Mitt Romney, How long until this guy sinks like all other Republicans? [video=youtube;qyp2QIGejq4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyp2QIGejq4[/video]
I agree. There is nothing worse than a politician who changes his view whenever it seems politically expedient. Remember this?[video=youtube;jUwQeJ3iuaw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUwQeJ3iuaw[/video] Funny how Obama just moved a carrier battle group into the straits of Hormuz to deal with that "non-threat", while at the same time ratcheting up sanctions to cripple Iran's "non-threatening" economy. Then there was the Obama who said the surge would never work, and would actually make matters worse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_igpyewuzQ and the same Obama later claiming he always believed the surge would work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iKMKZQZu-Q Of course you also have the anti-gay marriage Obama followed by the pro gay marriage obama. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jul/01/barack-obama-gay-marriage The anti-NAFTA Obama, who later changed into the pro-NAFTA Obama. The anti-undeclared foreign war Obama followed by the Obama who invades Lybia without permission of congress The religious Obama who disparages those who cling to their guns and religion The anti-Guantanamo bay, anti military tribunal Obama who later reopens military tribunals at guantanmo bay. How about the Obama that told us he was focused like a laser on fixing our economy for the first two years of his presidency, while spending the entire time passing a healthcare bill to incur another 1.5 trillion dollars in debt. Remember how he told us that passing that healthcare bill was the first and most crucial step in fixing our economy? At 50, Obama's spastic position changing and pandering make the 64 year old Romney look like the salt of the earth, even with the slow evolutionary process that effected Romney's beliefs. Obama doesn't just flip flop, he lies and panders. Perhaps you would be better off focusing on calling anyone who votes against Obama a racist.
He has always maintained that Iran is no serious threat to the US [in comparison to the soviets] but made it clear that Iran is a threat to Israel's existence.
So by using the words "Iran is no threat", you are saying he was just demagoguing his political adversaries as war mongers when, in reality, he would be just as eager to use the military against Iran to protect Israel as George W. Bush would be, if not more so. Interesting. Sounds very much like the OP. More bullshit by a master bullshit artist.
Iran is no "serious threat", not "Iran is no threat", you are misquoting him(no surprise here). Someone armed with bamboo sticks can be a threat to yourself, but is "no serious threat" in comparison to an individual armed with an AK-47.
Wow, Mrgilb: After watching that video its impossible not to see that Romney has flip flopped 100% on a great number of issues: 100%. Unbelievable. Abortion rights: At one point, visibly in front of an audience...absolutely supports. unequivocal. No questions asked. Now...totally against it. Health Insurance: In front of an audience absolutely supports the spread of the Massachusetts health care plan to the entire nation. Now...absolutely says that isn't the case. Global Warming: In front of an audience....absolutely and concretely states he believes that humans are contributing to global warming. Now....he absolutely denies that perspective. Is this guy an alien, a pathological liar, someone whom you can't trust, someone who's only concern is getting elected and to hell with anything else??? I have yet to see one guy caught so consistently on tape change 180 degrees so consistently....and then he denies all of it. PATHETIC!!!
I cant be the only one that notices the fact that on some of those issues Romney has gray hair and on the second view and is remarkably younger in the first. Compare that to the positions where Obamas has taken defiant stands on both sides of the fence within just the last couple of years and you have to give the gold for flipflops to Obama. O'nation missed my favorite one. Obama ran his 2008 campaign on a platform about bringing change to Washington, especially the cozy little thing where earmarks were used to peddle influence. Thats sorta funny given that right after he was elected to the senate... His wifes employer TRIPLED her salary, roughly a $200k jump, including a big onetime bonus. Then the next round of earmarks included a request from senator obama to bestow a $1 million earmark to (drumroll please)... his wifes employer, a Chicago hospital. He got turned down on the earmark request... and when people pointed out the smell of quid pro quo... His response was NOT that he shouldnt have done it... His response was he should have had the request made by a different senator. So basically Obama isnt really against corruption, hes against getting seen doing it.
I don't think he's even against being seen doing it. The man started campaigning with taxpayer dollars a year and a half before the 2012 election. Watching him show up on "official business" to Iowa to upstage campaigning republican candidates, the masterful use of press release timing to control the message. Just the other day, he changed his campaign slogan to one of "Fiscal Responsibility" which, to him, means higher income taxes and absolutely no cuts to the size of government. It would seem he has a deep seated belief that he can do or say anything he wants and simply tell the American people what he wants you believe he is doing or saying, and we will all just sign on like so many zombies. Wait a minute, I've seen this before. [video=youtube;N-9eNSniQgg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-9eNSniQgg[/video]
Cute. i was thinking more along the lines of George Orwell's "1984"... where the chief character has a government job changing past news stories to match current "truth" as directed by The Party. But as they dont yet control Youtube maybe i give too much credit for efficiency. Better example might be the bungling but deadly Ministry of Information in Terry Gilliam's "Brazil". On that note... Time for a Little Johnny joke: . Obama goes to a school to talk to a classroom of 4th graders. After a short message he offers to answer questions, expecting a great photo op as he answers their cute little questions. Walter raises his hand to be recognized. "I have four questions Mr President: Why'd you bomb Libya without support of Congress? Werent you critical of Bush for his wars? Why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it's gotten worse? First you claim Rev. Wright was your mentor, then deny knowledge of the anti-American stuff he says. Wtf? Why are we lending Brazil money to drill for oil while we cant, and why the hell did you nix the XL pipeline?" Just then, the bell rings for recess. Obama tells the kids they will continue after recess. When they return Obama says, "OK, where were we? Oh, right, question time.. Who has a question?" Little Johnny raises his hand. "Actually, I have two questions, sir. Why did the recess bell ring 20 minutes earlier than usual? Where the hell is Walter?"
