Posted on 06/06/2007 8:58:27 PM PDT by JRochelle
An AP article just came across the wire detailing another gaffe by presidential hopeful Mitt Romney (R-Mass.). Apparently, while in New Hampshire, Romney was confronted by an openly gay women who was disturbed by the former governor’s position on gay marriage. And in challenging him, she may have unwittingly changed or re-changed or re-re-changed his position on “gay rights.”
“There are other ways to raise kids that’s fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That’s the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice,” he said.
Umm… what? We’ve lost track now, but we thought Romney opposed gay adoption and gay marriage. We have stopped being surprised by his all-too-often position changes - even from one month to the next - but we certainly never expected him to say “gay couples raising kids” is “the American way.”
you’re ignoring the part where he said it was “fine..gay couple to raise children..American way..”. You can’t have it both ways.
That’s not what I meant. The people who loved Clinton considered him the whole package. Charm, intelligence, articulate, great communicator, extremely knowledgeable about world affairs. They just didn’t want to acknowledge that he was a degenerate. Like I said, Romney is Clinton without the ‘Ick’ factor. Most importantly, he’s a family man. The fact that he’s a Mormon doesn’t bother me in the least (and I’m Catholic). He believes in the same God that I do - that’s just fine with me. Mitt’s dad was a great businessman and governor of my home state of Michigan. If he’s anything like his dad, he’ll be a great president.
I read the article Its the fact that he said it is fine
for Gays to raise kids.
I am not a hater and I resent that you call me one.
Ditto. TopoGigio, thanks for reading the maddog article before flying off the handle.
Say, JRochelle, why didn't you include a link to the original AP story instead of a link to some whozat blogger that mischaracterized the conversation? Didn't you read the link yourself? Or, perhaps, because the conclusion didn't clash with your personal opinion, you decided it didn't warrant further investigation?
What would you have said?
.....I rest my case. I think he handled it well.
Bye bye, Mitt. Nice knowing ya.
I think you’re being requested here ...
You puzzle me.
Until your post to me last night, which was so snarky that I didn’t
deem worthy of a reply, you haven’t posted here in over a year.
The election season has been underway for some time, however.
Yep...you’re a puzzle all right.
Yup. If you do not like my candidate, it means you are racist/ sexist/ prejudiced/ bigoted/ gay/ liberal/ etc.
Don't endorse Romney? You must hate Mormons.
Don't endorse Giuliani? You must hate Catholics/ Italians/ cross-dressers
Don't endorse McCain? You must hate veterans/ seniors/ insane people.
Don't endorse Richardson? You must hate hispanics.
Don't endorse Hillary? You must hate women/ trailer trash.
Don't endorse Obama? You must hate black people.
Don't endorse Edwards? You must hate wealthy people/ faggots (oops, rehab time).
Don't endorse Kucinich? You must hate gnomes.
etc
okay, I’ll ask you again, what are romneys views on the RKBA?
LoL!
Im going to bed now :0)
LOL! not at all....but to hear all of these people bashing Romney because of some BS snip, without reading the REAL story leads me to believe that it must be hate.
What are you guys going to say when he’s the front runner?
“Miss...XX..I don’t hate you, but I sincerely believe your lifestyle is harmful, and I wouldn’t want children exposed to homosexual..Children have been given a gift by God of both parents..a male and female. Sorry but your lifstyle doesn’t fit that, and while I don’t hate you, I disagree with your choice to raise, adopt chilrent. It is harmfull”.
I REST THE CASE; your honor.
The Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS), run by the Romney administration, honored a homosexual “married” couple (two men) as their adoptive “Parents of the Year” for 2006. The DSS has gained a reputation for being aggressively pro-homosexual over recent years. This incident sparked outrage across the country, but to our knowledge no policies or personnel at DSS were changed as a result.
- Waltham Daily News Tribune, 8/4/2006
Hmmmmm, I scrolled through the rest of the thread to see the responses and find it amusing that the Romney supporters that defended the original article had NOTHING to say about the quote and link you posted.
Sometimes, the silence speaks volumes. ;)
Adoption? What does adoption have to do with it? This woman probably delivered her babies the old fashioned way -- just like Mary Cheney.
Bobby, dont worry bro. When Romney becomes president, you will be able to keep all of your guns. Chillax.
No kidding.
If you go to the link embedded in that headline, you’ll find a mountain of other facts about Romney’s cozy relationship with the radical gay Left as Governor.
I guess the children don’t get freedom of choice, though.
Lovely.
Ok....you won that one.
case closed.
Speak for yourself. IMO, he’s slimy.
Who cares the point is God (in natural law), set up a system where you need a MOTHER (and FATHER) to parent a child, not two women, and not 2 men. THankfully this arangement of 1 man and 1 woman is called marriage; now it should come as no surprise that it is harmful and unnatural to have children raised in an envrionment (Completely opposite) to the original way..!
Someone mentioned his being all things to all people and it reminded me of this:
Revelation 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
but we certainly never expected him to say “gay couples raising kids” is “the American way.”
Because he didn’t. He said the freedom to do so is American, and he’s right.
All this focus on freedom of choice for the individual ignores the need boys have for fathers.
Lukewarmness is our national condition, I’m afraid.
Sadly, it would seem so, and its gained momentum in the past 7 years.
Girls need fathers, too.
