VIDEO -- Romney indignantly supports abortion-on-demand in 2002 gubernatorial debate

YouTube.com ^ | November 2, 2002 | Mitt Romney

[Tulsa Ramjet]

I was replying to posted package you put up.

Here,...let me clear up how things work around here...
1) You post something.
2) Usually someone responds to it.

There. No rantings here. Just observations on Mitt's diametrically opposed rantings. You a Willard fan?

[tiger-one]

And unlike Rudy, McCain and Mitt, Duncan Hunter has always been a Conservative.

[tiger-one]

Complain now? Because we don't live in MA. Because Mitt is running for POTUS.

[restornu]

Hey sweetpea I been here since July 2000!

I did not know when you arrived everyone had to march to your drum beat!

[CharlesWayneCT]

He said that during his exploration of the embryonic stem cell research debate, he was struck by testimony that commented on destroying embryos at 14 days, and it dawned on him how cavalier we were with killing.

You can decide it that's a believable story or not. But people do come around to more solid pro-life positions based on careful consideration. And this was a decision he had to make -- being personally responsible for a decision focuses the mind and probably reveals the truth more than campaign statements made in the abstract.

I'm not endorsing Romney, but from what I've seen him say and do, he's the best of the announced candidates above 5% in the polls, and if the election was today would be the most acceptable candidate that had a chance of winning.

He isn't nearly as "popular" as Gulliani, but I don't see Gulliani as any stronger than Mitt on terrorism, and Mitt runs rings around Gulliani on social issues. Mitt was a Governor, and a successful businessman, and doesn't have the personal issues that will dog Gulliani. And he's defintely better than McCain, although McCain has been "pro-life" much longer.

Mitt doesn't strike me as a liar. I guess that's the rub -- if you think his varying positions are signs of being a liar, then you can't trust him. If you can trust him, his current positions are comparable to Hunter's in most respects. Hunter's held them for longer, and is therefore more "believable" and also there's less worry of another "conversion" away from conservativism with Hunter.

Hunter's real problem is of heft and popularity. I don't see what makes him prepared to be the chief executive of the country. Where is his experience in running things instead of being 1 of 435 legislators? Does he understand business, has he successfully managed things?

Romney and Gulliani both have proven experience in getting the job done, in being in charge of things and making things work.

But since the election is some ways off, I can give Hunter and other candidates more time to prove themselves before committing to a candidate.

If I had to vote today, I would vote for Romney, but I reserve the right to change my mind on that tomorrow.

[CharlesWayneCT]

While I agree with what appears to be your position, that if abortion is wrong it is wrong regardless of the circumstance that led to the pregnancy,

I also realise that there is a rather small world of people who agree with me on that, at least so far as to force it on the politicians we support. I would whole-heartedly support a politician who scoffed at the "rape and incest" exception, but if a politician otherwise speaks pro-life, for now I don't reject them because they aren't pure.

I wouldn't use the plan-B pill as a club to beat people over the head with either (I note Romney seems on the right side of that one).

When we are down to where the only abortions left are plan-B, rape, incest, and the life of the mother, we can take the last step of teaching people that life is sacred no matter what the circumstances.

Given the rarity of pregnancy for rape and incest, (and every child IS sacred and a great loss), I wouldn't want to throw out good progress in pursuit of what today would be an impossible goal.

As to calling for democratic process, the simply truth is we DO have a debate over whether the fetus is a life. I think that debate is stupid, but nonetheless in our country we don't get to impose our will on others by fiat even when we are absolutely right and they are absolutely wrong.

We need to get a majority of the people to agree that abortion is murder, then we can ban it if we can get the courts out of the way. I don't see how we would get a constitutional judicial decision that would ban abortion, because there is no constitutional definition of "life" that applies. We could pass an amendment defining life, but that itself would be a democratic process, and so we have to get a majority on our side.

[GLDNGUN]

Next thing you know, you'll be telling us how Mitt is going to save the Constitution as it "hangs by a thread".

Oh I believe that was a slur against me!

No, just a thought.

So, DO YOU think that about Mitt?

[Tulsa Ramjet]

Well, I just get worn out by political posturing of those trying to stay elected. Either you are for it, or against it. But, I will be honest in that I'm not a total purist. I believe birth control should be available, with parental agreement, and abstinence should be taught as the primary method of birth control and diseas preventative. Case in point, the black community is being decimated by single mothers whose kids are being raised by grandmas (+70%). Make it free at clinics, norplant, pill, condoms, whatever. But always teach abstinence.

[GLDNGUN]

You tube was blocked because of smuts, but off campus students can logon at their own peril!

You know Pron is a nation wide problem and can rob one of their soul NO one is immune to it.

Do you think one should tempt fate for the hell of it?

I assume you meant "porn". I have watched many, many videos and clips on You Tube. I have never seen any porn. I was also under the impression that You Tube doesn't allow it.

I think they are more worried about other types of videos that BYU students might be able to access.

[MHGinTN]

One Rudy fan is fond of pointing out that he lowered taxes in NY. As local taxes declined, the fed was massively increasing subsidy dollars to NY, if memory serves ... and that was pre-911. Many of the 'well framed attributes' of candidates are not fully vetted yet. The din of smears, slurs, and smarm is off-putting at FR currently.

[AFA-Michigan]

NowandLater: "Thank you, EternalVigilance and AFA-Michigan for making this happen by raising the alarm so loud and clear and making him more firmly announce his commitment...another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences."

You're welcome, but the "making him more firmly announce his commitment" to conservative views is not unintended at all.