Yah, its not the Jedi powers that allow him to lie openly. Reminds me of hs conference calls to the National Endowment for the Arts. IMO, he has been VERY successful at channelling taxpayer dollars towards campaign efforts. Many presidents have don it, but Obama is off the charts with it. I like it, except it plays unrealistic for one important reason. Little walter would never have been allowed to ask his question in the first place. The only people allowed to ask questions at Obama's "Transparency in Government" town halls are campaign contributors and plants. Has been that way since before he got in office.
I vaguely remember a town hall meeting where (then) President Clinton was taking planted questions from the audience. President Clinton delivered his carefully prepared answers to the sweet and soft-core questions until one guy went off-message and actually asked a question critical of Clinton. As he tried to ask a follow-up they quickly shut off his mike. President Clinton embarrassed himself as he stuttered out a poor answer. Over the next week the MSM eviscerated the poor guy, exposing his financial difficulties, rocky marriage, even digging up dirt from people that went to high school with him.
Oh yah, there are penalties for going off script. Who could forget when Joe Wurzelbacher had the gall to ask President Obama a pointed question. Not only did the media eviscerate Joe, but State and Federal employees immediately started digging into Joe's past to see if there might be something they could charge him with criminally. At some point, those workers who were instructed to dig up dirt were found to be in violation of law, and forced to resign like the Obama patsies they were. All that for asking the president something unscripted. And then there was this woman. [video=youtube;ohVuhkeJWjs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohVuhkeJWjs[/video] I guarantee her "Frank and beans" days got extended for asking that question.
This is an extraordinary video. It takes Mitt Romney during periods when he's been in the public eye as a politician and he vividly contradicts himself on issues that the Right Wing considers critical. Its obvious why the arch conservatives can't trust him. Its a clear picture of a guy who either straddles the middle, has no history as a strict conservative, will say whatever he feels the populous wants, has a history as a politician of aggressively pushing a health care program that would strive to insure virtually everyone...and has defended that aspect of the program.....or simply flips and flops like a fish out of water. Meanwhile: @Corwin: Abortion "rights". No...abortion is not a specific topic within the constitution. Its a highly controversial issue. It's not something that moves me deeply from a theoretical perspective. When the issue hit me close to the heart it made a difference. Regardless of that instant...I'm of the opinion that women should control their bodies in general. Meanwhile to others its critically vital. Its a hot button issue for many. Its clear that Romney has flopped around on this issue left right and upside down, and is willing to say whatever he feels will be politically beneficial. As far as history goes though, and based on what he has openly said and how he approached the issue when he governed...this guy is far from rock hard on this issue..... as flaccid is from firm.
I guess that video above totally rings true with likely GOP primary voters. In the last 3 states Romney got slaughtered. For the first time, he didn't use all that Rich guy money from his millionaire/billionaire supporters. Without the $$$$$$$$ to buy attack ads Romney didn't just lose...he got crushed!!!! Ron Paul, the candidate of the fringe beat him in one state: Santorum, with no $$$$$, no ads...just crushed Mitty: Colorado: Santorum 40%; Mitty the flip flopper 35% Minnesota: Santorum 45% Mitty the flip flopper 17% Paul beat him in Minnesota. cripes!!!! Missouri: Santorum 55% Mitty the flip flopper 25% Without all that attack $$$$$$$$$ from his uber wealthy buddies for slick ads to rip the opposition... Mitty the flip flopper is more like a fish out of water than any other candidate...about to die.
Prior to this thread i'd have assumed we were all aware of the purpose of the primary season ; to winnow the field down to a single candidate. This thread starts off with a premise that seems to forget that. The answer to the OPs question is... Before the general election... ALL of the Republican candidates but one will "fall". Right now we dont know who the last one standing is going to be. Thats why we have primaries. Obama fans can lick their lips in anticipation hoping all of them will drop by the wayside, but it doesnt work that way. There will be one left at the end, and he will have the opportunity to stand on a national stage and ask Obama why hope and change turned out to be smoke and mirrors. Should be fun.
I was against abortion until I read the text of Roe v. Wade. It's actually very well written and convinced me. The decision states that abortion is legal BEFORE what is called "quickening" -when the fetus is capable of independent movement, that is I think the first trimester. Abortion in the 2nd trimester is legal only if the doctor says either the fetus has developed slowly or endangers the woman's health (the decision clearly gives guidelines to prevent that phrase from being gamed - anxiety is not grounds for abortion). At the 3rd trimester the fetus has legal rights and cannot be aborted. There are even cases going back to the 1960's where an unborn child sued for damages. But the decision clearly states that abortion is not an "absolute right" (in the same way that you do not have a "right" to a driver's license). Blackmun writes 13 times "the potential of unborn life must be protected" To summarize: the majority opinion said this: There exists a social need for abortion. The Constitution does not explicitly allow or deny abortion so we will invent a constitutional reason via the 14th amendment. But this issue needs to be validated later. To summarize: the minority opinion said this: There exists a social need for abortion. The Constitution does not explicitly allow or deny abortion, therefore it is up to the States to legislate abortion. Nice idea but not legal. Drugs, suicide, prostitution, and self-mutilation are some examples of body control that the law prohibits. One must recognize that there exists a point in the fetus' development when the brain becomes functional and self-awareness exists, therefore, as Roe V Wade states, the fetus has a right to life. Isn't that how Obama became President? Didn't Obama spent more money on attack ads and accept more money from Wall Street than any previous candidate? Without the $$$$$$$$ to buy attack ads McCain didn't just lose...he got crushed!!!! Right? Isn't it pretty much true that whichever candidate spends the most money wins the election? The hyporicsy of the Left never fails to amuse me...