Romney Scolds Reporter: ‘Aren’t There Issues of Significance You Want to Talk About?’

Mitt Romney would rather not rehash his position on gay marriage. Or rehash his stance on, well, hash.

As Obama was coming out with a new position on gay marriage Wednesday, Romney was inundated with questions about the same topic. In fact, a local Colorado TV reporter included a line of questioning on the topic during a one-on-one interview with the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. But that wasn’t all, the reporter also wanted to know about Romney’s stance on legalized marijuana. At one point during an interview with a local Colorado TV station, Romney had enough.

“Aren‘t there issues of significance that you’d like to talk about?” Romney snipped. “The economy? The growth of jobs? The need to put people back to work? The challenges of Iran?”

By the way, there are those who have suggested that Obama’s gay marriage announcement — and the “mistake” by Joe Biden in introducing the topic on Sunday — was partially motivated by the desire to shift the narrative from the topics of jobs and the economy. And if yesterday was any example, it worked.

(H/T: HuffPo)

Comments (155)

1 2 3
  • shrillsoprano
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:35am

    What Romney said does not constitute “scolding” in my mind. Use of that word in this context is an example of what I see as a malfunction in journalistic standards. “scolding” is an evaluation, not a factual term. Journalism excludes all evaluation terminology — unless it’s muckraking instead of journalism.

    Report Post »  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:07pm

      It Does not matter what Odumbo or his Republican version – Romney, thinks about Gay marriage.

      It is protected under the Constitution. End of Debate !!!!!

      Report Post » ProbIemSoIver  
    • fastfacts1
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:07pm

      I think it is laughable that in the same interview that Obama flip-flopped on gay marriage again, he called Romney an Etcha-Sketch for being right on making GM go through bankruptcy. Obama is such a hypocrite. Here is the clip: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2012/may/obama_romney_etcha.html

      Report Post »  
    • MONICNE
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:07pm

      It is so interesting to see some criticize Governor Romney for being rude (to a reporter)! At least his security didn’t rough the reporter up, as some candidates have done.

      Governor Romney is a serious man, has worked very hard to attain his nomination stances and if asked reasonable questions he gives substantive answers to get serious points across. But if the dumb reporters do not play along, then nothing meaningful will be recorded. What a waste.

      These reporters always go for the “passing fad of the moment” and they are all “newsy” all the time! It’s kind of like watching the fish in an aquarium following the beam of a laser pointer.

      Anyway it looks like he will be the eventual Candidate, so we might as well; “GO Romney/West 2012″

      TEA

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • MittensKittens
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:23pm

      PROBIEMSOIVER protected under the constitution…really, where?

      Report Post » MittensKittens  
    • ccfonten
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:49pm

      @probiem: NO it is NOT protected under the Constitution. I don’t know which one you are reading, but my copy has NO such protection, nor does it discuss homosexual “marriage” in any part.
      YOU ARE DELUSIONAL! and a LIAR.

      Report Post » ccfonten  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:50pm

      MOREACNE/SLEAZY HIPPO…you mean asked loaded questions don’t you champ?

      Nah…it‘s not the enemedia’s attempt to distract from Obama’s abysmal record…homosexual marriage is a very important and pressing issue on the minds of everyone in the country right now.

      Certainly the nation has lost a lot of sleep worrying about homosexuals getting married. And it’s about time the media pressed the candidates on this most important issue conerning the entire country.

      Why concern yourself with an economy moving at a snail’s pace. Chronic unemployment. Home values dropping. Foreclosures…its‘ homosexual marriage that’s paramount right now and this incisive reporter just wanted to get Romney to address the pressing issue.

      It’s only a “reasonable” question to lefty trolls like you and their talking point issuing keepers.

      In fact it’s so important I believe you should log in as your other screennames to back yourself up here.

      Report Post »  
    • SenorStrange
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:53pm

      It got you to watch the video didn’t it? It served it’s purpose.

      Report Post »  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:57pm

      @MittensKittens

      Both under the 1st, 4th, 6th and 9th Amendments.

      Article 1 – A Homosexual lifestyle could be considered a religion.

      Article 4 – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects….
      That would mean what 2 people do, is NONE of YOUR BUSINESS, UNLESS they violate your Constitutional Rights.

      Article 6 – In all criminal Prosecutions…

      Like I previously stated, Unless a gay has violated anothers inherent rights, there is NO CRIME !!!!

      Article 6 claims that the accused shall be able to obtain witnesses in their favor, That totally Contradicts a Group of Bureaucrats being able to pass a law that Homosexual Marriage is a crime !!!

      That means any law created, that outlaws what the constitution states is your right, is null and void !!!

      Article 9 – The Enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to DENY or DISPARAGE others retained by the people.

      That means They can only vote to enhance our rights and freedoms and not vote to restrict or abate them !!!

      Look at the video I posted. Then you will understand.

