say look at what the Democratic Party of MA is doing in terms
It is a sign of the health of the Republican party, which is what we are debating right now - who should be the Republican nominee. But I won't get stuck there - whether it is the health of the party, the health of the taxpayer, the health of businesses and the health of workers - all declined under Romney.
of allocating their state party resources to fighting, on a national level, a governor they no longer have. The Dems closest to Romney are the most scared of him. And the Dems masquerading as Reps decided to show their true colors when they saw what Romney was doing.
Romney pledged to build the Massachusetts Republican Party, but in fact he did almost nothing. During his tenure there were two elections for the entire Legislature (2004 and 2006). In each election the Republicans lost seats. Republicans now hold the fewest seats in the Legislature since the Civil War.
Mitt is the founder, and he still carries considerable influence. Even as a presidential candidate with no interest in Bain, he ought to be speaking out in staunch opposition to the merger. This is the primary reason Duncan Hunter refused to endorse Romney and chose Huckabee instead.
Nice vid. Keep up the good work of informing people about this phony.
vonflowers 4 years ago
One phony down, one to go. Romney is out.
Now that it is down to McCain and a real Conservative in Huckabee, maybe the tide will finally turn to get rid of this phony, McCain.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
Great video David, I can't believe how many American's are being bought by this guy and not seeing through him.... it's sickening... His record on taxes/economy are bad, he moved jobs overseas and laid off a lot of people... and he's only conservative when it will help him gain votes, he's flipped on virtually every issue.
smerny85 4 years ago
Thanks for the encouragement. The biggest thing to me is the Huawei/Bain partnership to take over 3Com. I cannot believe the national media is not reporting on this! Could it be that they are saving it to use against him in the general should he be the nominee?
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
I just found out some new information on this:
According to BusinessWeek, 3Com just scheduled a vote for 2/29 on the deal with Bain/Huawei. Huawei would own just under 16.5% of the new company, and would have the ability to appoint 3 board members. Romney would own the other 83.5%, and could appoint 8 of the 11 board members.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
Like I said in the video, "I think I smell a rat." Romney wants to be president, but national security is less important than his own pockets.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
How you can argue that invading the middle east increases national security is beyond me. It seams like a complete contradiction, but perhaps you are one of the people who unwillingly link Bin Laden, Iraq and 9/11? If you do, then I don't blame you, everything becomes possible, why not link a few more? Iran, Pakistan... why not accept the inevitable; the whole world is against you (Israel excepted) and want's to attack your freedom and prosperity! ?
theeggwoman 4 years ago
We did not invade the Middle East. You don't think the Middle East has any effect on our national security? Saddam did not attack us on 9-11, but do you doubt he was an enemy with deep ties to terrorists, including UBL? As to the rest of your post - a little dramatic. We have to prioritize who we deal with.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
Quite a monologue you've got going here!? I'd like to get your opinions on Ron Paul, is he not conservative enough for you, or would you need to ask Hunter about it first? ;-)
theeggwoman 4 years ago
Looks more like a dialogue to me...
On Ron Paul, about 25% of what he says makes sense. His failure to recognize US involvement in the Middle East as vital to US National Security is my biggest problem with him, other than his whiny voice and irritatiing personality.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
I think MItti is definitely worse than what he appears to be and says to be.
barnabaspark 4 years ago
BOSTON --When Mitt Romney wanted to balance the Massachusetts budget, the blind, mentally retarded and gun owners were asked to help pay.
jodale1972 4 years ago
Don't forget those who desired to marry. He increased the fee on that, too. For good measure, just to increase the tax base on marriage, he helped usher "gay marriage" into MA. The Supreme Judicial Court made a ruling and ordered the Legislature to act. The Legislature did nothing, so Romney stepped in and ordered same-sex "marriages" to begin -- essentially violating his oath of office.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
Mitt Romney's Massachusetts marriage license:
"Party A" and "Party B" replaces "Husband" and "Wife"
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
What a lie. He did what the law demanded. If he would have disregarded the other branches of government THAT would have been violating his oath of office. Or do you think that the mayor of San Fran was right in doing what he did in defiance of the courts? Because you are demanding that Romney should have done the same thing.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as "too extreme" the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.
- Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
"Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the "Protection of Marriage" amendment. "He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the 'defense of marriage' amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept."
- Bay Windows 3/28/02
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
"He is opposed to gay marriage"
So anyone who doesn't fall in line with any bill claiming to ban gay marriage is FOR gay marriage?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
He SAYS he is opposed to gay marriage. His record says otherwise. Romney administration ordered Justices of Peace to perform homosexual "marriages" when asked - or be fired! At least one Justice of the Peace, Linda Gray Kelley, was forced to resign for religious reasons due to Romney's directives.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
Your view of Romney is as defensible as, or less defensible than, someone saying that Huckabee was ready to free rapists if they'd but cry "Jesus!"
HiveRadical 4 years ago
My view of Romney is based on his own record. Your analogy is ridiculous. Romney's own statements on the subject reveal, at a minimum, an extreme lack of passion. You must be a Mormon.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
"In seeking the support of the Log Cabin Republican Club (gay activist group), Romney wrote them a letter promising that 'as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.'" [His opponent at the time was Sen. Ted Kennedy, perhaps the foremost advocate of homosexual rights in the U.S. Senate.]
- Boston Globe, 10/17/1994
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
How Mitt Romney brought "gay marriage" to Massachusetts - The Supreme Judicial Court made a ruling and ordered the Legislature to act. The Legislature did nothing, so Romney stepped in and ordered same-sex "marriages" to begin -- essentially violating his oath of office.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
You either lack an understanding of constitutional law or you are willfully misleading. Romney was required, by his position and office and the constitution of the state he was over, to do what he did.
Again, do you feel that the mayor of San Fran was keeping his oath of office when defied the courts and his responsibility as laid out under law?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
I understand Constitutional law far better than you obviously do. The judiciary is not allowed to legislate from the bench. As Governor, Romney was unwilling to even investigate powers available to him to overturn the ruling, which would NOT have been unconstitutional.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
GARBAGE! Recourse is not to defy the courts THAT is the mentality of the mayor of San Francisco. Where is law and order, of what use is the constitution, if branches assert new, non-proscribed, powers? And where do you get off implying he didn't investigate powers available to him? He took the recourse made available by law. He did not take an oath of office to do his best to break out of the confines of his office.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Romney was NOT bound to enforce same-sex marriages prior to legislative action. Yet Romney jumped the gun and needlessly advanced the homosexual agenda by granting the marriage rights without a fight. Furthermore, Romney still had the authority to reverse his actions via Executive Order before his term was out. He did nothing. The bell rang, and he took a dive.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
Romney was NOT bound to enforce same-sex marriages prior to legislative action. Yet Romney jumped the gun and needlessly advanced the homosexual agenda by granting the marriage rights without a fight. Furthermore, Romney still had the authority to reverse his actions via Executive Order before his term was out. He did not do this. The bell rang, and he took a dive.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
He was required to. Make a case citing specifics of Mass. Law if you are so certain. Lay it out explicitly.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
The Supreme Judicial Court only issued an opinion and advised the Legislature to act (it never did). Even the Court acknowledged that it had no power to change the law.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
Romney created these "marriages" through an unconstitutional and illegal directive to his Department of Public Health (to print new "marriage" licenses), and through his legal counsel threatened to fire any Town Clerk or Justice of the Peace who failed to implement the (non-existent) "new law".
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
He was not required by any constitutional mandate to do these things. On the contrary, his actions clearly violated his oath to uphold the laws of Massachusetts.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
Now, quit relying on me to do your research for you. Go to massresistance (dot) org.
They have everything I have given you, and more. Instead of staunchly digging in to your side, be willing to thoroughly investigate the other side.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
The opinion was requested by the legislature in accordance with the Constitution of that state to have an 'opinion' of the court be given when constitutionality of something was in question. This goes beyond the 'opinion' you get when asking a friend or family member about some passing matter.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
If Romney truly felt a conviction that same-sex marriage is wrong, then why did he take the measures he did when he was not required to. He did so of his own choosing. Again, the opinion of the court was not law, and it only advised the legislature to act. Romney would not have been constitutionally bound until the legislature acted.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
A survey of states by the National Conference of State Legislatures found Massachusetts led the nation during Romney's first year, raising fees and fines by $501 million. New York was second with $367 million. Nine other states raised fees and fines by more than $100 million.
jodale1972 4 years ago
Also under Romney's plan, the state Department of Mental Retardation would have charged a fee of $100 to determine a client's eligibility and the Department of Public Health would have charged $50 for initial tuberculosis tests. Another $400 fee would have been assessed for those who tested positive.
jodale1972 4 years ago
"We renamed him 'Fee-Fee.' He was so unwilling to raise taxes that he was wanting to put all these fees in place instead," Hachey said.
