Romney has proposed doubling the size of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and support

[Unknown.User]

..

..

 

[sailingaway]

We need to get this viral so Ron has a majority of delegates in five states to be nominated from the floor at RNC:

Ron Paul is entitled to a speech as nominee into consideration at the convention, when Louisiana delegates, where he WON the caucus in a landslide, are counted. Noises are being made that maybe they won't be counted, but let those who know parliamentary procedure watch the video synopsis I post. Note the first 2:15 is boring, being motions and points made which the self declared chair ignored contrary to Roberts Rules of Order -- making him subject to removal by the body. The actual removal comes after that. The newly elected chair, a recent hip replacement recipient was driven to the ground despite shouts that he was handicapped, and was taken away by ambulence. The rules chair you see in the video, who objected to a false rules chair giving a false rules committee report had fingers broken by the security hired by the party establishment, as he was dragged off. The second video shows Henry Herford, there is a third video with the rules chair assault. In fact the whole thing is on video. Please spread this, as Romney's folks now deny they said they would support the Ron Paul delegates in credentials committee to be seated. With Louisiana, Paul has five states to be nominated at convention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k884ZKUNwbo&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgTpLOUxC6Q&feature=player_embedded#t=0s

However, in 2008 people sent delegates DVDs and slim jim type stuff.

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[sailingaway]

Great! We need to make a Slim Jim of the unacceptable positions of Mitt Romney and mass send it to the delegates right away. Many of them may not know about his strong pro-police state positions.

I'm sure they don't. Our delegates in Georgia got overwhelming passage of a motion that the GOP would not endorse anyone who favored NDAA, for example -- before the state GOP tools objected because Romney said he supported it. Since it had already passed and they couldn't get people to agree to amend it, they 'withdrew' it retroactively -- which I understand has no actual effect.

But the point is, NO ONE liked it when the actual provisions were stated.

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Maybe I missed it here, but...
Is there a single webpage where this information has been cleanly delivered for the general population and delegates to view it.
We could litter (bomb?) FB/Twitter/etc.. with it.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

is Gitmo for al qaida or for US citizens???

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Romnazi

 

[CPUd]

Just look at the stuff in there on Bain Capital, makes him look like Gordon Gekko.

 

[Lucille]

is Gitmo for al qaida or for US citizens???

That's what I was thinking. He does wholeheartedly support the NDAA. Paulians are probably first on his list!

 

[LostNFoundNTx]

I wish someone would gather a set of information about just what he's said about the federal government over time (and what it should/shouldn't do). I don't see anyone currently attempting to separate what he supports at a state level from what he supports at a national level, which severely weakens the arguments against him by demonstrating a complete ignorance of the way our government is divided.

 

[sailingaway]

he said he'd have signed ndaa

 

[LostNFoundNTx]

That's what I was thinking. He does wholeheartedly support the NDAA. Paulians are probably first on his list!

At the time when he stated that in debate, there were two schools of thought. In one group were people who believed the NDAA provided for the indefinite detention of Americans. In another group were people who believed the last minute amendment that passed (not the one which would have striken the bad provisions and subsequently failed) offered protection to US citizens. If Romney was informed prior to debate that the indefinite detention claims were simply a misunderstanding of the law, then it makes sense why he might support the bill as he stated in debate.

Upon further review, it became apparent that the issue was not the introduction of indefinite detention in last year's bill, but rather that the NDAA of 2011 clarified another law from several years earlier. In that light, the last minute amendment does not provide the protections people originally believed it did, which makes me wonder if Romney would still make his statement in support of the bill.

Unfortunately he can't approach the issue at this point or he will be labeled a flip-flopper, even if the wording of the question in last year's debate resulted in an answer interpreted to support something he never did.

 

[Lucille]

At the time when he stated that in debate, there were two schools of thought. In one group were people who believed the NDAA provided for the indefinite detention of Americans. In another group were people who believed the last minute amendment that passed (not the one which would have striken the bad provisions and subsequently failed) offered protection to US citizens. If Romney was informed prior to debate that the indefinite detention claims were simply a misunderstanding of the law, then it makes sense why he might support the bill as he stated in debate.