      Can you sue a Gay married couple and PROVE they Violtaed your Rights ????
      If not, Sit down and shut up !!!!!

      ProbIemSoIver  
    • shiftingcargo
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:02pm

      PROBIEMSOIVER. Protected under the Constitution? Walk into a federal court hourse and ask for a marriage license. They can’t give you one. Walk into a federal court to file your dissolution of marriage petition. They will not accept it. WAlk into a federal court and tell them you want your child support payments to go down. Can’t do it. Marriage, divorce, etc. come under state law. Feds do not get involved.

      Report Post »  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:04pm

      Here, Idiots !!!!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RewUP-Fdhqk

      Under Constitutional Common Law there is something called Cause of action.

      If there are no Injured Parties or Property, A violation of their Rights, a breach of contract or redress,
      THERE IS NO CRIME !!!!!!

      That means Whoever Voted that Gay marriage is against the law, did so in 100% Violation of the Constitution !!!!!

      I would love to see you as a plaintiff, try ans sue a married gay couple.
      What is your Remedy and Recourse ???
      You Have NONE !!!!

      ProbIemSoIver  
    • MONICNE
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:09pm

      There are more than just election issues to discuss; we should be asking Governor Romney about a human rights issue that affects US immigration.

      For example, why would a natural born Aussie leave the perfectly free country of Australia, just to be a cranky wanker in Los Angeles? We are not saying their Queen is awful, but why would someone be so disloyal to their birth heritage?

      Certainly Mr. Romney could answer what the attraction is. Do they come here seeking a kind of lifestyle asylum because of the extreme hate in Australia for homosexuals? Are they seeking a mate they otherwise cannot have?

      Maybe they think the USA is just more hateful of Muslim citizens than their home country? They might just want to come here to more freely discriminate.

      What do you think, Blazers?

      OMG2012

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:12pm

      @CCFONTEN

      Did you watch the video and learn something ???

      You are a clown bereft of any ratiocination, promulgating your nescience ad nauseam.

      ProbIemSoIver  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:19pm

      A Marriage license is a joke. There is Something called Common law marriage.
      Why would a person go ask for permission (Permit/License) to be free ???
      Because you all have been Brainwashed !!!!
      Is it because Gays want to be “entitled” to the Same Tax Benefits ???
      WAKE UP !!!!
      If we didn’t have an illegal TAX, a 16th amendment never ratified, This would not be an issue !!!!
      Mandating that your earnings and possessions are subject to be garnered and distributed to others, is a Direct Violation of the 4th Amendment !!!!!

      ProbIemSoIver  
    • mcsledge
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:45pm

      ProbIemSoIver – Is that why 30 states have laws that prohibit same sex marriage? Protected by the Constitution? Maybe you should read the Constitution!

      Report Post » mcsledge  
    • mcsledge
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:47pm

      ProbIemSoIver – Homosexuality a religion? Sanity is not your forte.

      Report Post » mcsledge  
    • P8riot
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:48pm

      @PROBIEMSOIVER –

      I’m sorry, but your analysis of Constitutional Law is completely incorrect.

      First, you said – “I would love to see you as a plaintiff, try ans [sic] sue a married gay couple. What is your Remedy and Recourse ??? You Have NONE !!!!”

      Thus, your primary legal theory seems to be that one could not “sue” a married gay couple for being married. In case you’re interested, what you‘re actually trying to say is that we wouldn’t have what’s called – “standing.”

      However, you are arguing your case completely and 100% backwards. Please show me even one case where anyone has tried to “sue” a gay couple for being married. There are none because, again, you’re arguing this backwards.

      Traditional marriage has been between a man and a woman. Thus, gay couples have historically been restricted from legal marriage. Therefore, it is the gay couples who bear the burden to challenge the constitutionality of such action (thus now you see why you have argued this backwards, you have placed the burden on the wrong party).

      Constitutional Law 101 continued:

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • jzs
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:49pm

      Romney just can’t answer the tough questions.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • mcsledge
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:52pm

      That means Whoever Voted that Gay marriage is against the law, did so in 100% Violation of the Constitution !!!!!

      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      It’s called the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights and it is very Constitutional.

      Report Post » mcsledge  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:53pm

      MOREACNE/SLEAZY HIPPO…you actually posted the same post you tried to bait me with yesterday? Seriously? It failed yesterday did you think it would work today?
      Wow…you really have become desperate. I‘m glad I’m getting under your skin like this.

      “human rights issues”…oh those poor homosexuals.

      Here’s a violin to play mournfully behind your post MOREACNE/SLEAZY HIPPO. Perhaps you can post a picture of some poor homosexual at an interior decorating or marketing firm, destitute and forlorn because of the “human rights” he or she’s been denied. Oh the humanity….

      Report Post »  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:59pm

      @mcsledge

      Yes, 30 States have Violated the Constitution.