Romney's fees could also grate on some of those he is courting as he seeking the GOP nomination, including gun owners.
jodale1972 4 years ago
That is right. Romney claims that the fees in MA were behind the times and had not been raised to today's standards. So he made it his priority to remedy that. How long has MA had CHLs? Maybe 10 years? Yet Romney TRIPLED that fee. He also pushed for a special excise tax on SUVs. Quacks like a liberal...
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
"It's a shell game," said Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "He (Mitt Romney) can still say he didn't raise taxes, but fees are taxes by another name. It's a trick."
jodale1972 4 years ago
Exactly. A Conservative defines "tax" as any money the government collects. So Mitt says he only raised taxes by $240 Million, but he raised fees by over $500 Million. The result? $740 Million in new taxes. Yet he tries to disparage Huckabee for $500 Million in new taxes, of which Huckabee was only responsible for $100 Million over ten years.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
A conservative defines things, not in terms of taxes, but in terms of relative requirements for payment, that broadens the scope beyond taxes to tax exemptions etc.
And I don't see how you get off on this 'Huckabee was only responsible for 100 Million over ten years' crap.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
However you define it, Romney was responsible for fee increases of $500 M, and tax increase of $240 M. Plus, he switched a lot of tax burdens to the local level, so there is more that is yet to be measured. On Huckabee, there were $500 M in new taxes. $400 M of that was by court order, not Huckabee initiative. 5 - 4 = 1.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
This is such an inane argument.
Take a group of fifty people of varying degrees of health and assign a doctor to each and give them a time frame to try and better the health of their respective patient. Would you condemn the doctor who brought the sickest patient from the brink of death to a state where they may still have some issues but are in recovery while praising the doctor who merely kept their healthy patient healthy?
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Your premise is completely faulty. MA would be one of the states who was healthy and became sick. Look at the record. Number of registered Republicans fell by over 30,000 during Romney's term. Number of registered dems rose by roughly the same amount. It is b/c MA got sick due to Dr. Romney.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
No. Since when is the number of Registered Republicans a sign of healthiness or sickness? Here in Utah we have a whole slew of Democrats at heart who are registered as Republicans. If you want an indicator via partisan politics I'd say look at what the Democratic Party of MA is doing in terms
HiveRadical 4 years ago
It is a sign of the health of the Republican party, which is what we are debating right now - who should be the Republican nominee. But I won't get stuck there - whether it is the health of the party, the health of the taxpayer, the health of businesses and the health of workers - all declined under Romney.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
of allocating their state party resources to fighting, on a national level, a governor they no longer have. The Dems closest to Romney are the most scared of him. And the Dems masquerading as Reps decided to show their true colors when they saw what Romney was doing.
HiveRadical 4 years ago
Romney pledged to build the Massachusetts Republican Party, but in fact he did almost nothing. During his tenure there were two elections for the entire Legislature (2004 and 2006). In each election the Republicans lost seats. Republicans now hold the fewest seats in the Legislature since the Civil War.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
You can see more on this on the
massresistance website, which is a dot org.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
Man I love Mitt, Mitt for Prezz.
DAvid, Mitt isn't part of Bain anymore, drop that rhetoric
WordsAndWisdom 4 years ago
Mitt is the founder, and he still carries considerable influence. Even as a presidential candidate with no interest in Bain, he ought to be speaking out in staunch opposition to the merger. This is the primary reason Duncan Hunter refused to endorse Romney and chose Huckabee instead.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago
Ann Coulter Supports Mitt
Democrats08 4 years ago
I know. Still haven't heard what she has to say now that her first choice (Hunter) has endorsed Huckabee.
Even Ann Coulter can be wrong from time to time... ;-)
The big deal here is the national security issue with Romney's company and China.
DavidDLPE 4 years ago