Posted on 08/26/2007 2:54:35 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, on Tuesday in an interview with Nevada television station KLAS said that if elected president he would allow individual states to keep abortion legal, the Washington Post reports.
Romney earlier this month in an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos said he supports a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion nationwide. According to the Post, the "two very different statements" reflect a "challenge" for Romney as he attempts to be a "champion of the antiabortion movement".
In an interview with the Associated Press Tuesday, Romney said that giving states control to "fashion their own laws with regard to abortion" should be the "next step" in the abortion debate. Top Romney advisers on Tuesday said the governor supports a two-tiered process in which states first would obtain authority to regulate abortion after Roe v. Wade -- the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that effectively barred state abortion bans -- is overturned. The second step would be a constitutional amendment that bans most abortions nationwide.
James Bopp -- an attorney who has represented antiabortion groups and a top Romney adviser on abortion -- said, "There's no flip-flopping. There's no contradiction. There's simply step one and step two." Jon Ralston, a columnist for the Las Vegas Sun who interviewed Romney for KLAS, said he believes Romney's "moral positions conflict" with his "states'-rights opinions," adding, "I don't see how you can be antiabortion, be in favor of a constitutional amendment and be in favor of states' rights". [click to read whole article]
(Excerpt) Read more at medindia.net ...
or control the volume on your computer
but I’m too deaf to understand what he’s saying in the avi one, ROTFL.
this is done in a singing mischievous humor...
Volume doesn’t seem to help...it sounds garbled to me.
You personally attack his character, which IMO equals and tops those of our other candidates. But no one is perfect.
Your posts are ugly and ugly is not where I'm comfortable.
“You also show your low opinion of LDS scholarship. Why do you feel this way?”
Because anyone who is worth anything gets excommunicated posthaste. There’s quite a list of ex-communicated Mormon historians.
I really don’t care what you think of me. You’ve posted 100 posts since 2004, and I’m supposed to warp my opinions to suit you?
Like I said, if you’re stupid enough to make important decision simply because they oppose mine, then have at it.
Have a good life, maybe FR will see more of you between election cycles this time. :-D
Fruit of the Loins Placemarker
LUKE 17: 36-40
Jesus explained a parable regarding the gathering of the righteous.
36 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord, shall they be taken.
37 And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is gathered; or, in other words, whithersoever the saints are gathered, thither will the eagles be gathered together; or, thither will the remainder be gathered together.
38 This he spake, signifying the gathering of his saints; and of angels descending and gathering the remainder unto them; the one from the bed, the other from the grinding, and the other from the field, whithersoever he listeth.
39 For verily there shall be new heavens, and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
40 And there shall be no unclean thing; for the earth becoming old, even as a garment, having waxed in corruption, wherefore it vanisheth away, and the footstool remaineth sanctified, cleansed from all sin.
2 And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, save the words of the everlasting covenant of the holy priesthood and thou shalt put them in the ark.
EXODUS 34: 1-2, 14
1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them.
2 But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai,
MATTHEW 9: 18-21
This prologue stuff is from the LDS authors regarding the verses Jesus rejected the baptism of the Pharisees; he gave the law of Moses. (This is text restored by the Prophet Joseph Smith, inserted between Matthew 9: 15 and Matthew 9: 16.)
18 Then said the Pharisees unto him, Why will ye not receive us with our baptism, seeing we keep the whole law?
19 But Jesus said unto them, Ye keep not the law. If ye had kept the law, ye would have received me, for I am he who gave the law.
20 I receive not you with your baptism, because it profiteth you nothing.
21 For when that which is new is come, the old is ready to be put away.
1 CORINTHIANS 15: 40
Again, this prologue is from the LDS site There are three degrees of glory in the resurrection. (compare 1 Corinthians 15: 40)
40 Also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial, and bodies telestial; but the glory of the celestial, one; and the terrestrial, another; and the telestial, another.
Are you familiar with the rewrite of the King James Bible that Joe Smith did? Starting with #760 I’ve tried to post a few of the more shocking additions and changes SMith made to the Bible in order to have it fit his cult and fabricate prophesies of his coming ‘in these latter days’.
Education is a good thing.
Dead Sea Scroll Exhibit in San Diego:
http://www.sdnhm.org/scrolls/description.html
“Latter-day Saints find this scroll of particular interest, because it specifies “Alma son of Judah” as one of the people involved in the agreement on the fourth line and at the bottom of the document. This text contains the oldest known occurrence of the name “Alma” outside of the Book of Mormon.”
Post #760 is an excerpt from an LDS site which highlights the eight hundred plus words Smith added to Genesis chapter 50. Since there are no such Hebrew words found in the oldest Hebrew manuscripts or even newest, where did Smith get these added 'revelations', that so convenient prophecy of his coming and the B of M?
BTW, you wrote that as if Alma is not a known name in the Old Testament and not found anywhere else except in this newly exposed DSS. You realize that is not accurate, right?
The name appears in the scroll relating to one whom ruled in the region, not on the North American continent. The particular ‘Alma’ is in the wrong time frame for the B of M story. Also, alma is the Hebrew (actually h’alma if memory serves) designation for young woman, though ‘Alma son of Judah’ would be an old version of ‘boy named sue’ for any writer I couldn’t fathom investing in a manuscript work using that pun. LOL. It is interesting to see the name though appear so early and in only this one designation for house of judah lineage. I would love to see a close up of the text where ‘Alma’ is written since to name a boy and a prince at that with a girlish name would be unusual to say the least. I wonder if the text is not so plain?
You put what Jesus said about marriage and monogamy on the back burner.
Joseph Smith and his justification of adultery is more important.
You wish Resty!
That would somehow mean that your church has to be true, you wouldn’t be persecuted if it were not.
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.