      Oh, So if 30 states ruled against the Constitution, then It must be legitimate. Not to be Questioned.

      Maybe you should read the Constitution and quit relying on what 30 states do, to determine your fate.

      Instead of you reading the Constituiton, which requires you to be able to understand law and contracts, which I have done, you can let Arron Russo edify you in 3 minutes.

      Just click on the link I posted above.

      Report Post » ProbIemSoIver  
    • mcsledge
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:00pm

      ProbIemSoIver – You do realize that an amendment to the Constitution can and has overriden previous amendments to the Constitution. Although I believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to be inspired of God, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution is as valid as the 1st Amendment.

      Thankfully, it is not that easy to get a new amendment added.

      By the way, States created the Federal government, not the other way around. States defined what authority the Federal government would have, not the other way around. States defined what rights the States would not be entitled to, not the other way around. The States then formed the Union.

      Report Post » mcsledge  
    • P8riot
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:08pm

      continued:

      Now, gay rights groups with the best attorneys they can hire usually bring a constitutional challenge to laws restricting gay marriage based on the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection). Now to give a bit of background, there are different levels of scrutiny that a law will be given based on certain criteria. The highest being “strict scrutiny” (very hard to pass muster) and the lowest being the “rational relationship” test (fairly easy to pass muster).

      The Supreme Court stated that:

      “If a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, Supreme Court will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996).

      Homosexuals are not part of a Suspect Class and thus, the rational relationship test applies. So, long story short, when a law simply states that marriage can only be valid between a man and a woman – that law gives equal protection to both men and women to marry – and does not target gay couples (i.e. a gay man has equal rights to marry a woman as a straight man does).

      Now you see why Prop 8, etc. are worded the way they are (focusing on defining marriage rather than restricting marriage).

      continued:

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • P8riot
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:17pm

      continued:

      Thus, laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Further, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly found that gays are not part of a suspect class and these laws will not receive “strict scrutiny” as you seem to hope.

      Finally, you stated: “There is Something called Common law marriage.” – well, that’s not the case here in Arizona. Common Law Marriage is accepted in some states and rejected in others. Thus, your argument once again fails.

      In summary, your entire argument places the burden on the wrong party and thus is faulty. Next time try reading some case law instead of watching a “youtube” video… I can’t stand it when people try to cite “youtube” as their source of knowledge.

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • P8riot
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:27pm

      @PROBIEMSOIVER –

      I’m a bit confused, you posted a link to youtube that has some guy explaining the difference between a democracy and a republic – how does that validate your opinion that people are suing gay couples for being married???

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:28pm

      @P8RIOT

      Yes, I made a typo. People that are obsessed with semantics are mental midgets.

      You Said “My Primary Legal theory”. I believe what you meant to say was, “Major Premise” – The applicable rule of law.

      My analogy works both ways.

      A married Couple can marry and conduct their life as such, without any permission and would be subject to a State Statutory Infraction if they attempted to collect benefits that are due a married couple. Then they would be defendents vs. the state and could counter claim or counter sue.
      This would put them in the position of Plaintiff and the State (A PRIVATE corporation) would have to
      prove “standing”.

      A Married Couple can be sued. Just because it has not been done yet, does not mean it is not possible.

      For sake of Argument let’s exchange the term lawsuit with “Charges”.

      “I would love to see THE STATE CORPORATION as a plaintiff, try and PRESS CHARGES vs. a married gay couple. I will defend the Married Couple. You are obviously an attorney. Would you care to act as prosecutor vs. My Clients ????

      I Would love it.

      First and foremost. There is no cause of Action. (i.e) “standing”.
      Secondly, My clients would not accept a trial under statutory jurisdiction and would be tried in a civil court under common law jurisdiction with a trial by jury only.

      We will discuss Contractual Obligations to any Statutory Arguements, including Unconscionable Contract.

      Report Post » ProbIemSoIver  
    • P8riot
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:50pm

      @problemsolver –

      First, when I added “[sic]” to your quotation, I was simply ensuring that the reader knew that it was a direct quote and the grammatical error was not mine – don’t worry, I wasn’t trying to embarrass you. All of us make typos – no big deal.

      Now, on to the substance of your argument. You said:

      “A married Couple can marry and conduct their life as such, without any permission and would be subject to a State Statutory Infraction if they attempted to collect benefits that are due a married couple. Then they would be defendents vs. the state and could counter claim or counter sue.
      This would put them in the position of Plaintiff and the State (A PRIVATE corporation) would have to
      prove “standing”.”

      First, you are basing your statement on the premise that the gay couple is married. If they are legally married in a state that allows such, then the rest of the argument is moot, since they would not be breaking any laws “if they attempted to collect benefits that are due a married couple.”

