Replies

Let’s see now...

A few days ago, one of Romney’s spokespeople was razzle-dazzled into saying to a reporter/heckler “His position has not changed.”

You know, Romney’s position that the Boy Scount organization — not Obama’s Justice Department — should decide who is to be admitted.

And now YOU seem to think that Romney has plans to FORCE the Boy Scouts to admit deviant leaders.

In the first place, that thought does not fit the facts that we know.

And in the second place, consider that the US Supreme Court actually COULD force the Boy Scouts to admit deviant leaders.

So who is more likely to name Barney Frank to be our next Supreme Court Justice: Obama? Or Romney?

I do hope that this comment has cleared up what the REAL issue should be:

Obama delenda est!

I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
Campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul confirmed that Mitt Romney continues to hold that belief today.

However, she said Romney, who served as a member of its executive board, has not pressured the organization to change its stance and does not wish to see the Scouts forced to accept homosexuals. LifeSiteNews.com revealed that some chapters of the Boy Scouts do not consider the national organization’s prohibition of homosexuals serving as scouts or adult leaders binding policy.

See the top quote, pfony. Those are Romney's words. That says to social conservatives that Romney BELIEVES in gays participating in the Boy Scouts.

Anyone can see why that has made social conservatives a bit antsy.

His spokesman comes out and says that position hasn't changed. She adds he hasn't "pressured" anyone and that he doesn't wish to see it "forced" to change. None of that is reassuring. Romney still believes gays should be a part, and he would hate to see a change forced on it. ("I'd hate to see you sent to bed with supper, son." does not mean "you are NOT under any circumstances going to be sent to bed without supper.)

All of these conservatives are seeing something there that worries them. What do you think it is?

Now, so far as Barney Frank, neither of them will appoint Barney to be on Scotus.

However, John Paul Stevens, one of the most liberal justices of our day was appointed by a Republican (Gerald Ford, I belive.)

So, I have no reassurance at all that liberal Mitt would appoint conservative justices. He did not in Massachusetts. His track record says he won't as president.

You know, Romney’s position that the Boy Scount organization — not Obama’s Justice Department — should decide who is to be admitted.

That is no different than Barney Frank's position.

But, this comment represents the idiocy of the lesser-than-two-evil strategies. Now, we're supposed to be happy the Republican nominee only promotes homosexuality but doesn't force it on citizens. People like you, incredibly, consider that a good thing.

Screw that. FUMR.