Romney's Flip-Flops

Coffrey: This is fun, I can't believe I didn't start it until now.

Okay, so I want a catalogue of all of Romney's flip-flops, because honestly, I think it's worth mentioning. But before I start, let me just state, I'm not in the tank for Obama, I just think he'll do less harm to the country, i.e. there will still be a functioning United States in 4 years, than Romney. And because it's just so much fun.

'I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose.'
'I never really called myself pro-choice.'

'I will work and fight for stem cell research.'
'In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise.'

'It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.'
'I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.'

'I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.'
'I did not see it with my own eyes.'

And just for fun
'This is a completely airtight kennel mounted on the top of our car.'
'They're not happy that my dog loves fresh air.'

There is one I must be forgetting, a really blatant and egregious one, but I'm sure it will come to me later.

franklin1950: i trust you are as observant in your observations of obamas words and actions.

Coffrey: Am I aware that Obama also flip flops? Well durrrrr, they're politicians. But with Romney, it's like..... the difference between a passion killing which you'll never do again and a serial killer who has murdered 120 people. Yeah, it's a murder either way, but they aren't even close in intensity or volume. I guess I'll say this, post anything you think is an Obama flip-flop, I welcome all comers

Aura: 'I will work and fight for stem cell research.'
'In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise.'

This one, this one needs more contex. Where did these quotes come from, how much time passed between them, that sort of thing.

Because this could be a flipflop, (I thought this was going to be about shoes actually that's why i cliked on it) or this could very well be the result of very good lobbying. I'm sure he understands jack shit about stemcell research he's just heard scientists make claims and promisses. SO if one side of this battle gets to him with the more convincing scientists he might just be verry well been 'persuaded'. If that is the case I personally think he was misinformed, but in and off itself this could be a good thing.
I am no longer surprised a politician could have a 'stand' on something he knows less than nothing about. But it's more damaging if said politician blindly holds on to that stand, no matter how much information about the topic you feed him.

Most likely I'm too much of an optimist and nothing of the sort happened. The guy probably was just told "you want the job? here's a list of things we want you to say"

Coffrey: http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/mitt-romney-lies-about-his-stem-cell-st

Ahh now maybe, just maybe, everything he says in front of a crowd is something that crowd supports.

All it takes is to look at his views when he was running for Massachusetts for governor and senator, the type of people who would be voting for him. Then look at his views now and the kind of people that would be voting for him. Normally, it's not this clear on almost every issue, Romney is the worst I ever seen on this.

OCD_OCD: The Quote of the Decade:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

OCD_OCD: The top 10 Obama Flip-Flops:

Voted against increasing the debt limit; then supported raising it.

Campaigned against the Bush tax cuts; then extended all of them.

Promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term; then proposed trillion dollar deficits.

Vowed the unemployment rate would be below 8% if his stimulus was passed; but then it broke 10%.

Promised shovel ready jobs; then admitted they weren’t shovel ready.

Said if you like your health plan you can keep it; but then threw seniors off Medicare Plus and employers are now saying they’ll dump people onto the public exchange.

Promised to have health care negotiations on live TV, but then reversed himself.

Indicated Bush violated the Constitution; then carried out warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detentions, secret renditions, quadrupled drone attacks, and kept Guantanamo Bay open.

Voted against the Patriot Act, but then supported its extension.

Said lobbyists wouldn’t work in the White House; then gave them waivers to work there.

Vowed to take public financing for his 2008 campaign; then refused public financing when he realized he would receive more money without it.

OCD_OCD: Ordering military action in Libya without seeking Congressional authorisation
President Obama has shown a striking lack of consistency with regard to the question of Congressional authorisation and the use of force. In a 2007 interview with The Boston Globe, then Senator Obama declared:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

OCD_OCD: Dropping Third Site missile defences in order to appease the Russians

In his Prague speech in April 2009, President Obama pledged to move forward with the Bush-era plans for Third Site missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic:

"So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven."

Just six months later however, the Obama administration surrendered to Russian demands, and dramatically dropped plans for Third Site

OCD_OCD: Letting Sudan off the hook for the Darfur genocide:

In 2004, Senator Obama was a prominent supporter of a “humanitarian intervention” to halt state-sponsored mass killing in Darfur, declaring in a speech that “we cannot, in good conscience, stand by and let the genocide continue.” He advocated tough UN sanctions against the brutal regime of Omar Hassan al-Bashir, which “should freeze the assets of the Sudanese government, its leaders and business affiliates; outlaw arms sales and transfers to Sudan; and prohibit the purchase of Chinese oil.”

However, as president, Obama dramatically changed his tune, extending the hand of friendship to Bashir, despite the fact the Sudanese government and its proxy Janjaweed Arab militias had butchered hundreds of thousands of people.

OCD_OCD: There are more, but I don't want it to look like I'm spamming.

Coffrey: There you go, ocd, getting into the spirit. I just want people to know with this thread that you shouldn't be excited about either candidate, our election system is broken. Obama promised to be this huge liberal and "change the way Washington works" and then just as you posted, acted just like a typical politician. Romney promised.... well actually I don't know what he's promised, but he's a rich guy out for rich people and says whatever he needs to get elected. That's the really weird thing about it. Obama is going to run as a massive liberal to get votes, but of course, not act like a liberal when actually in office. Romney is going to run like the biggest conservative ever but, he's not going to act like a conservative in the office. This is the stupidity of the American people.

OCD_OCD: Everyone keeps saying Romney is a rich guy. He is now, but did you realize he was not born rich, as constantly alluded to?

