Ron Paul Says Mitt Romney Pro-Life Giuliani Not

What you said is this: Ron Paul is wrong. Romney takes the position he needs to take in order to win the office he is running for.

You will note the lack of "I believe." You made a categorical statement, and your statement was not based in true knowledge, and that is what I responded to. Perhaps you had forgotten what you said. I went back and just cut and pasted it from page 1.

 

==Thanks, but I have not forgotten what I said and I stand 100% behind what I said. You can say, Ron Paul can say, that Romney is pro-life. I say I have seen no reason to believe he is truly pro-life. All I see is a politician who has had a change of mind because he is running for a position that (in theory) should require him to be pro-life. For all I know Romney may not be either pro-choice or pro-life, he may have no core values at all.

 

Perhaps you didn't forget and intentionally said two different things. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. At first you made a categorical statement that Romney was not pro-life; afterwards, you changed it to "I believe" that Romney is not pro-life.

You need to make up your mind which statement you are going to go with. The second was the right one. The first was one you have no way of knowing.

Your statement here in this post is an appropriate one. Your first one was not.

 

If someone asks me: Is Romney pro-life? My answer is, no.

 

Now you have switched back. That was your original answer, and as I pointed out, you simply don't know that. Then you switched and said you believed he wasn't pro-life. Now you are going back to assserting that he isn't.

The bottom line is that we simply do not know what Romney or anyone else would do about the issue. We only have what they say. Romney says he has changed his position. You don't believe him. Fine. That doesn't mean he hasn't changed his position. And surely you recognize that you don't know everything. Why not just admit it?

 

==I never changed my answer.

==We do know that he seems to change his position for political reasons. That is enough...

==Admit what? I have given my position and you don't like it. What does that have to do with me? Nothing. Let's move on.

 

Is Mitt Romney pro-life?

No.

Is Flipp Romney pro-life?

Of course.

 

Yes you did. You original statement was a categorical statement that he was no prolife. You later changed that to "I believe" he is not prolife. The first was faulty because you simply don't know. The second is your belief, which is fine.

Maybe for you it's enough. But I don't know that. I know what he says, and he says that politics has nothing to do with it. You don't know any more than that since you are not in his head or even close to it.

That you don't actually know what Romney's position is. You believe it is something. You don't know that. That's what you need to admit. We all know it, except for you apparently.

You way overestimate things if you think I care what your position is. I don't "not like it." I couldn't care less what your position is. I do care that we tell the truth about things. And the truth is that you believe Romney is not prolife; you don't know that.

I was fine moving on a while ago but you kept trying to defend your original statement.

 

As I pointed out, you don't know this. He may be; he says he is. He says he has changed his position. If so, then he is pro-life.

Not familiar with this guy. Who is it?

 

Actually, you're unfamiliar with sarcasm. I BELIEVE Romney is a filthy opportunistic liar who isn't worth the effort it would take to engage his ideas. I also BELIEVE Hitler hated the jews, but it could just be a vast conspiracy by historians to slander an innocent man.