Really? to stroke his ego?? What are you basing that claim on? From most of the information at the time Romney didn’t like the attention.
Agreed with Obama 98% of the time?? Really? what are you basing that on? I ask because I can’t remember him siding with much of anything with Obama view of America.

Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Because Romney tanked a winnable campaign at a critical junction in our history. As Governor of Mass, Romney agreed with Obama on socialized medicine, gun control, tax and spend, and more. Obama doesn’t self-identify himself a “communist” either. By your logic Obama must also not be a communist because he said he wasn’t in some campaign speeches.

Romney was every bit a communist as Obama is, the only difference is in tone.

astonerii on February 19, 2013 at 2:57 PM

I don’t think that word means what you think it does.

The past is not an indication of the future.

Then why are you so upset with Obama?

Because he is a communist hell bent on “fundamentally transforming America”.

10 years ago I didn’t think that the Clintons were anything other than annoying democrats….until I found out about their embracing of Alinsky and their admiration for Cloward and Piven.

I never believed any Democrat in the modern age was harmless. Some are deluded fools, but none of them have good intentions.

“Harmless” wasn’t in the question.

So you don’t find any change in the policies of the old JFK type of democrat and the Van Jones type?
Really? Then thats where the misunderstanding is.

Have you ever changed your positions in light of new information?

Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Yes I have. It usually doesn’t come at a time that is ever so helpful to me and what I want to gain. Strangely for Romney that is when his ‘epiphanies’ always seem to show up.

sharrukin on February 19, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Strangely for Romney that is when his ‘epiphanies’ always seem to show up.

This is proof of what, exactly?
That said, correlation is not causation.

The past is not an indication of the future.

Then why are you so upset with Obama?

10 years ago I didn’t think that the Clintons were anything other than annoying democrats….until I found out about their embracing of Alinsky and their admiration for Cloward and Piven.

I never believed any Democrat in the modern age was harmless. Some are deluded fools, but none of them have good intentions.

Have you ever changed your positions in light of new information?

Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Yes I have. It usually doesn’t come at a time that is ever so helpful to me and what I want to gain. Strangely for Romney that is when his ‘epiphanies’ always seem to show up.

But what does not require forward thought and the ability to determine likely future results is the election. It is a given that Romney did not win. You continued support for him is irrational, something that comes from something other than facts.

astonerii on February 19, 2013 at 3:01 PM

You’re missing the point then.
My position in this thread is pointing out that people who claim there is no difference in what we now face with Obama unchained and the direction that Romney would most likely have us on, is simplistic at best.
Thats a fact.

Do you think that Romney would be doing the same as Obama? If so your position is that of John McCain when, during the campaigning for president, he said that Obama would make a good president too.

It is called wisdom and learning from the past.
astonerii on February 19, 2013 at 3:01 PM

So you believe that “wise” people can predict the future?? Thats what the folks of yore believed.
They were wrong a lot.

How you see in that man the will to fight the leftist agenda is a mystery, because that isn’t to be found in his past or his actions during the campaign.

sharrukin on February 19, 2013 at 2:45 PM

The past is not an indication of the future.
Neither you nor I can predict how a mans life evolves, but certain consistences can be pointed to.
A person can go along with compromises to a point, and that point is when new information presents itself that causes a shift in perspective.
10 years ago I didn’t think that the Clintons were anything other than annoying democrats….until I found out about their embracing of Alinsky and their admiration for Cloward and Piven. This is the same for many wolves in sheeps clothing on the left.
It’s not unbelievable that a person could change perspective regarding directions and policies governing a country when it becomes apparent the the intent of the one you have compromised with in the past are in fact trying to destroy what you believe in.

Have you ever changed your positions in light of new information?

That seems to be very Nostradamus-ish.
Unless you can tell the future from yesterdays tea leaves, I have to call bull.

Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 2:54 PM

It is called wisdom and learning from the past. Much like I can tell if a company is going to succeed or fail with reasonable correctness.

Romney did not like energy as governor, he would not like it as president.
Romney allied with Malthusians as governor, he would do so as President.
Romney created the blueprint for Obamacare, he would not get rid of it as president.
Romney liked mandates, thought they were conservative, he would implement them as president.
All the while dragging conservatism into the dirt.

But what does not require forward thought and the ability to determine likely future results is the election. It is a given that Romney did not win. You continued support for him is irrational, something that comes from something other than facts.

Non sequitur.

If the Japanese chef likes blowfish..even though it’s dangerous..and you like blowfish, then you must be a Japanese chef.

Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 2:48 PM

That’s weak BS.

Communism is a political belief system.

If Romney agrees with those beliefs then he is an adherent of that system of beliefs.

“If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.” — Tom Paine, 1776
It seems to me that there are no conservatives who are willing to actually make the sacrifices required for a better future today. They would rather put them off and onto their children’s shoulders. Likely, other people’s children shoulders.

Romney could have won if he was not Romney. But he was Romney.

Romney never saw a problem with socialism and government paternalism outside the fact that there should be people in power more capable of running them better. He has no problem taking the rights of the people, he does not even understand rights. He thinks healthcare is a right and not a commodity to be traded for. It is why he stole the choice of the people and rammed a mandate down their throats which he is proud of.

Rights come to us from our creator. You cannot say that you have rights at the federal level but that you do not have at the state level. You either have rights or you do not have rights.

Romney was every bit a communist as Obama is, the only difference is in tone.