They're going to have to start calling it...

[Wild Cobra]

"you should really look at the facts rather than repeating the propaganda of others"

Just ing wow, lecturing from a guy who robotically ticks off conservative talking points and attack agenda that he "believes" in because he's a "conservative". just ing wow.

I at least do research beyond the bias of a so-called journalists opinion.

I may be wrong, but it seems what you are calling talking points are facts. They are the same as other conservative talking points because facts don't change. I see very few facts come from the left side. What I see is primarily repeated texts of opinion.

Believe me. I think for myself. I listen to several viewpoints and sources, look of information as factually as I can, and derive an opinion that if far most accurate than most people I debate.

I also try to clarify the strength of my conviction and don’t claim everything I say as fact. Too bad you are incapable of the same. If I’m wrong, how about showing me by introducing some clear facts.

[PixelPusher]

At least I base my opinion on the facts I see. Your position of opinion is stated as fact. I have not seen any flip-flopping, and you have not yet shown me any.

You didn't refute any of the facts I represented, you simply disagree the interpretation of a flip-flop. For example...

He has maintained his support of the 2nd amendment, and his belief for an assault weapons ban. Well guess what. I disagree with him here. I agree the public doesn't need automatic weapons, but the way assault weapons are defined is idiotic. As for the NRA, does it really matter when he joined?

A lot of people support the 2nd Amendment; that doesn't mean they support the NRA, which Romney did not until, by a mere coincidence, he decided that after all these years, (and even though he, by his own admission, still opposes the NRA's position on assault weapons) he should go ahead and become a lifetime member of the NRA...and just in time for the Republican primaries! Wow! What timing!

Are you a member of the thought police? Are you going to try to prosecute someone because of what you believe they believe, or why you believe they do with opinion rather than fact?

GMAFB! "Prosecuting"? There are no legal ramifications to pointing out flip-flops. It's not "thought policing" to question inconsistencies in someone's words and deeds. Dial down the hysteria.

First of all, he's not an unethical windbag like Kennedy. He at least has a level of integrity that few politicians have. Supporting "gay right" does not mean supporting the entire gay agenda! Why is everything an all or nothing proposition? Again, I see no hypocracy, or flip-flopping.

How you define "supporting gay rights" for yourself personally is irrelevant, and Romney does not have that luxury to backtrack and qualify his prior position. He campaigned, in one of the most socially progressive states (and the first state to allow gay marriage) in America, that he would do MORE than Ted Kennedy for gay rights. That sets a standard of expectations that must be either equaled or exceeded. Supporting a ban on gay marriage falls way, WAY short of those expectations. But, hey...it's all good because liberals were the ones who ended up on the short end of that empty campaign promise, right?

...oh, and since you're on a self righteous "just the facts, ma'am" rampage on these boards, would you mind presenting any "facts" that would support your unqualified assumption that Romney has integrity and Kennedy is an unethical windbag? (HINT: your personal political biases don't count as "facts")

You are twisting what I said. I stated a possible scenario. I do not know it as fact. It is at least believable, and unless you can show otherwise...

And I was responding to your "scenario". Unlike you, I am under no compunction to always and forever assume that Romney (or any other politician) has unfailing integrity. So, when I see a politician (of any political persuasion) take one position in 2002, then do a 180 on that position 5 years later, I dont' say to myself "Well, he's a man of integrity so there MUST be a good reason for it, even I can't figure out what that reason is"...because that would make me a servile sucker.

I am one who cannot tolerate people who jump to conclusions and make unsubstantiated statements of supposed facts like you do. I would say you are the one acting like a third grader...

Stating something as opinion, belief, etc, is fine. What you do is SLANDER! I have absolutely no respect such people!

Pointing out inconsistencies in someone's position is not slander (again with the legal terms...this isn't a court case). Romney can't sue me for pointing out he joined the NRA less than a year before he ran for President, or pointing out his "more than Ted Kennedy" statement, or that he was for taxation before he was against taxation. Those are all FACTS from which I derive my opinion of him.

[Wild Cobra]

You didn't refute any of the facts I represented, you simply disagree the interpretation of a flip-flop. For example...

I disagree with both. I have not seen examples of Romney flip-flopping, nore do I agree with you interpretation. From wikipedia:

Flip-Flop

A lot of people support the 2nd Amendment; that doesn't mean they support the NRA, which Romney did not until, by a mere coincidence, he decided that after all these years, (and even though he, by his own admission, still opposes the NRA's position on assault weapons) he should go ahead and become a lifetime member of the NRA...and just in time for the Republican primaries! Wow! What timing!

OK, where can you show mw he didn't support the NRA?

Your assessment that he became a member for political gain could be correct. However, a belief does not make it fact.

GMAFB! "Prosecuting"? There are no legal ramifications to pointing out flip-flops. It's not "thought policing" to question inconsistencies in someone's words and deeds. Dial down the hysteria.

Well, it seems to me if you had your way, you would indict him for what you believe his reasons are. That is why I used the term "thought police."

Questioning a persons words and deeds are one thing, but when you assign a motive and fact without clearly knowing the facts, it is slander!

Do you wish to be known as a slanderous individual?

How you define "supporting gay rights" for yourself personally is irrelevant, and Romney does not have that luxury to backtrack and qualify his prior position. He campaigned, in one of the most socially progressive states (and the first state to allow gay marriage) in America, that he would do MORE than Ted Kennedy for gay rights. That sets a standard of expectations that must be either equaled or exceeded. Supporting a ban on gay marriage falls way, WAY short of those expectations. But, hey...it's all good because liberals were the ones who ended up on the short end of that empty campaign promise, right?

Really? You take one facet of a subject that has several hundred features, and strike the whole down because he is not a 100% flaming gay supporter?

