PDA

View Full Version : Mitt Romney: We're better off strictly following the Constitution? WTF?!!!




mconder
12-12-2007, 02:19 PM
Mitt Romney: Where better off strictly following the Constitution? WTF?!!!

shrapnel88
12-12-2007, 02:19 PM
absurd.

split_lipz
12-12-2007, 02:21 PM
Pfff, all talk.

He may talk the talk, but sure as hell doesn't walk the walk.

JoeySweets
12-12-2007, 02:21 PM
what a plastic, phoney

libertygrl
12-12-2007, 02:24 PM
I wanted to vomit when I heard him say that.

Fig
12-12-2007, 02:25 PM
This entire debate was HORRIBLE. No one gave straight answers :x

AUGH.

Mrossca
12-12-2007, 02:29 PM
You mean the biggest vote panderer on stage taking a page from Ron Paul's book? Who'd a thunk it?

Menthol Patch
12-12-2007, 02:31 PM
None of these candidates truly support the Constitution except Ron Paul!

atariman486
12-12-2007, 02:35 PM
His answer was in the context of whether their is a constitutional right to privacy. He thinks that in a "strict" interpretation of the document, there is no right mentioned, and that's why he talks about legislating if a "new" right is found. (How can there be a new right discovered, you've got me). This is his way of saying he follows the constitution, while supporting things like warrantless wiretaps and the "patriot" ACT, which are actually unconstitutional.

EotS
12-12-2007, 10:53 PM
That's because Romney believes rights are granted by government.

Of course, they're not rights if they can be voted away, they're privileges.

No understanding of the constitution whatsoever, and highly dangerous.

xao
12-12-2007, 11:01 PM
Too bad his flip-flopping record doesn't reflect his talk. :D

xao
12-12-2007, 11:02 PM
This entire debate was HORRIBLE. No one gave straight answers :x

AUGH.


No one except Dr. Paul. :D

Luther
12-12-2007, 11:07 PM
Ron Paul's only chance is if there are enough people who actually take the time and effort to research what the candidates actually stand for.

xao
12-12-2007, 11:12 PM
Ron Paul's only chance is if there are enough people who actually take the time and effort to research what the candidates actually stand for.

If people don't listen to him and can't understand what he is saying then yes.

Luther
12-12-2007, 11:14 PM
If people don't listen to him and can't understand what he is saying then yes.

Huh?

TheNewYorker
12-12-2007, 11:14 PM
I think Romney really does want to run as RP's VP.

tsetsefly
12-13-2007, 01:27 AM
Mitt Romney: Where better off strictly following the Constitution? WTF?!!!

and he followed it with "if people find new rights" wtf.. new rights? lmao

xao
12-13-2007, 01:30 AM
Huh?

lol I rest my case.

yaz
12-13-2007, 01:59 AM
"this totally baffles me. why doesn't he just open up the constitution and read it?"

JEREMY420
12-13-2007, 02:09 AM
Its makes me sick to see him and julieani talking about how great they are on the constitution.. and their people eat it up!

I have worried about this from the begining.. because you know they are gonna start copying RP... by the time more people are in the loop on this thing.. they have copied what worked for RonPaul and the average voter could be fooled..

I hope they can see through their Lies..

Mark Mosconi
12-13-2007, 03:30 AM
Anyone who has any common sense will see right through that type of rhetoric...sadly, I'm afraid to say that the common sense of most people seems bankrupt.

Man from La Mancha
12-13-2007, 03:34 AM
Anyone who has any common sense will see right through that type of rhetoric...sadly, I'm afraid to say that the common sense of most people seems bankrupt.Unfortunately the sheeple don't have common sense only what the brainwashing will allow, unless they can be woken in time.

.

Mark Mosconi
12-13-2007, 03:50 AM
Unfortunately the sheeple don't have common sense only what the brainwashing will allow, unless they can be woken in time.

.

Ron Paul is a walking alarm clock, in that case. I only hope enough people get to hear it.

Seanmc30
12-13-2007, 07:31 AM
I hope enough people realize that RP's talking points were all stolen. I find it interesting that a candidate who once "didn't have a chance in last place" has about 7 mirrors on the stage now.

The pandering, ridiculous political flip-flooping the others do for votes is truly vomit inducing. It is personally insulting to me when I hear Rudy or Mitt talk even refer to the Constitution...as if any of them as even read the document, or much less intends on following a single word of it.

Bush is a perfect example of why this kind of political pandering cannot stand....because now we know that they just say whatever they have to to get elected then spend the next 8 years systematically destroying the country.

hawks4ronpaul
12-13-2007, 08:03 AM
That's because Romney believes rights are granted by government.

So does Giuliani.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

osofaux
12-13-2007, 08:06 AM
This from the same candidate who says he has to consult with his lawyers before going to war... :rolleyes:

Carole
12-13-2007, 07:21 PM
Oh my gosh! the candidates were too tired to show up for the debate and sent their pre-programmed clones. The clones were only capable of reiterating Dr. Paul's words. Out of control Clones took over the debate. No wonder it had no life. Once Immigration and Iraq were removed from the debate, there was nothing else for the clones to say, since they knew nothing about economics or the Constitution. Just mouthed the words. LOL

:D :D :D

Carole
12-13-2007, 07:30 PM
Rotf-lol :d ;)

SeanEdwards
12-13-2007, 07:51 PM
Mitt Romney: "I changed my position on the Constitution. Effectively, I used to be against it, but now after seeing the huge grassroots support for Ron Paul, I'm all for it! At least, until it interferes with my attorney's decisions on whether to bomb, or to not bomb."

Mandrik
12-13-2007, 07:58 PM
His answer was in the context of whether their is a constitutional right to privacy. He thinks that in a "strict" interpretation of the document, there is no right mentioned, and that's why he talks about legislating if a "new" right is found. (How can there be a new right discovered, you've got me). This is his way of saying he follows the constitution, while supporting things like warrantless wiretaps and the "patriot" ACT, which are actually unconstitutional.

So we should only choose at certain times to strictly follow The Constitution. Undeclared wars are ok, though, right?

AisA1787
12-13-2007, 08:07 PM
So we should only choose at certain times to strictly follow The Constitution. Undeclared wars are ok, though, right?

Not exactly. We should always strictly follow the Constitution. We just need to change our definition of "strictly" every now and again. :rolleyes:

therealjjj77
12-13-2007, 08:19 PM
His attornies must have tipped him off to that one. ;)

Mandrik
12-13-2007, 10:16 PM
Not exactly. We should always strictly follow the Constitution. We just need to change our definition of "strictly" every now and again. :rolleyes:

Great thinking! Romney '08!

jmarinara
12-13-2007, 10:49 PM
That's because Romney believes rights are granted by government.

Of course, they're not rights if they can be voted away, they're privileges.

No understanding of the constitution whatsoever, and highly dangerous.

Completely agreed, but we've been dealing with exactly this type of thinking, for what, 100 years now with the glaring exception of Ron Paul and perhaps a half dozen others? You think we'd be used to it by now.

Thomas Paine
12-14-2007, 08:39 AM
Mitt is living up to his nickname of Flip Romney.