Randy wrote:

---

Yes, there is a small group on the fringe who believes that governors and presidents can ignore their supreme courts.

However, that battle was lost a long time ago.

---

 While we may be a small group, I will never just be complacent about accepting the dictatorship of judges. After all, if they can make any decision they want, based in law or not, and no one has any recourse for repealing the law the judge made, how is that different from a dictatorship?

arbilad wrote:

---

Still, those in a position to do something about it have an obligation to at least try.

---

Romney did that, and although he didn't overturn Roe vs. Wade, he did have some success in preventing the easing of restrictions on abortion.

We always say that actions speak louder than words, but in the case of Romney it seems that all we want to judge him on is his words, not his actions.

What do the pro-life organizations in Mass. say about Romney?

Randy wrote:

---

You prefer the quixotic. I'm more enamored of results.

---

 Call it quixotic if you wish, but the end result of doing nothing about a serious threat to liberty can be no liberty.

When we revolted against England, they were the greatest military power in the world, and we had very little. It was quixotic. But it was the right thing to do.

I like results too, but only when they're results that I can live with. Life is full of compromising on one thing that doesn't matter so much to get something else that matters more. For instance, my current job pays much less than I got when I was doing contract IT work. But I get fed up with the unemployment between contracts, so I accepted much less money in exchange for stability.

However, letting my freedom disappear because I did nothing is not appealing to me. That approach may yield results, and mine may yield only frustration until the Savior comes, but that is the path I have chosen.

Romney has had time enough to get his moral compass in line with moral principles.  He has alienated me by his reported slighting of the Boy Scouts of America orgnization for prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters, promoting homosexual propaganda, initiating a health care program in MA that violates that constitutional principle that does not permit welfare to individuals or particular groups, giving support to homosexual adoption rights, domestic partnerships and homosexual civil unions, and advocating for the right of a woman to have an abortion.

www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn50.htm

www.massnews.com/2002_edi...mney.shtml

www.breitbart.com/news/20...2B8O0.html 

I think the current readjustment of his moral compass is in stark contrast to the consistency in principles that Ron Paul has demonstrated for many years.

Romney has had time enough to get his moral compass in line with moral principles.  He has alienated me by his reported slighting of the Boy Scouts of America orgnization for prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters, promoting homosexual propaganda, initiating a health care program in MA that violates that constitutional principle that does not permit welfare to individuals or particular groups, giving support to homosexual adoption rights, domestic partnerships and homosexual civil unions, and advocating for the right of a woman to have an abortion.

I went to your links.  The first makes some statements with few examples of proof.  The second link is a subscription site (apparently) and the third doesn't support the above.  I would like to know how he slighted the Boy Scouts of America with a specific statement from Romney or a vote.  I would like a specific examples with sources of how he has promoted homosexual propaganda.  The same goes for gun control - specific statements from Romney and examples of how he has voted with regard to gun control.

I have not decided who I am voting for so I am interested in the facts of various candidates.  If I have missed the information I am requesting above in another thread, please let me know.

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 12:17, 2007-05-22

Here's another article on Romney and gun control.

I'm with TitusTodd. I think specific references and linked sources are much more helpful than general blanket statements. For those of you who dislike Romney, are you afraid to dig down lest you may find out he is not as bad as you think?

From the Boston Globe article:

In 2002, even as he was pledging to uphold the state's strong gun laws, Romney still garnered a "B" grade from the NRA.

The "tough" gun laws he supported were the Brady Bill (imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons) and a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons.  That latter was passed in 2004 and may hurt his NRA rating.

Frankly, I don't see the need for assault weapons but I know a few here do (or at least the right to possess them).  The NRA's reasoning for them is they are used for hunting (what "sport" is there in that), target shooting (I'll admit that my be fun) and self defense (seems like overkill).  I also do not have a problem with the Brady Bill (at least the waiting period and ban on assault weapons) but don't think the five-day waiting period is effective (so, mostly annoying for those purchasing guns).  The argument that both the assault weapons bans and Brady Bill have done little or nothing to reduce crime may even be true but I don't see them as "tough" gun laws that should be a reason not to vote for Romney.

I do wonder about the following from the second link:

As governor, Romney supported legislation to ease restrictions on gun licensing in the state, but he only did so at the expense of gun rights, as he signed a draconian ban on common, household firearms that are owned by millions of Americans across the nation.

Those do not go together and what is defined as common, household firearms in the ban that he signed?  I would like more specifics on this ban (when signed and the provisions).

I do dislike Romney's hunting comments as of late.  Either he did or didn't.  There has been no confirmation he has had a hunting license in any state so he needs to "shoot" straight on this instead of playing the political game on the subject.