      Thus, I presume that you are saying they ‘consider’ themselves married but are not in fact legally married and thereafter “attempted to collect benefits that are due a married couple.” If this is the case, then they would be “charged” with, inter alia, fraud, etc. They would NOT be “charged” for considering themselves married (as there is no such crime).

      BTW – when one makes a counterclaim, they become the counterclaimant, not a plaintiff.

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:51pm

      I will make it very simple for you P8RIOT.

      The 4th Amedment says it’s NONE of your Business what other people do.

      Unless they have violated your Rights, you have “NO STANDING”.

      The Video I posted, articulates this brilliantly and succinctly.

      The ABA was created by the Global Elitists and are as corrupt as any of their sister agencies.

      They have brought forth Uniform Commercial Code in 1938, which is of maritime statutory jurisdiction, and are slowly abbrogating our Constitutional Common law.

      Here people, check this out:
      Under the doctrine of Parens Patriae, “Government As Parent”, as a result of the manipulated bankruptcy of the United States, ALL the assets of the American people, their person, and of our country itself are held by the Depository Trust Corporation, secured by UCC Commercial Liens, which are then monetized as “debt money” by the Federal Reserve. Under the umbrella of the Depository Trust Corporation lies the CEDE Corporation, the Federal Reserve Corporation, the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, the legal arm of the banking interests, and the Internal Revenue Service, the system’s collection agency.
      The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938. The American Bar Association is controlled by the Lawyer’s guild of Great Britain.

      http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html

      Report Post » ProbIemSoIver  
    • P8riot
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:58pm

      continued:

      “A married Couple can marry and conduct their life as such, without any permission and would be subject to a State Statutory Infraction if they attempted to collect benefits that are due a married couple. Then they would be defendents vs. the state and could counter claim or counter sue.
      This would put them in the position of Plaintiff and the State (A PRIVATE corporation) would have to
      prove “standing”.”

      Again, the plaintiff/counterclaimant has the burden of showing “standing.”

      Further, you‘re not actually implying that the State does not have standing to bring charges on it’s own laws are you? The government absolutely has standing to enfoce its own laws.

      Finally, Standing is NOT the same thing as “a cause of action” – one must first have standing to bring a cause of action. Standing is the right to be heard in court, a cause of action is your actual case.

      BTW – these are not semantics – they are quite literally terms of art that have meaning.

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • MONICNE
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:01pm

      Nope. Worked each time, LOL!

      You know, misery loves company, AntiAmericanK. Who do you love?

      GKY TEA

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:11pm

      @P8Riot. I will admit that when I get excited, I make mistakes.
      I claimed that the Plaintiff needed Remedy and Recourse when it is the Defendent that exercises that
      option.
      As an attorney, Admit that I know my $#it as a non-attorney, and have a lot of valid points.

      You know that bottom line is the state has no leg to stand on other than an Unconstitutional Statutory law that can be beat, due to no contractual obligation signed or acknowledged by the defendents.
      Is the State going to claim that a drivers license, Deed of title or Birth certificate was a contract that bound them to State Statutes? That arguement can be abated due to unconscionable contract.
      Bottom line is that if the state has no Cause of Action, They have no “standing”.

      The Left has to respect the rights freedom to bear arms, just as the Right has to respect gay people’s right to marry.
      Whether they are “entitled” to benefits is another issue.
      I believe no Entity is “entitled” to anything !!!!!

      Report Post » ProbIemSoIver  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:28pm

      @P8RIOT

      I am glad I have finally had the opportunity to debate a lawyer.

      I just began to dwelve into law and actually enjoy being edified, since I am far from being ready to pass the bar exam.

      Aside from some trivial errors I have made, You know I have “Standing”. lol.

      How about an honest assessment from an attorney (you), regarding my knowledge about law, only studying (no School) 8 months or so.

      I appreciate your information, and I am taking notes on some things. (Picking your Brain, Thx)

      I still believe my points are valid and are Ultimate facts :p

      Report Post » ProbIemSoIver  
    • P8riot
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:30pm

      @problemsolver –

      Oh my goodness, please stop, its becoming painful.

      “The 4th Amedment says it’s NONE of your Business what other people do.”

      Actually the 4th Amendment protects our “persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and then states that probable cause must be present to issue a warrant. This is a criminal procedure topic and it only applies to GOVERNMENTAL searches and seizures. If a private citizen goes in your house and searches it, its called trespass.

      You really need to understand that no one and no government ever has or ever will “sue” or even bring “charges” against a gay couple for considering themselves married. If the state has a law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, they simply will not issue a marriage license to that couple. This is very simple.

      I believe that you are sincere in your passion for the Constitution. Thus, it is important that you understand it a little better. Hillsdale College offers free constitution classes online. Don’t worry, I don’t think these classes are ABA accredited. :)

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • P8riot
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:51pm

      @PROBIEMSOIVER

      I would say my favorite thing about your argument was that you obviously read the constitution – looking for arguments. It was refreshing to see some new perspectives.