Coffrey: His father was president of American Motors and the governor of Michigan. I don't think his upbringing was akin to most Americans.

OCD_OCD: His father was a self-made man and succeeded. Why is that such a bad thing? Isn't that what we all strive for? I don't see why success is something hateful.

Coffrey: I'm not saying anything bad about George or Mitt in that respect, with the exception of some of Mitt's Bain Capital enterprises, but even then, not that bad. I'm just saying he wasn't born struggling and probably for the last 30 or 40 years, Mitt's been near to the top, if not right on the top. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but there's this new trend (I don't know about new, but it's definitively something in the past 30 or 40 years that's been happening) where rich people are rigging the rules, giving themselves lower tax rates and chucking out all the benefits of government that go to people who aren't rich. And those particular people are courting Romney. .Obama too, but to a lesser extent.

OCD_OCD: Yes, I do believe there is too much back scratching going on, but it is going on on both sides. Look at the labor unions and ACORN on one side. The liberals believed that everyone had a "right" to own a home and produced legislation that forced banks to lend to people who could not afford it...welcome to the mortgage bubble and the subsequent crash. If you look at the contributors to Obama's campaign, you'll see big business there also, so don't fool yourself in that regard. GE would love to have a corporate monarchy.

All politicians and Wall Streeters seem to love hedge funds. Hedge funds should be done away with. It is simply a way to screw with the market and never lose.

Everyone in Washington needs to get their hands out of the pockets of everyone and learn that they work for US and that we don't believe that they should be given special perks for what they do. Politicians are not a sacred class of people and they should not be allowed to vote themselves rights and perks that is not available to others.

A selfless politician will never get elected, Coffrey because he owes no one. We have to decide which is the politician that will do more for the American economy and people as a WHOLE, not who wants to rape one to satisfy the other.

Coffrey: First of all, ACORN doesn't even exist anymore and even if they did push the "everyone gets a home" thing, they helped out communities way more than any Wall Street or bank ever did, so it's a totally unfair comparison. Labor unions I am a little torn on, the head guys there seem to as corrupt as anyone else. But that's kind of the thing, power corrupts if you let it. By you I mean the people who are represented by the person in power.

I think we basically agree on the problem. If I could snap my fingers and make the rules whatever they I want them to be, I would first get rid of the electoral college, it's completely obsolete nowadays, the candidates can cross the country in a matter of hours instead of days. Also, I would change the electing system to that of instant-runoff/alternative voting, it's a ranking system. If your first choice doesn't make it, it goes to your second choice and then on. It would help get third parties in there without taking the vote away from the traditional liberal or conservative candidates. I would also put the campaign financing strictly from the public treasury. People work for whoever pays them, so let us pay them instead of the special interests. And finally (for now ) I would make it to where, no more lobbyists, you can't receive money from anyone, no gifts, no nothing from the time you announce your candidacy to 5-10 years after you've been out of office and this counts for chiefs of staff and various other staff members. So what do you think about that?

OCD_OCD: ACORN had a definite agenda and I can't say that ACORN did anything that I agree with. The Labor Unions are dirty. Always have been and always will be. Their time is past. There are no more sweat shops with Chinese or Mexican workers chained to sewing machines and housed in hovels. There are no more orphans and children forced into labor.

Labor Unions have created a special class of worker and that class has been able to garner more pay raises, benefits, and retirement than any other class of worker and guess what? The public sector can't afford it any more. It's the reason our municipalities are going broke. They agreed to pay something they knew they could never afford.

Labor Union pay is the reason our jobs have gone overseas. Labor Unions are the reason that jobs are lost to computers and manufacturing equipment. It is now cheaper to pay for computerized manufacturing than manufacturing produced by people because of the Union leeches.

OCD_OCD: I completely agree that lobbyists should be banned completely. They never should have been allowed in the first place. If legislation is worthwhile, it should be looked at on the face of it and not because the Lobbyists have bought the vote.

The one thing that Obama said that I agreed with was that there would be no lobbyists and there would be "transparency". He lied on both accounts. Big time lied.

OCD_OCD: Oh, and no more tacking pet projects on in any spending bill. If a senator or representative wants a pet project, then let them come up for a vote. Don't be tagging it on to something that has to be voted in and agreed to. That's a filthy thing to do.

Coffrey: Yeah, that was a huge Obama fail, I remember "there will be an open debate about healthcare"..... then nothing.

But yeah, great ideas. Hate when they attach stupid amendments to traffic or tax bills that have to do with abortion or some shit. But all these great ideas won't be realized unless something happens. Something big.

OCD_OCD: The "something big" that is going to have to happen is for everyone to realize where the money comes from. It comes from the private sector. Government does not produce anything and it is bloated with too many agencies and too many employees. Bloated government is at the Federal, state and local levels.

The way we go about spending is nuts. In order for a public utility company to get a rate hike through the Feds, they have to have spent everything in their budget. This means they have to find a way to spend, spend, spend so they can ask for more. In no way does that make sense.

Go and read all of the "Wastebook" spending lists. It will make you ill.

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b69a6ebd-7ebe-41b7-bb03-c25a5e194365 <-----Wastebook 2011

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=774a6cca-18fa-4619-987b-a15eb44e7f18 <------Wastebook 2010

the real slim DEEPy: as far as the "rich rigging the rules" and getting owetax rates, you do realize just who is the chairman ofthe ways and means commission, the one who decides what tax loopholes make it into the tax code? its not a republican, nor is it a white man born born into wealth.

OCD_OCD: Don't even bring his name up. He makes me crazy with his hypocrisy and lack of ethics.

Coffrey: Just as a quick fact check, are you talking about the republican dave camp?