Im not Morman...plus I watched Fred on Fox after the debate, and i was far from impressed. He looked a little to tired for me. He is a nice guy, and I wouldnt mind if he won, however Mitt get my vote in 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgY3AZ14JFk
We are the church of Laodicea.
But if that is the game you want to play.
You want flip-flopping? Fred Thompson has flip-flopped no fewer than five times on the matter of abortion. That's a fact.
I'm just a Mormon hater. Just because he speaks out of both sides of his mouth doesn't mean he's by far the best candidate we have and the fact that he's Mormon makes me so mad. < :rimshot: >
But seriously, look at the Mormon responses on this thread. I see the same kind of cognitive dissonance here that I see in Rommey, and which I sometimes observe in Mormons when they are confronted with some bizarre theological belief or immoral or unethical practice of Mormon history that's been altered or repudiated by subsequent Mormon leaders. The contradictions, moral or otherwise, just don't seem to register, or maybe it's just that their familial and religious connections are more important to them than the contradictions.
Rommey's politically opportune 'conversion' to a belief in the Right to Life because of stem cells is an example of this sort of flip-flopping, and was the first alarm bell to me. His account of it is strange, and it is unconvincing. How could a man of his age and experience could be that ignorant about such a prominent Constitutional issue as the Right to Life? How could he be that ignorant of basic biological facts? I don't think he was, but if he was, he is certainly not qualified in my mind to hold a position of power in government. And if he was not ignorant of the facts and did what he did for political expediency it's even worse.
Here he states his position and then equivocates with the exact opposite. He doesn't have the guts to just say the correct thing and just leave it at that because it might be construed as "mean" by the lesbian. I guess Mormons are supposed to be 'nice'. I think the Mormons here are willing to overlook the blatant contradiction in the two sentences because he's a Mormon, in the same way they are willing to overlook, for example, the vile sexual practices of Joseph Smith in 'marrying' other men's wives, etc. because of his Mormonism. I don't see any other explanation for it.
When a politician does things like this enough times it indicates to me, and I think to many other conservatives, that he is not really principled. He will apparently do and say whatever he thinks he needs to do and say to get elected, regardless of principle. For my part, I don't like Presidents who do that. I don't care how nice they are. They can do a lot of damage.
Many Mormons are probably going to vote for him because he's a Mormon, regardless of the alarm bells and the contradictions. They probably feel that he will best respresent their interests. That's fine, but imo that support is just not going to be enough to get him nominated or elected. He's just not as slick as Kwrinton was.
Just my two cents
Cordially,
Agree completely. Seriously, y’all gotta lay off Mitt. He’s the best guy for the job. I do think some people here might have issues with his being a Morman.
I always found verse 14 interesting. So saith the Amen. I wondered if it were an Egyptian influence. The Amen Ra?
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
At any rate, the Sodomites were struck with spiritual blindness in Genesis, very fitting for the thread’s topic and supporters.
The people here dont see it, however these people do.
WATCH THIS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bIa7DfW-YU&mode=user&search=
BOOOOYAH!
Cordially
Well the Amen is Jesus. All of those titles at the start of 3:14 are names He is called. Just some of His many titles throughout the Bible. I have a framed poster in my guest bedroom that says, “And He Shall Be Called” and lists His many Names. Of course, “Amen” is one of them.
Just a little something for my guests to ponder. :^)
Hahaaa...
Uh huh. What are you going to do if Thompson doesn't give an answer to the same question that isn't sufficiently dismissive of gay parentage?
Sorry, Mitt, but that is not fine, especially if they are adopting these kids. This reaffirms to me that Mitt is a flip flopper that will say whatever he can to get elected.
Newsflash: candidates (except for the very marginal) do not call people with questions sinners. Let's get away from this "gotcha" game of trying to read a great deal into every stray utterance of every candidate.
Thanks for the sanity break.
JRochelle this was mendacious of you, and thinking the readers are fools that they would not find out what the whole input of what Romney said eleswhere, this again shows that you are a very short sighted and insincere being!
"Wonderful," Romney said. "I'm delighted that you have a family and you're happy with your family. That's the American way. ... People can live their lives as they choose and children can be a great source of joy, as you know. And I welcome that."
But then Romney repeated his view of marriage.
"Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child," Romney said.
The former Massachusetts governor acknowledged other scenarios that raise children.
"There are other ways to raise kids that's fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That's the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice," he said
So he thinks we should not intrude in peoples lives as long as children are not threatened, but he also thinks we should not change our laws about marriage?
Beside the misleading headline, Am I missing something here?
***
You sure are you are reading a theard posted by a deceiver and her minion who follow just waiting for something to chew on!
But then Romney repeated his view of marriage.
“Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child,” Romney said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846252/posts
But then Romney repeated his view of marriage.
“Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child,” Romney said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846252/posts
Am I missing something here?
Don’t take it personally for trying to keep focus on someones finger when it is print to the wind at all times takes a lot of concentration for anyone.
But then Romney repeated his view of marriage.
“Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child,” Romney said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846252/posts
But then Romney repeated his view of marriage.
“Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child,” Romney said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846252/posts
But then Romney repeated his view of marriage.
“Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child,” Romney said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846252/posts
But then Romney repeated his view of marriage.
“Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child,” Romney said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846252/posts
But then Romney repeated his view of marriage.
“Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child,” Romney said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846252/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.