      You did a great job on not backing down as well! :) You really will make a great lawyer. My only advise would be to start reading some case law on topics you’re interested in. I would recommend starting at http://scholar.google.com/. They have case law, and legal articles explaining the law in plain english.

      I apologize if I came down too hard on you. For a minute, I thought you too were a lawyer! :)

      I recommend law school to anyone who loves the Constitution and the rule of law. Law school was the first time I actually enjoyed college – I did my undergrad just to get through it :) You’re definitely on the right track.

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:52pm

      MOREACNE/SLEAZY HIPPO…and you’re very believable.
      So let’s go back to the question of your using multiple screennames here at the Blaze.
      Do you have the courage to tell me why you need so many personas at the Blaze? I mean..surely a self-approving and highly successful “progressive” (as your MOREACNE persona has bleated in the past) who holds him/herself far above conservatives shouldn’t need to use so many online names if the argument is on your side? Surely there’s some “clever” reason why you felt it necessary to post under so many different names?
      Were you told by your keepers it was a good thing to do? Or is it some kind of elitist prank to amuse yourself with? You have a little snicker to yourself at how those “dumb” conservatives respond to all your different online personas when it’s actually just you all along?
      In any case you’ve been caught. You can’t even post anymore without someone on the boards referring to you as your many screennames. Whatever the motivation was, its’ been neutralized. So why don’t you just tell me why you needed to do it? Is it really that difficult for you to admit the truth? You bleated about truth ealier but when it comes to admitting it you balk, dance, resist, distract, deflect, pirouette..anything but admit the truth.
      Why all the screennames MOREACNE?
      Prediction: MORACNE will try to impose his/her own questions in an attempt to distract from having to answer this. Or deny and deflect- anything

      Report Post »  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:14pm

      @P8RIOT

      Awesome.

      “For a minute, I thought you too were a lawyer! :)” – brought a smile to my face. thx.

      I admit I am a newbie :p

      I will check out Hillsdale, Thx.

      Peace out, brother :)

      Report Post » ProbIemSoIver  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:34pm

      @P8RIOT

      In all of my excitement, I forgot to answer your questions directly.

      I will take this opportunity to do so.

      My initial statements was refering to the gay couple being the defendent vs. the state for a criminal, civil or statutory crime or infraction or an individual pursuing redress for a personal grievance.

      My initial point was that a gay married couple (Not registered w/ the state corporation) is not “illegal”.
      You confirmed that by stating “They would NOT be “charged” for considering themselves married (as there is no such crime).”

      The video was to show that any legislative statutory law or any case law decision violating a person’s inherent constitutional rights are to be abated and no longer recognized as “the law of the land”

      Sorry I misunderstood [sic]

      (*note to self – look up: sic, strict scrutiny, rational relationship, suspect class, inter alia, Romer vs. Evans, lol :p thx )

      Yes, I meant unlicensed marriage.

      I knew counterclaimant was not a plaintiff, I was not clear. Was worded wrong.

      I do claim that the state has no standing regarding statutory or case est. laws that violate my constitutional rights.

      I Thought “Cause of Action” meant both:

      1) Injury of person or property, a violation of a person’s rights and/or redress.

      2) Major Premise, Minor premise and conclusion.

      I like that “Terms of Art” reference.

      I enjoyed the debate.

      You definately edified me :)

      Report Post » ProbIemSoIver  
    • MSBrewer
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 9:33pm

      ProbiemSovier,

      You’re wrong. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision that gives power to the federal government to interject itself into the personal lives of it’s citizens. So, either affirming or denying gay marriage the federal government would be outside of it’s powers as enumerated in the constitution. Also, if you have read any of the writings of the founding fathers you would clearly see that, though they did not envision a moral and virtuous people contending with the issue of gay marriage, they did write much about the federal government‘s involvement in the personal lives of it’s citizens.

      As, marriage would be a personal contract, the founders have clearly written along these lines that personal contracts should remain between persons and not be put into the strata of governmental authority. In other words let the states handle that.

      Report Post »  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 9:46am

      While these dumba55 liberals are deperately search for a ***** in Romney’s armor much like the character in the fairy tale thier emperor is naked.

      Report Post »  
  • marybethelizabeth
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:33am

    What an empty suit.

    Anyone but Romney.

    He has prepared answers on 3 topics and can not speak on anything else
    He should rent a teleprompter from the Presidents campaign.

    Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
    • Amica
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:40am

      Oh, go away.

      Report Post » Amica  
    • MAULEMALL
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:43am

      don’t you have a 3 year old to breast feed??