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 15:11, 2007-05-22

arbilad wrote:

---

TitusTodd, I'll find a link for you (I don't have the time right now to hunt it down), but the assault weapon ban was a ban on a wide range of rifles, many of which simply looked military. They weren't even automatic, but if they had a plastic stock, or maybe a fold away stock, it was banned. In many cases, the only criteria was that a gun "looked" scary.
And from what I've read, the assault weapon ban that Romney signed was pretty much the exact one that the federales let expire.
So yes, they are common household firearms.
I've always thought that the hunting argument was specious. Yes, it's nice to be able to have a nice weapon with which to hunt. But the primary purposes of the 2nd amendment are self protection and to keep the government in check.

---

Exactly Arbi, if it was semi auto and had a thumbhole stock and a detachable magazine, then it could have been on the list for those reasons alone.  The assault weapons ban was nothing but a feel good measure.  If banned a whole list of weapons while leaving others that functioned identically off the list.  Assault weapons are routinely used in competitive shooting across the nation and are often used by ranchers to fight the dreaded prairie dog and coyote because they are more efficient.  I personally am not a big semi auto guy but I want to be able to have the right to own them if I want to.  Plus, the criminals got them anyway even when they were banned.  If we can't keep out millions of illegal immigrants we can't even keep out weapons that are full auto.

I actually liked Romney's comments on Medved's show today and agreed with his stance.

There will never be the perfect candidate who is also electable. Of all the candidates Mitt looks the most Presidential and he has charisma. For the un-engaged electorate, those two features weigh heavily. The more discerning voters look to issues, but the discerning voters unfortunately don't comprise the majority.

Whether we like everything about Mitt or not, no other Republican candidate thus far stands a chance of beating Billary and Obama.

IF the Constitution is to prevail it will be because of the Elders of Israel. (or something like that). Judging the political climate in regards to our Constitution, Mitt may be our last hope.

As long as democrats have a majority in the legislature, we need a republican president.  And I'll say the opposite when the republicans have a majority in the legislature.

I'm enjoying the gridlock on the budget and war funding, and the meaningless babble about the attorney general scandal.  As long as both parties are playing political games with each other, they aren't passing new legislation that whittles away more of my liberty.

Now if we could get enough libertarians elected so that no party had a majority, that would be perfect.

I would like to bear my testimony about Romney. . . oh wait... :)
Oh good grief ray!  "Stop that, wight now... you waskle".

Or how 'bout: "I'll get you my pretty... and your little dog too!!!"  

Well, I suppose you could... but   please don't... that mod-hat thing makes my forehead hurt!

One thing that perplexes me about all the changing positions thing...so what if it's political expediency? Maybe he modified his positions some to get elected as governor. Maybe he's modifiying them some now to get elected president. Whatever the deep down intrinsic positions are (if there is such a thing), he's going to be held accountable to the voters for what he says now. It's possible he could change positions after election, but that's a good way not to get re-elected (assuming it's a major departure or reversal). Despite his personal views on abortion, he kept his campaign promises to MA about not changing the laws...so I'd say he has a pretty good track record at sticking with what he says.

Besides, would you really want a candidate who NEVER changed positions? Given new insight, added information, developing events, etc.?

It kind of reminds me of that despair poster: Winners never quit, and Quitters never win, and Those who never win and never quit are idiots.

Convert wrote:

---

Are there any among us who haven't changed our minds at some point in time? As the scripture goes.... let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

-- Edited by Convert at 23:14, 2007-05-23

---

Nope, haven't changed any of my core values on things like abortion, guns, economic theory, war, drugs, child abuse, politics.  I have changed my favorite ice cream flavor and pizza toppings over the years though.  Does that count?

Euphie and Convert, Everyone changes opinions about something. But political expediency is the wrong reason. You don't know if or when that opinion will change again for political expediency. For instance, when he was running for Senate against Kennedy, Romney told the log cabin republicans basically that he would work harder for their rights than Kennedy would. He was telling that audience what they wanted to hear. His campaign workers handed out flyers at a pride festival telling gays that Romney is their friend. Then he went and enforced the Massachusetts law that says you can't marry people who live in a state where that marriage would be illegal. I'm sure that many gays felt betrayed. But Romney's position had changed based on what was politically expedient at the time. Granted, I think he did wrong when he enforced the supreme court edict mandating gay marriage, but that's a case more of trying to please all sides and pleasing none.
Sure, we all change opinions about something, whether big or small. But changing your position based on who is listening smacks of insincerity. We need a President who, having decided what are the important issues worth fighting for, will do his absolute best to win those battles.
Romney is an administrator. The praises I hear of him are usually to the effect of, "He got things running smoothly", or, "He saved the olympics in Utah". What we need is someone who is willing to fight the good fight. We have some serious moral issues in the country right now. We need someone who has the conviction to work for change, not someone who's just interested in getting the trains running on time.

