Dick Morris: 'Landslide' for Romney

The point is that you evade facts and change the subject. The question was whether or not Romney will raise taxes and you answer with "he changes any position to further his political future."

What does that mean? He shouldn't have run for governor?

I base it on the hope that the Republicans will maintain control of the House.

Yes. Romney has pledged to stop funding for abortions given to overseas organizations. First thing Clinton did when he got in office he re-started the funding that Reagan and Bush Sr. had stopped. First thing George W. did was to stop the funding. First thing Obama did was to re-start it again. Romney has pledged to stop it first thing if he becomes President. Romney gives us more hope of conservative appointees to the Supreme Court than Obama, justices that would be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Can't stop the gay agenda but Romney could vigorously prosecute enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that Obama has decided he will not enforce.

Yes, and yes.

 

That's hilarious. Romney changed his stance on these issues to oppose them even as the public tide has shifted to favor more and more of these sorts of things? He decided to flip-flop to less popular positions? Maybe he really believes in his new positions.

 

You can't prove a negative. Show us Romney's pro abortion record in Mass.

As to his pro-life record:

He vetoed the morning after pill law.

He vetoed a bill that would redefine the beginning of life to say life began at the implantation of the embryo.

He vetoed a bill that would allow cloning for the purposes of creating embryos to research stem cells.

(All of these vetoes were overridden by the Democrat controlled state legislature.)

He created a $800,000 state grant for abstinence education.

So your turn--show us his pro abortion stance. BTW, "he signed RomneyCare" is not an answer.

 

Along with all the actions that promoted abortion in various bills. I have made post after post, even copies of the bills with the links. Look it up.

 

In other words, by your own words, nothing will be different. Like I said, there must be a different meaning to the word conservative in the north. Also, do you have a Constitution in English. You obviously do not care about the future of the Republican Party to be a viable alternative to the Democrats that your state helps elect time after time.

 

Romney will enforce DOMA; Obama isn't.
Romney will stop funding for overseas abortions. Obama funds abortions.
Romney will appoint conservatives to SCOTUS. Obama doesn't.
Romney will grow the economy. Obama isn't.
Romney will lower unemployment. Obama has barely touched it.

This is your definition of "nothing will be different." I'd brush up reading comprehension and/or take off your Hate Romney glasses.

 

Various bills that were written by the 78% majority of Democrats in the legislature that were vetoed by Romney and then had his veto overridden. Look it up.

 

Then vote for the slob. Your state is going to cast its electoral votes for Obama anyhow.

 

You KNOW it was the super majority Democratic legislature that passed the laws, that Romney vetoed them, and that the vetoes were overridden and thus became law. Yet you continue to post that "Romney raised taxes" or "Romney passed pro-abortion laws". That is called bearing false witness against someone and is one of the Ten Big Things God does not like. So stop it, already.

As to my state voting for Obama, yes, it will happen. That liberates me to vote for a third party candidate if I desire. But the Constitution Party's candidate is so abysmally uninspiring it's definitely a throw away vote. I mean it would be stupid to vote for him.

 

Guess what, I know that. I was at their National Convention a couple of weeks ago. Virgil Goode is his name. Setting aside our differences for a minute, the experience was very depressing. Did I say depressing? Ok FreeatLast, what sin am I hiding behind? Anyway, I was one of six delegates from Kentucky. At the last minute, the other five decide they do not want to spend the money to go. I was the lone ranger. You have to pay your own way to these things in the minor parties. Mr. Goode's speech almost put me to sleep. Those are the cold, hard facts, the reality of getting out and trying to make a difference. I was really torqued coming home. I figured if the other five were that disinterested, it is no wonder we are a third party.

I posted a link about Romney and taxes, plus his dabbling in abortion. I do not intend on doing that again. It is certainly not bearing false witness. It might be a difference of opinion from mine to yours, but it is not false witness. In fact, you accusing someone of that is not only another sin, but against BB rules. If you had read the post on taxes, you would have seen he lowered some, raised some, raised lots of fees, but on the net, there was a rise in taxed.

Between the incident at the convention, and Obama's statement on gay marriage, voting for Romney with my nose held is actually a possibility. However, posts like yours that hammer very post I make does not help the situation.

If I posted a thread that said the sky is blue, you would say its green and put a giant prism at the perfect angle between earth and the sun to make it green.

If your posts were just a little less harsh, say one in ten, that would be encouraging.

 

Don't waste your time, Saturneptune. Anyone who is informed knows Romney's flip flops - especially on abortion. Do a simple search on YouTube for "Romney" "Kennedy" "abortion" and you will see the late Senator Kennedy taking him to task for his position, which appeared to be "multiple choice."

Some people are so partisan that they will distort the truth to fit their ideology. Notice that I didn't point any fingers or name any names. Wonder who will respond.........

Regards, hope all is well in your world,
BiR

 

You say Romney raised taxes and was pro-abortion. The fact is that Romney vetoed these bills and was overridden by the legislature. The fact is that Romney tried to stop these things from becoming law but you are presenting it as if he was in favor of these things. It's not a difference of opinion.

And why not post your link again? Afraid it won't hold up to scrutiny?

 

With respect to abortion, let's watch Mitt Romney say it himself.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

Regards,
BiR

 

Yes, and it's well known that when Romney was studying the embryo stem cell issue he says he came to the realization that abortion was wrong and changed his stance to pro-life.

Your video is from 2002. This is from 2005:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...s/2005/07/26/why_i_vetoed_contraception_bill/

 

So, could you just as easily reverse your stance on this issue? Seems to me that the late Senator Kennedy's evaluation of his position is spot on: Romney is "multiple choice."

Regards,
BiR

 

No, as a matter of fact, I let Romney speak for himself.
I didn't suggest anything.

Regards,
BiR

 

Um, because it was directly related to the discussion at hand.
Why did you respond to a comment that wasn't directed at you? If you are going to interject yourself into my comments directed at someone else, at least have the courtesy to stick with what I posted, rather than ask me what I was "suggesting," especially when I wasn't "suggesting" anything.