      Report Post » MAULEMALL  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:43am

      I’m sorry MARYELIZABETH..perhaps he should have said he’s 1/32 cherokee and then taken the bait of the reporter?
      He didn‘t take the bait and now you’re upset? Come on MARY..that‘s what this gambit of Obama’s was all about..to distract from his abysmal record and when Romney didn’t play along you got all snippy.
      I loved that quip of yours by the way..“anyone but Romney” as if a blind lefty git like you would ever vote for a GOP candidate.

      Report Post »  
    • Blazebanned
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:43am

      @marybethencinomoncine aka enconom.
      So repeating phrases that have been used to describe odumbass to describe Romney is the best you can come up with? Media matters payes you way to much, f-n idiot pos.

      Drago.

      Report Post »  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:44am

      I’m a Paul supporter to the bone, and I agree, Romney’s an empty suit… But he’s RIGHT here. The economy is THE issue, and everything the Obama administration, and his lapdog media, are doing is a distraction from the fact that his Marxist Central Planning isn’t working.

      Not that Willard’s version of Marxists Central Planning will work, either.

      Report Post »  
    • brezzeone
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:48am

      MaryBeth,
      You are not very smart are you ?

      Report Post »  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:50am

      Romney is an Establishment Politician. A Global Elite Minion.
      He will do nothing to Restore America and he will not follow the Constitution !!!

      Check these out !!!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaIJSICjPos

      ProbIemSoIver  
    • Nasado
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:54am

      So I suppose if the economy does fail and people remain unemployed then as long as they can smoke pot and gays can get married then it will all be ok. Please tell me whn was the last time Obama sat down and actually talked about the economy (the #1 issue for Americans) and how he plans to help it? All he is doing now in shifting the focus from one meaningless point to another.

      Report Post »  
    • pbrenda51
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:56am

      Obviosly a troll……you really should get out of mommys basement more often to see the light and the truth

      Report Post »  
    • lbyrd26
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:03pm

      As it happens, he only needs answers for those 3 topics. Those 3 topics are the important ones and if he gets elected, we all can go back to work, or would you rather the status quo, as it is right now?

      Report Post »  
    • altannt
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:04pm

      Yes please go away go back to the left sites.

      Report Post »  
    • ProbIemSoIver
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:10pm

      @Marybethelizebeth

      Send this video to your liberal friends and educate them.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RewUP-Fdhqk

      Report Post » ProbIemSoIver  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:27pm

      Yes because gay marriage is sooooo much more important than ever expanding liberal progressive government that’s placed us 16 trillion in debt,liberal trade policies and unionization that have destroyed the ability for American workers to compete, 16% uneployment rates, a president that attacked Bushs spending and federal employee growth that has hired 3 times as many new federal employees that are tax payer liablities,as well as increased the debt at almost three times the rate of THE MAN HE ATTACKED,the NDAA BILL,an AG that is using the DOJ as his personal social justice and judial activism unit not only attack the 10th amendment rights of states,but also causing the deaths of mexican and Americans in an attempt to farther regulate that which the Constitution claims shall not be INFRINGED,and EPA DEPARTMENT that has devistated people civil rights,and used unconstitutional powers to tax citizens and businesses without Congressional approval..
      The couple that with the FACT that marriage is a state issue and not a federal one….
      YEAH THAT’S SO IMPORTANT

      Report Post »  
    • AmazingGrace8
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:13pm

      The 3 topics of the “empty-heads” 1) I Want 2) I Want 3) I Want

      The 3 topics of the “Adult-Romney” 1) 15 + Trillion in debt & rising 2) Millions of American Citizens unemployed/staggering rise in the foodstamp & Disablity Social Security programs 3) Apply “free-market-principles” = remove thousands of “smothering-restrictions” on ambitious Americans who want to hire more people or create businesses to HIRE the millions of citizens who are unemployed.
      The age of “I Want” will be over Nov 2K12 when the adults come home and start cleaning up the house the “empty-heads” have trashed for 3.5 to 4 yrs..

      Report Post »  
    • Machtyn
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 1:29pm

      Interesting. Perhaps you missed the part where Romney DID answer the questions. But he got tired of the questioning and pondered when the interviewer would get to the real topics that citizens are really concerned about.

      We have millions of under- and un-employed. They’re not worried about homosexual activity and smoking a joint more than finding a job and providing for their family. If Romney were to go off half-cocked on other topics, he would not have been nominated. (We saw these same fallacies in Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, etc. and most Republicans rejected that style.) This topic will only be news for a week or two and Romney will get it shifted back on to the economy and Obama’s epicly failed Presidency.

      Report Post »  
    • marybethelizabeth
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:33pm

      What a petulant child Mr. Romney is, acting as if he’s entitled to decide what questions will be asked. Just like an entitled brat, he does not know how to display common courtesy.
      Mr. Romney has nothing of substance to say about the economy. He has no plan. He will just fix it because he says he will.

      There is more to life than making the rich richer, but after robbing the citizenry of their savings, Mr. Romney doesn’t want to tell us how much more of our quality of life he will steal.

      Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
    • marybethelizabeth
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:37pm

      You Keys are paranoia personified. This was no trap. This was not an orchestrated attempt to make Mr. Romney look stupid.

      He made his own bed. It was in Mr. Romney’s rudeness that made him look stupid.

      Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:25pm

      MARYELIZABETH…there’s something very familiar about you….I didn’t pick it up until these last couple of posts by you. I’ll be keeping an eye on you…

      Report Post »  
    • coolerheads
      Posted on May 12, 2012 at 11:11pm

      I for one am proud of Romney’s decision to stay out of the personal lives of others and focus on the only thing he really knows about- Money.

      Report Post » coolerheads  
  • SquidVetOhio
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:33am

    Seeing how EVERYWHERE this has been put on a ballot, the voters overwhelmingly vote to ban gay-marriange (including CA and WA), this is a winner for Romney. It completely takes away Romney as flip-flopper issue. I say don’t back away from it. Go after the black vote with it. Blacks are more against gay marriage than whites.

    I also believe we’ve put to bed, once and for all, the whole “Obama is a christian issue” too.

    Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:45am

      It would appear that 0bama has alienated both Christians AND blacks with one flip-flop… Interesting.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:47am

      If Romney sticks to this and doesn‘t play the enemedia’s game he’s going to both solidify his support with conservatives and impress the independents. He put it right back on the enemedia. They‘ll keep going at him and if he’s as smart as I now believe he is, he’ll throw it right back at them.
      Bravo Mitt!
      Obama went all in because he knows he’s lost the independents and some soft democrats so he has to shake every tree and kick every bush for every loose and uncommitted lefty vote in the land.

      Report Post »  
    • RedDirtTexas
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:32pm

      I am starting to warm up to Romney. Like to see someone who doesn’t let the “ gotcha ” moment happen. I like the clean tank battery backdrop and the fact that he knows we need more U.S. oil and gas production. Natural gas can free us from OPEC if we don’t hock the farm for wind and solar before its time! Investors should gravitate toward liquid natural gas technology and infrastructure while it’s hot! And the government would create some serious cash for the treasury by opening more federal lands to production. Makes too much sense for Obama.

      Report Post » RedDirtTexas  
    • justangry
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:41pm

      You do realize all those lib judges he’s appointed as governor would probably strike down any gay marriage ban, right?

      Report Post » justangry  
  • topperj
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:27am

    This is what Romney has been doing. He must throw this back into their faces and control the dialogue and get these sycophants into the real world. This is one thing Gingrich did well during the debates, but without the charm factor needed so you don’t come off as “mean spirited.” These reporterettes have to be shamed into asking about the real issues. If not, just talk about these issues anyway. Ignore their inane questions-CONTROL the dialogue.

    Report Post »  
    • G-WHIZ
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:50am

      Wonder what serious commie-regulations are being signed-away as executive-orders, hidden by these “well-planned” diversions??

      Report Post »  
    • pbrenda51
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:00pm

      Of course, we all know this is another Obummer diversion…….they wouldn’t want us to really think about the IMPORTANT things like the economy, jobs, unemployment, Marxist regime, the Muslim Brotherhood people he has working in DHS………nothing here, move along

      Report Post »  
  • Searchingforthelight
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:27am

    I suppose If you categorize the groups of activists or OWS’s and find a subject they absolutely object to, then you
    find the opposition in a candidate. Lets say peta or gay marriage, you could push the issue to the point that some people might spotlight or even spread the negative information or begin their own march thereby tying up or keeping the candidate busy. Considering the state of the economy and the lack of jobs and businesses that drive the economy with the current administration I would hope America would be more interested in hearing the rebuilding of America and how the candidates plan to put America back to work and back on track, wouldn’t you?
    How can one march for animal rights when they cannot afford to feed their own animals or for that fact their own family. There will be no money to donate to help the animals.
    When partners in any marriage have no income, who could even begin to think about the American Dream of owning their own home with a white picket fence that most American families dream of ? Without rebuilding America there is no Dream.

    Report Post »  
  • drphil69
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:26am

    Obama sets the agenda. Economy – Bush’s fault. Jobs – Bush’s fault. Case closed, lets get on to more important issues, like FREE CONTRACEPTIVES FOR ALL, FREE STERILIZATIONS FOR ALL, FREE ABORTION PILLS FOR ALL, MARRIAGE FOR GAYS, LEGALIZING DRUGS, OPEN BORDERS, AGENDA 21,…….

    The end is near. Conservatives, prepare. Liberals, we are all just right-wing nuts clinging to our God and guns, so don’t worry, don’t prepare, nothing could go wrong with Obama in charge….

    Report Post »  
  • Teabunny
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:24am

    It is a play on religious freedom…by using civil rights against the churches…a SINGLE issue is all it takes to cause friction. Gotta Love it! the media spin is controlled folks!

