Mitt Romney, however, still thinks you are a second class citizen

Isn’t he the guy AGAINST unions??

Romney tells CNN he’s “always” been against marriage equality.  I wonder how long before we see an old video of him supporting marriage?  Or will this break the running streak of Mitt now being against something that in the past he supported?

13 thoughts on “Mitt Romney, however, still thinks you are a second class citizen”

  1. Wait…so Romney changed his mind, and you crucify him. Obama changes his mind, and you forgive him. I got it right so far?



    1. Oh, please…
      We don’t know if Romney has changed his mind or not. That was a tiny dig at his reputation for being a worse flip-flopper than Kerry was ever (falsely) accused of being. If you think that’s “crucifying” him, you have a pretty low bar to what constitutes crucifixion. We’ll see if anything bubbles up from his past on this subject, but I really don’t care about it. He’s clearly a man with no core convictions, moving to whatever position will please the audience he’s speaking to.
      As for ‘forgiving’ the President, yeah, sure… why not? He made the correct decision. The point is not some imagined problem with people changing their minds, it’s if that change is the right decision. This was clearly the correct thing to do.
      I think you should examine why you are so easily bothered by a mild comment.


      1. OK, point taken that “crucifying” was too strong a term. But I’m seen a double standard here. You paint Romney as a “flip flopper”, but forgive Obama of the same thing. As for it being the “correct decision”, that is subjective, but you don’t accord me the same courtesy of my opinion, another double standard.

        What “bothers me” is when people, especially liberals, employ double standards and seem to not realize it or be bothered by it at all.


  2. … and now Romney equates assault and battery to “hijinks”.

    It’s bad enough what happened, but I’m willing to cut him some (some) slack, after all it was in the 60’s, and people do change. However, he doesn’t own up to it being something serious, and even criminal. It was just “hijinks” to him. I think it talks to his character today that he dismisses it all as youthful pranks.
    The dog incident years later does not show him improving, character-wise.
    Really, GOP? You couldn’t find anyone better than this guy? Or are you just letting his money do the talking for you?


    1. Isn’t it interesting that the Washington Post had this story, from all the way back in the 1960s, ready to go right after Obama’s statement on gay marriage? Fascinating, isn’t it?


    1. Nope. Two reasons: 1. It’s, which has knowingly posted false, doctored material in the past. It’s not a reliable site for anything. 2. The “information” does not alter the facts of the claims against Romney, they simply accuse alleged inaccuracies in certain details. Even Romney himself doesn’t claim it never happened, he says he “just doesn’t remember”. The other participants in that assault DO remember it.’s “report” doesn’t materially change anything about the event, even if was considered the most reliable reporting site on the planet.


      1. Yes, it does change the event because the accounts are inaccurate. And it that it is on Breitbart doesn’t matter, the links were to ABC News. You’re going to have to dig a little deeper to get something on Romney. Geez.


      2. I checked the ABC articles, and they don’t change the facts of the assault. The victim’s sister says they were “doing their own things” when the assault occurred, and that he was an “unusual” person. Not a ringing denial that he was gay, or that he was the victim of this incident. The family will only say that the report is inaccurate, but they refuse to say just what that inaccuracy is. Also not a ringing rebuttal to the charges. Others who took part stand by their stories. You’re going to have to do better to defend Romney from what continues to look like a history of a rich, arrogant, self-important spoiled brat as a teen, and a rich, arrogant, self-important adult.


  3. Jim, why are you hanging onto this so tightly? The family says there are inaccuracies. The friend they quoted wasn’t even there, and has been dead since 2004. If this were about Obama, you’d be LAUGHING at the absurdity of how flimsy the evidence is. Try objectivity, seriously.


    1. The family claims inaccuracies, but refuses to identify them. The misquote has been corrected in the article, but it does nothing to diminish what the other witnesses at the event say happened, and they corroborate the story. The person who died in 2004 was the victim, Lauber.
      The story remains, and unless you’re willing and able to prove the Post made it up, Breitbart’s claims can be ignored (a reasonable case of consider the source, AND they don’t stand up under scrutiny).
      Lastly, it would appear you are the one trying to cling to this story. You’ll need to provide much better evidence before it needs to be retracted. For starters, find a reliable resource. Breitbart isn’t it.


      1. You keep trying to say “I don’t have to believe it, it’s Breitbart” when they were quoting ABC NEWS. If you aren’t going to acknowledge basic facts, this discussion isn’t going anywhere.



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s