Skip to comments.We will not waste our limited resources on FR in support for a liberal progressive LIAR
Posted on 04/13/2012 12:13:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
A reminder for those who are not receiving the message:
Romney is a pathological compulsive liar. Lie after lie papered over with more lies. Doesnt even flinch when caught in bald faced lies, simply tells another big whopper to cover up or dodge the issue. Funny thing, the man actually seems to believe his own latest lies and simply ignores the glaring record of his past actions/lies. And you have true blue establishment elite RINO Republicans like Karl Rove enabling and backing up his lies. Their motivation is simply to hang on to power (and riches) any way they can.
Ive stated many times since Romney started running for the presidency way back when that Id never vote for him and I will not. He cannot lie his way out of his decades long record of support for abortion, Roe v Wade, planned parenthood, gay rights, gun control, global warming, amnesty, liberal judges, big government, compulsory or socialized health care (RomneyCommieCare), mandates, Keynesian economics, support and approval of TARP, bailouts, stimulus packages, i.e, every damn liberal progressive issue that comes down the pike.
Cmon. These are the reasons the tea party sprang up and the reasons he and Rove loathe the tea party and our tea party conservative candidates. Romney famously expressed his loathing for Reagan-Bush conservatism several years ago when he was trying to run to the left of Ted Kennedy and now hes cloaking himself in Reagan conservatism, knowing full well that its a lie, but he knows its the only way he can possibly win, er buy the Republican nomination.
Screw Romney!! I absolutely will not support or vote for a proven compulsive liar with a known record of abortion and big government socialism, liberal appointments, etc. He still lies about RomneyCommieCare today. Calls it a conservative solution. Get real!!
Listen to what Ronald Reagan had to say about the elites pushing socialism on America via compulsory health insurance:
Ronald Reagan speaks out against RomneyCommieCare
There will be no campaign for this Massachusetts liberal liar on FR!!
Damn the libs and RINOS, full steam ahead!!
But no matter what happens we must turn out in November to vote IN as many conservatives and vote OUT as many rats as possible at all levels of government. If we don't have a conservative at the top of the ticket we must turn out anyway and vote straight conservative DOWN ticket!! Just think of it an off cycle election and pour on the TEA!! It'll be doubly important that we control both houses of congress and as many statehouses as possible.
Restore the 10th amendment!! Impeach the leftist president whoever he may be!! Restore Liberty!! Rebellion comes from the bottom up!!
WOO HOO!! I CAN SEE NOVEMBER FROM MY HOUSE!!
No Bama!! No Romney!! Go tea party rebellion!!
Thanks for that ping!
Now see, you just aren’t living in reality. You could offend people here and make them cry with your bullying.
Best to join the herd, be a good GOPer and kiss RINO posterior. Because we gotta win no matter what Windy. What are yout pathetic purist morals and principles? Obama will come to your house with the new Morals and Principles Removal Team stormtrooopers and surgically remove them if he wins.
Mitt will let you keep them as long as you keep them to yourself. I’m keeping mine cuz I’m skeeeeered too. GO ROMNEY!!! Savior of CONSERVATISM!!!!!!!
Now if that can just translate into delegates at the rest of
We NEED a strong 2nd amendment candidate, and it sure ain’t Myth!
The daily Beast is carrying it...lets pray that others will too....Actuallly it was a smart move for Newt to state the right of the 2nd Ammendment is for all in the world....that’ll get the lefts pants in a knot.
Might be Newt will be called on by the media to comment on what he stated.......could that have been a Newt-ron Bomb? We’ll see if so no doubt!
BTW Whenever I hear one of Newts speeches I get such a sense of “Right”....He is the best man for the job...as no other!
#1 partial-birth abortions never came by Romney's gov desk for a veto (or not).
#2 We know Romney's church allows for abortions if the Mormon god says "ok" (via prayer & "answered prayer")...There's nothing in the Mormon leaders' statement on abortion that protects late-term babies
#3 Beyond that, you're not going to start measuring pre-born babies' worth by their gestational age, are you? (We already know Romney is on record -- a full three years after his so-called "pro-life altar call" -- of saying 'twas "OK" for parents to give up their offspring to "research" (body harvesters)...
And WHAT President DO you think is going to stop abortion? Answer: None of them.
A POTUS can get you & me as taxpayers to pay for socialized healthcare abortions...Obama's doing that...Romney did that in MA...Both $50 abortions in MA + some plans in MA it's $0 (since '08)...meaning taxpayers in MA are footing the entire bill..
I dont accept that Romney is pro-abortion. He says he had a change of heart and hes pro-life now. Of course, you can just choose to disbelieve everything he says, but then EVERYTHING he stands for (or doesnt) is off the table, because youll just believe what you want to believe anyway.
You're simply ignorant 'cause you haven't done the research. I have (see chart below)...he claimed to NOT be "pro-choice" in 2001...2004 (as of Nov)...in early 2007 he claimed all of his "actions" as gov were "pro-life" -- even though he passed RomneyCare with govt paid for abortions + put a Planned Parenthood member as a permanent oversight person for RomneyCare...
