VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:45:50 12/28/06 Thu
Author: Chuck in ND
Subject: Actually, my sources are . . .
In reply to: Slan 's message, "Well, I don't know...." on 21:07:22 12/27/06 Wed

conservative websites and my own memory. I have been following Mitt since he before he became gov'r, long before he announced he wanted to be prez. I was appalled at his positions as he ran for gov'r and since.

Like any good politician, he tailors his responses to his audience, making him a flip-flop artist non pariel. One of your quotes illustrates this beautifully:

Romney said he would file a ''very narrow" bill aimed at letting Catholic Charities, the social service arm of the Boston Archdiocese, and other religious groups exclude same-sex couples from their adoption programs if including them violates religious tenets. But he also noted that gays and lesbians have a right to adopt.

See, you emphasize his exempting religious groups from having to adopt out to gays as proof of his support of traditional marriage, while I underline the part that shows him talking out of both sides of his mouth at once.

Yes, he dismantled the CGLY but not until 2006--AFTER he decided to run for Prez and AFTER being gov'r for nearly 4 yrs and AFTER increasing funding to them for 3 yrs. Good political ballet.

And Deb is right, we shouldn't be measuring a man solely on his stand on gays. So I'll even say, despite all his comments to the contrary, perhaps Romney really is pro-family, really does not endorse any gay agenda. But that still leaves his tax and spend spree, his forcing everyone to have health insurance (I can hardly think of a more egregious abuse of gov power), his stand against gun rights, his stand on abortion and his support for the Iraq war.

For me the score against Romney goes waaaaaaayyyy beyond gay issues. It even goes way beyond what his stand is today. For me it is that his position changes with the wind and you don't know WHO (or what) you are voting for. If his every word and action were unequivocally pro-life or pro-family, pro-limited gov or pro-guns, then we wouldn't even be having this debate. Agree or disagree with his positions, at least you and I would both know, without a doubt, where he stood on the issues. The fact that there's even all this conflicting information should give us all pause for concern.

http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/ well-documented
http://www.romneyisaliberal.com/ provides links to all sources
http://lewrockwell.com/ do a Google search on this site for contemporary articles on his positions
http://nationalreview.com/ ditto

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.