Upon further review, it became apparent that the issue was not the introduction of indefinite detention in last year's bill, but rather that the NDAA of 2011 clarified another law from several years earlier. In that light, the last minute amendment does not provide the protections people originally believed it did, which makes me wonder if Romney would still make his statement in support of the bill.

Unfortunately he can't approach the issue at this point or he will be labeled a flip-flopper, even if the wording of the question in last year's debate resulted in an answer interpreted to support something he never did.

Or a "terrorist coddler."

He'll be getting no benefit of the doubt from me. He's made it pretty clear that he's a bloodthirsty warmonger and tyrant.

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[LostNFoundNTx]

That is what is presented. He openly supports increasing gas tax at the Federal level as stated in 2003. He actively increased state gas tax as governor.

If we want to build an iron-clad case against him, it needs to be clear that we understand the difference between the role/authority of the President and that of a state governor. The longer quotes you posted above regarding the excise tax only apply to MA law. The statement about the gas tax at the federal level misrepresents even what's in that document. The specific statement is a second-hand report from a private meeting, which is clearly not "open support".

What you left out are the statements on page 115 that actually mean something:

Romney Has Refused To Rule Out Raising The Federal Gas Tax – As His Senior Economic Advisor Advocates – Only Saying It Would Not Be “Politically Acceptable.”CNBC’s LARRY KUDLOW: “One of your senior economic advisers, Greg Mankiw from Harvard University, former President Bush economic adviser, he is pushing very hard for a $1 increase in the gasoline tax. Since he’s close to you, would you go for a $1 rise in the gas tax nationwide?” ROMNEY: “Well, I think that would terrify everybody in the whole country. A gas tax of that nature, I think that’s not something that’s going to be politically acceptable to the American people.”(CNBC’s “Kudlow& Company,” 2/7/07)

Romney Refused To Rule Out Carbon Tax, Saying He Doesn’t “Close Off Inquiry And Discussion.” CNBC’s LARRY KUDLOW: “[D]o you favor carbon caps? Do you favor carbon taxes?” ROMNEY: “Well at this stage, we’re going to look at what’s the best way to incentivize more efficient use of energy. …” KUDLOW: “So, as I hear it, you’re leaving the door open to possible carbon cap or carbon tax?” ROMNEY: “Oh, I’m not a man that favors taxes, and so I’m not going to -- I’m not going to make a statement of that nature. But I can tell you that, you know, I don’t close off inquiry and discussion on a lot of topics and I’m willing to talk to people about their perspectives, but taxes and gas taxes are not something that I’d normally be inclined to.”(CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company,” 2/7/07)

Regarding this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfiz9WaU0b8

 

[idiom]

If you are doing up slim jims, seed the idea that the democrats are totally unprepared to campaign against Ron Paul and that a late switch would leave them in a shambles.

 

[sailingaway]

At the time when he stated that in debate, there were two schools of thought. In one group were people who believed the NDAA provided for the indefinite detention of Americans. In another group were people who believed the last minute amendment that passed (not the one which would have striken the bad provisions and subsequently failed) offered protection to US citizens. If Romney was informed prior to debate that the indefinite detention claims were simply a misunderstanding of the law, then it makes sense why he might support the bill as he stated in debate.

Upon further review, it became apparent that the issue was not the introduction of indefinite detention in last year's bill, but rather that the NDAA of 2011 clarified another law from several years earlier. In that light, the last minute amendment does not provide the protections people originally believed it did, which makes me wonder if Romney would still make his statement in support of the bill.

Unfortunately he can't approach the issue at this point or he will be labeled a flip-flopper, even if the wording of the question in last year's debate resulted in an answer interpreted to support something he never did.

actually, the problem was that there were two sections providing for indefinite detention from US soil without trial, and only one was amended to not apply to citizens.