What has Kennedy done anyway? He supports gay marriage. So what. They are on opposite sides here.

Is it impossible to believe that Romney may actually believe in states rights and personal freedoms, and not imposing his own values on others?

...oh, and since you're on a self righteous "just the facts, ma'am" rampage on these boards, would you mind presenting any "facts" that would support your unqualified assumption that Romney has integrity and Kennedy is an unethical windbag? (HINT: your personal political biases don't count as "facts")

My feelings toward senator Kennedy and governor Romney come from what I see and read. It is difficult to go into the incidences that I have watched on TV over the course of time. I used to watch C-Span regularly. I've seen way to much of the windbag. Just because I cannot provide evidence, does not mean I don't have cause to call him unethical and a windbag. As for Romney's integrity... OK, I don't know him well enough to actually make that claim. However, I have not seen anything to show him to lack integrity. At least I am a "glass half full" rather than a "glass half empty" type of person. I believe in the good of others till they show me wrong.

I guess I have every right to call you cynical?

And I was responding to your "scenario". Unlike you, I am under no compunction to always and forever assume that Romney (or any other politician) has unfailing integrity. So, when I see a politician (of any political persuasion) take one position in 2002, then do a 180 on that position 5 years later, I don't' say to myself "Well, he's a man of integrity so there MUST be a good reason for it, even I can't figure out what that reason is"...because that would make me a servile sucker.

What position are you talking about? Every example you cited has a clear reason for what he said except the signing of the tax thing. Just because it isn't explained to your satisfaction doesn't make it a flip-flop. The earlier case was when running for governor, dealing with a state budget and tax code. The later is where he is now running for president, with a federal budget and tax code. There are different intricacies. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

As for believing he has unfailing integrity? Give me a break. There are different degrees of integrity like anything else. None of us are perfect, we all have faults. Some of us make mistakes more often than others, and some people don't even care about ethics, integrity, etc.

Pointing out inconsistencies in someone's position is not slander (again with the legal terms...this isn't a court case). Romney can't sue me for pointing out he joined the NRA less than a year before he ran for President, or pointing out his "more than Ted Kennedy" statement, or that he was for taxation before he was against taxation. Those are all FACTS from which I derive my opinion of him.

Agreed, most of what you bring in is fact. However, you derive a position that is an unfavorable one. In coming to the conclusion you present, you lack evidence to support that position when the truth may be something else. That is when it becomes slander, because you are presenting an unsubstantiated negative conclusion as fact!

[PixelPusher]

Wow. Did you bother to read that wikipedia link you posted? Here, allow me...
----------------
A "flip-flop" (used mostly in the United States) or a U-turn (used in the United Kingdom) is a sudden real or apparent(which is why your claim to slander on my part is baseless and irresponsible) change of policy or opinion. Usually it will occur during the period prior to an election in order to maximize the candidate's popularity.

The charge was originally used to attack politicians for making election policies that they either had no intention of keeping or decided not to keep for political convenience.

Example 1: "Candidate A, after finding out that weapons of mass destruction won't likely be found in Iraq, flip-flopped to keep Candidate B from using his previous stance against him."

Example 2: "During his previous campaign, Candidate B promised to regulate the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as a pollutant (Do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy), but declined to do so after taking office. Candidate A could now cite this as a flip-flop."

The charge has more recently been used to attack politicians and in some cases other public figures for any change of policy for any reason whatsoever, including new information becoming available or a change in cir stances. Such changes in policy are considered evidence of a lack of political conviction.

Example 3: "C opposed the treaty on greenhouse gas emissions (abortion/NRA/taxation) but has since changed his mind". An opponent of C might describe this as a 'flip-flop' while C might claim that both positions were based on his interpretation of evidence at the time.
-----------------

You can call me cynical if you want; I would in return call you a sucker for taking every Republican who says all the things you like to hear at face value; while simultaneously assuming the worst in every Democrat.

[PixelPusher]

On a further note, you seem to be a legalistic tear, throwing around terms like "prosecuting" "indicting" and "slander" to describe my opinions. This isn't a court room. We are not arguing a legal case. There are no civil or criminal charges being leveled. Nothing said in this thread has any legal bearing on me, you, Romney or anyone else whatsoever. Thinking less of a politician's character is not slander; if it were, the courts would be clogged from here to eternity. I'm not "indicting" or "prosecuting" Romney or anyone else, I'm stating my opinion based on facts (facts you didn't refute). Deciding i probably don't want to vote for the guy is not "indicting" or "prosecuting" him. Being su ious of his motives in not "thought policing"...there is no "policing" involved.

Your hysteria is groundless.

[Wild Cobra]

Talk about improper usage of words, hysteria?

I explained my usage of prosecute. I could be wrong about my assessment, hut I used it for a specific reason. Again, I THINK (not know) that you would try to prosecute someone like Romney for what you see as a flip-flop. You are at least persecuting him.

All you have to do is tell me my assessment is wrong. Since you only argue it's not a court case, I will still assume I am correct.

As for Romney, again, I don't see a flip flop. Even with the wiki definition. There is no inconsistency in his views of what I read, heard, or what you bring to the table. I fail to understand how you don't get the fact that people can believe and act differently, separating the job and personal. You seem to be very intelligent, am I explaining it poorly?

I like the fact that he acknowledges separating his personal views from his executive actions. He clearly has an ethical value not to impose his views on others. I also like the fact he recognizes different rolls for an executive in charge of a state vs. an executive in charge of the country.

Both these clearly explain what may appear as a flip-flop to others. He has maintained his views very consistently!

I am felling a bit stupid in one regard. We are arguing some frivolous stuff here, talking about Romney, and the start of this article was Al Gore flip-flopping.

Can you defend him? Do you want to? Can anyone defend him?