Pt, your comment reminded me of an Onion article (a spoof newspaper) that I read back when the Massachusetts supreme court issued its edict. The article (remember, this is a newspaper that makes up stories for laughs) talked about a new Massachusetts law mandating homosexual marriage, and that all heterosexual marriages were dissolved and everyone assigned a homosexual spouse. I don't think we're to that point yet.
If you want an unchanging standard, how about the church's? Randy said that most of us can be excused from not knowing that the church's position is for anti-abortion law. Whether or not that's true, Romney is a public figure and held to a different standard. It is incumbent upon such famous figures to research such things, especially when they are potentially in a position to change such laws. And yet, despite the church having preached against abortion and argued for anti-abortion law, Romney doesn't say that he had a spiritual epiphany, nor did he talk about a journey of discovery concerning church teachings. He says that he changed his mind because of embryonic stem cell research.
What's more, it is possible that Romney has lied as he's stated some positions. He says, for instance, that he hunts occasionally. And yet he has never held a hunting license in any state. Shouldn't honesty, at any rate, be an unchanging standard? Even if you change your beliefs, shouldn't you be honest about your previous beliefs?

Euphie and Convert, Everyone changes opinions about something. But political expediency is the wrong reason. You're absolutely correct. But can it be proven that its for political expediency? I've been the campaign manager for numerous candidates (District and State) and I can tell you that many times words are taken out of context, question and answer periods following speeches often reveal greater understanding of the context of the speech, opponents on a regular basis make every effort to mislead voters, etc etc etc. For instance, when he was running for Senate against Kennedy, Romney told the log cabin republicans basically that he would work harder for their rights than Kennedy would. He was telling that audience what they wanted to hear. Please, every candidate can be accused of the same thing. And looking at it wouldn't you agree that Romney would do more for them than Kennedy would? His campaign workers handed out flyers at a pride festival telling gays that Romney is their friend. Then he went and enforced the Massachusetts law that says you can't marry people who live in a state where that marriage would be illegal. I'm sure that many gays felt betrayed.Then gays need to understand that as Governor he took an oath to uphold the laws of the State. Unlike Democratic leaders in States like California who ignore their own laws and Constitutions to pacify a special interest group. The biggest obstacle gays face is discrimination. He opposes discrimination, for them as for all. Why does being "their friend" have to revolve around sanctioning marriage between gays. No one can ignore the law. If you don't like it, change it, but don't ignore what's on the books. But Romney's position had changed based on what was politically expedient at the time.Are you sure of that or is it supposition? But changing your position based on who is listening smacks of insincerity.As does hear say. We need a President who, having decided what are the important issues worth fighting for, will do his absolute best to win those battles.You're absolutely right. Isn't it funny how "doing his absolute best" is never enough unless the outcome is the way you want it? We have some serious moral issues in the country right now. We need someone who has the conviction to work for change, not someone who's just interested in getting the trains running on time.What we need is for every Christian to be an example of what Christianity is all about. Instead of making excuses for their un-Christ like behavior, be it in their homes, work places or fighting traffic. And being out there fighting the good fight. One man or woman is not capable of doing it single handedly.

Our country didn't get where its at because of one person and our country can't get back to where it needs to be because of one person.

Please don't underestimate the challenge and problems faced taking over the Olympics. It came horribly close to not coming off all together. How would that have made Mormons look? Naysayer's will use every opportunity and excuse to blacken our eyes. Mitt did indeed bail us out on this one. It embarrassed me when I learned of the level of corruption within the first Olympic Committee.

-- Edited by Convert at 22:36, 2007-05-24

Convert, you're absolutely right - one person can't change the country. That's why recently I volunteered time for the Ron Paul campaign. If I help in getting him elected, I will not only have succeeded in helping us have a great president, but I will have changed minds in the process.
Being a good christian is another vital component - we will never turn this country around, no matter how great a president we have, if the people continue to be immoral.
But I disagree that what I was saying is hearsay - the incidents I referenced are part of the public record. The conclusions I draw may be different from those you draw from those same incidents, of course.

Convert, my comments were certainly not directed to you...  you just happened to have posted last... I had been working on that comment for a while, and simply posted it here at that point.  My thoughts are the same in any highly charged discussion/thread.

It is my current privilege to hide behind my ignorance on political discussions... cause I'm a political dunce, and I just can't get that excited by it... (you know, High Priestess of all Political Nitwits sound good Arbi  )...   Personally, I'm stuck between "dart throwing for dollars" when it come to responsible political answers from many of those who live in the un-real world of WA-DC... and praying for the second coming.  I am thinking the second coming may come FIRST...

"...Pick a subject, any subject, and the new-and-improved, rosy red-state Romney is a "true blue" lifelong liberal until two years ago.  If you're having trouble keeping track of Romney's position's on abortion, marriage, gun control and immigration, here's a key: In 2005 and prior, he's a blue-state liberal true "blue" in the non-traditional sense of the word. After that, he's hoping to appeal to the red-state conservatives with a short-term memory." 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55804
 

Lundie: You've consistently expressed your opinion that Romney is not your candidate... but here's a question...

Do you think it is important to be able to manipulate the media?

I've kinda felt that many presidents are manipulated by the media. It'd be nice to have an alternative. Your implications that he has a nefarious homosexual agenda at the end of your comments, kinda fall into the "media manipulation" category of my thinking... and I am left shrugging my shoulders with a big "So What?"


--Ray