Given his pro-bump-off of offspring statement in the Katie Couric interview (Dec 07), that means he "flipped" yet again after that to "pro-life." It gets rather tiring.
|YEAR||Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney||Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life'|
|Bottom-Line Summary: ANN Romney Lies Thru Her Teeth||Ann Romney, 1994: Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (Ann Romneys Planned Parenthood Donation||Ann Romney, 2011: In the past youve said hes changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; weve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)|
|Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth||Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) + ...my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007)||So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've never changed re: abortion and that they've always been pro-life, but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was always for life.|
|Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate||"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)||"'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"|
|1994 (Campaign)||"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support sustain ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word sustain for support for their own prophet||Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007)|
|1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001||(a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/ann-romneys-planned-parenthood-donation/">Ann Romneys Planned Parenthood Donation (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakies house and that she clearly remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts||2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)|
|2002-2004||I will preserve and protect a womans right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard (Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?||Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)|
|2005||May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!||What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "As governor, Ive had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action Ive taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine|
|2006||April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).||"As governor, Ive had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action Ive taken as the governor that relates|
|Early 2007||On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?||Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life: "I am firmly pro-life I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!|
|Summer 2007||"I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"||Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?|
|December 2007 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life'||December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!"||In the past youve said hes changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; weve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)|
From what I have read on FR, people are saying IF Romney ends up being the Republican Nominee they will Vote for him rather than promote the possibility of Obama’s second “Nothing To Lose” Term.
I'm a Newt supporter and I haven't quit. I am hoping against hope that he makes it to the Convention and Romney doesn't hit the magic Delegate count before them.
Because people face reality and discuss the possibility of a Romney versus Obama choice in November, don't accuse them of being quitters and cowards. Pragmatic comes to mind.
In most states, not voting for Romney won’t matter. Just like the GOP Presidential Primary Race, Arkansas won’t have a say in the matter. I’ll probably end up voting for the Constitutional Party Candidate, while campaigning for conservative candidates on a local level.
My decision is this: Romney is the opposite of my values Biblical ones and conservative ones. The Biblical ones stop my voting for him before I get to the conservative ones. God is in control of all and if Romney is the candidate, I give it to God to work it out as He wishes. I am peaceful about my decision - Id rather follow God’s commands than Romney.
So when you said “single payer health care and changing the court for a generation”, where you talking about BHO or Romney - couldn’t tell.
“Pragmatic comes to mind. “
As does ‘situational ethics’ - neither of which are compatable with conservative philosophy. I checked.
Good grief! Not this ridiculous canard about a stupid commercial that Newt said was "one of the worst decisions of my life."
Newt Rips Gore's 'Facts' To Pieces (video 5:37)
What will such people do if CWII really breaks out? Maybe they've got Obama gear secretly stashed for just such a contingency. Maybe they'll put out welcome signs for the storm troopers, or pack their bags and wait quietly to be shipped off to the re-education camps.
May their chains rest lightly upon them...
Why would you assume that? (There's other races besides POTUS...I can't believe how many times I've seen the ridiculous unwarranted no-basis conclusions from FREEPERs assuming a stranger they don't know will "stay home" & "not vote")
I am voting third-party if Romney is the nominee...and will give up my GoP membership...(If I wanted candidates to the left of JFK & LBJ, I'd joined the Dems long ago)
I REALLY think that by the time the MSM & Dems get done with Romney-as-a-racist...he won't be "in the contest."
...Note: the first 13 adult years of Romney's life were spent giving 10% of his $ to an openly racist org...no concerns registered by Romney...
...If the MSM made as much as they did with a turned-over-rock with a certain word on it on Gov. Perry's family's hunting ground, what -- in the year of T. Martin...do you think the MSM will do with Romney's background???
And WHO is going to do that?..."We've" watched Obama all but destroy the Constitution...and our guys do no more than lip service. How the heck are they going to hold Romneys feet to the fire when Romney's strings are pulled by unelected people and those no less of his choosing?
Nah, I think not...no one will hold Romney accountable....and actually pull it off.....I have no reason to believe that's possible. They'll simply believe they have one of their own on their side and sit back and go to sleep yet again!
Very good practical point. CA is one example.
In those states, Romney voters will especially be searing their conscience...and forfeit the right to object to socialized healthcare ever again...same with forfeiting their "pro-life" principles...
All for a 'lentil soup' candidate...
Personally, I hope their chains weigh on them eternally. We all should have to live by the choices we make, not get a participation trophy, a pat on the head and free coupons to McD’s. They’ll willingly buy into disaster, then do the ‘not my fault’ trip when disaster arrives. But it won’t be Romney’s fault. No. It will be ours.
I like that ‘deserve neither’ saw that Franklin had. In fact, soooo many things that make this choice plain as day were uttered by the founders. As has also been said, Imagine the arrogance of all these people who know better.
So are you planning to defeat Boehner by electing a democrat in his district, by losing the House and replacing him with Pelosi, or by electing so many tea party House members they select a new Speaker?
I want to hear this and how you are going to do it.
Back at you...
And after Newt takes the South in May, this entire discussion will be irrelevant anyway. ;-)
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.