[MHGinTN]

Jibberish? How very Mormonesque ... I thought it was very clear what the poster was conveying.

[restornu]

It it may not occur to you but the LDS are encourage to keep higher sandards than what the world would accept.

Yes we have free will but smut comes in subtle forms its like the frog starts out in the cold pot of water before he knows it he is cooked.

[restornu]

Thank you for letting me know of your prejudice if he was a Calvinst running I would not say how Calvinnesque.

But you don't get it!

[Plutarch]

The "Romney is a RINO" meme isn't sticking with California conservatives in the recent Poll .

Note that Romney, who is routinely castigated as a RINO at FR, receives just as much support from the "very conservative" group as Duncan Hunter. The RINO-loving "somewhat conservatives" support true RINO's Giuliani and McCain.

RINO is as RINO does. Real RINO's garner their support from moderates, as does Rudy/McCain. You can dig up some apostasies that you assert betrays Romney as an incorrigible RINO. However, Romney is running as a conservative, he is being supported by conservatives, and he is being attacked by the MSM like he is a conservative.

_____________________________________________________________

The survey also shows that the support between the candidates is divided among two mayor groups, the “very conservative”, and the “somewhat conservative” groups within the Republican Party.

Giuliani and McCain are even in the support each received from the “somewhat conservative” group.

Giuliani has 50% of their support, while McCain received 50.6% of the support.

Most of the other candidates [including Romney] received support in the 60% range from the “very conservative” group.

[GLDNGUN]

It it may not occur to you but the LDS are encourage to keep higher sandards than what the world would accept.

Yes we have free will but smut comes in subtle forms its like the frog starts out in the cold pot of water before he knows it he is cooked.

Higher standards, huh? Do you mean like the "higher standards" Mitt Romney extolled in Massachusetts?

Now then, back to BYU and YouTube. You said it was due to porn on YouTube. I pointed out that I've never run across any porn on YouTube despite watching perhaps 100s of videos and clips. I also pointed out that I don't believe YouTube allows any porn.

Now you have abandoned your porn argument and gone to a "subtle smut" argument. Care to provide an example of what "subtle smut" on YouTube that BYU is so concerned about protecting its students from? Gee, the smut in Las Vegas is much more than subtle, yet BYU has had no problem sending its football team there the past 2 years for Bowl games. Evidently, BYU believes that having access to YouTube is more of a moral danger than yearly trips to Vegas. Interesting.

Anyway, I will stand by my statement that BYU doesn't want students to watch certain videos or view certain information on YouTube that have NOTHING to do with porn or "subtle smut". Again, if you'd like to provide specific examples, I'm willing to be educated.

Oh, and feel free to answer my other question regarding Mitt and the US Constitution "hanging by a thread".

[restornu]

Anyway, I will stand by my statement that BYU doesn't want students to watch certain videos or view certain information on YouTube that have NOTHING to do with porn or "subtle smut". Again, if you'd like to provide specific examples, I'm willing to be educated.

don't hint spell it out GLDNGUN!

BTW our council is always being reminded to stay away from unclean things be it out right Porn or suggestive material!

There is a lot of subjective material on You tube! there might even be Porn I don't know but I have run into suggestive material!

We are to elevate our thoughts!

*****

So you don't like the prophecy by Joseph Smith that our US Constitution someday would be "hanging by a thread".?

Is that not what is happening?

Also Just because of this no LDS is allowed to run for President because of a prophecy?

*****

You think something sinister is going on?

Spit it out all you boogieman fears and silly ness!

[GLDNGUN]

BTW our council is always being reminded to stay away from unclean things be it out right Porn or suggestive material!

So BYU accepting invitations to the Las Vegas Bowl is not exposing the players, students, and fans to "suggestive material"? Think of all the money BYU and their fans have spent in Vegas and thereby supporting "Sin City"!

So you don't like the prophecy by Joseph Smith that our US Constitution someday would be "hanging by a thread".? Is that not what is happening? Also Just because of this no LDS is allowed to run for President because of a prophecy? ***** You think something sinister is going on? Spit it out all you boogieman fears and silly ness!

Why do defensive when I ask you a simple question? First you accuse me of "slandering" you because I suggested you might think Mitt is going to rescue the US Constitution "hanging by the thread", yet now you are defending such a position.

You left out half of the prophecy that Joseph Smith and other LDS leaders have given. Why is that? They have prophecied that not only would the Constitution "hang by a thread", but that it would be the Mormons to the rescue.

Here's the problem. Since you evidently believe in this prophecy and that our Constitution is indeed "hanging by a thread" and there's a Mormon running for President, you are willing to support him no matter what. What happened to all of those lofty standards you are supposedly supporting? Your standards are set so high that you agree with BYU banning YouTube, yet you turn around and spout all the talking points of a guy who obviously says and does whatever he thinks he needs to for whatever position he's running for. And please spare me the "well, he had to run as a liberal in Massachusetts". In other words he "conformed to the world" when it was convenient for him to do so.

It's great to preach about "high standards".

It's even better to live by them.

[MHGinTN]

My remark was directed at you, not Mitt Romney. Mitt has not spent countless evenings at FR trying to portray Mormonism as something it is not. Mitt has not spent countless energy mindlessly parroting Mormon apologetics while ignoring the long list of facts presented which show Mormonism as a cult. You are a poor representative of Mormons. Fortunately, I have a very close friend who is a much better representative so I really should not have capitalized 'Mormon' in your case.

[restornu]

My remark was directed at you, not Mitt Romney.

I have not been here in a very long time ask CC?

You are a poor representative of Mormons.

So now you speak for God who is and who isn't in your intolerant book!