    Report Post » Teabunny  
  • drattastic
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:24am

    I bet this same hack reporter wouldn’t ask obama anything harder than “boxers or briefs ,Mr President ?”

    Report Post » drattastic  
  • cassandra
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:22am

    Thank You Romney , get a little Newt going in you and start bring out these stupid reporters

    Report Post »  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:32am

      Indeed, all that the leftist media is doing is to try and make the social values the campaign feature while the truth of the economic destruction and loss of freedoms under the tyranny of Obama are kept hidden. I wonder if Obama will even debate Romney during the campaign cycle?

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • IDONTTHINKSO
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:20am

    The current administration has not worried about real problems that Americans are facing from day one! Idiot obama only picks issues that he knows any real person would care less about. How to make a living is important

    Report Post »  
    • pbrenda51
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:02pm

      Why would Obummer care about the average American and their problems……he MADE the problems much worse purposefully……all to fit his Marxist agenda

      Report Post »  
  • Mandors
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:19am

    Great answer, but be more assertive. Just say “no.”

    Let Obama make this election a referendum on gay marriage. Can’t wait to see how that will work out for him.

    Report Post » Mandors  
  • AvengerK
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:17am

    Bravo Mitt Romney. He saw this coming and he‘s not going to play the enemedia’s game. The man has grown a pair.

    Report Post »  
  • lisa2994
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:15am

    Good for him! About time someone stood up to the media in this country!
    No matter how much the media and this administration doesn’t want to talk about it we all need to keep shoving back at them and making sure the real issues stay in the light!!!

    Report Post » lisa2994  
  • pecosval
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:14am

    What do you expect from Colorado? I have a lot of seasonal windsurfing Colorado friends, and they are politically ignorant

    Report Post »  
  • Detroit paperboy
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:14am

    I would vote for a dead and rotting roadside raccoon, before I would even consider voting for a Marxist, hellbent on getting everyone addicted to welfare…”.

    Report Post »  
  • Popp40
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:09am

    Really these “news” stations are jokes…..they refuse to cover real news…

    Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:08am

    Good answer Romney. Obama (and by proxy, the press) will keep throwing knuckle balls in the dirt at you. Don‘t swing and you’ll get a walk…right into the White House.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • bandi9
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:17am

      good analogy

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:19am

      Amen GONZO…Romney’s a lot smarter than I anticipated. He knows the game that the enemedia will be playing with this now that Barry’s gone all in. And he’s putting it right back on them.

      Report Post »  
  • Mark0331
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:07am

    ‘Stay on Target, Stay on Target’…Star Wars.

    Report Post » Mark0331  
  • Teabunny
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:06am

    …and Romney has nothing. perfect play…(evil, but brilliant)
    judging by the Catholics and Obamacare…what do you think happens next?

    if you have ANYTHING to repent for folks…do it now…times up!

    Report Post » Teabunny  
    • Teabunny
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:41am

      a few more months…and I have “I told you so ” rights! LOLOL ( i knew this would be an issue…a year ago I knew it! one issue is all it takes to lose! and middle America is for getting out of American bedrooms. Not your business who is sinning, he who is without..cast the first stone! you can’t win this one!)

      Report Post » Teabunny  
  • jungle J
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:06am

    a loser is someone holding a microphone with a cameraman behind hi.

    Report Post »  
  • CatB
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:06am

    I agree .. don’t let Obama set the agenda .. when they ask about gay marriage .. go into .. jobs, the economy, etc .. the failure that IS OBAMA!

    Report Post »  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:23am

      No he needs to cut the argument off at the knees. By simply stating that he agrees with Obama on the FACT that gay marriage is a state issue,and as president he would no more in control of the definition of marriage than he’ld have over the ocean tide.

      Report Post »  
  • Madmilo
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:03am

    Add your comments

    Report Post » Madmilo  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:15am

      Romney should tell the reporter the fact that his view on gay marriage is irrelevent just like obama said marriage is a state issue not a federal issue. And as President he would have no more authority
      stop gay marriage as he would have to control the tide in the ocean….Case closed .
      Now let’s talk about the important issue HE WILL BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH LIKE THE 16 TRILLION IN DEBT THAT OBAMA WANTS TO EXPAND EVEN FARTHER.

      Report Post »  
    • Naps
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:00pm

      Maybe theu reporter should have asked important questions like “Why are all ur top donations fromBig Bailed out Banks”? And “Since you won so many primaries,why can’t your supporters show up to become delegates at state conventions”?
      Flip Flops belong on your feet,not in the oval office!
      Ron Paul 2012

      Report Post »  
  • hillplus
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:02am

    GO MITT!!! It’s the economy, stupid!

    Report Post »  
    • Naps
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:03pm

      Romney/Goldman Sachs 2012
      Go Mitt for Brains!

      Report Post »  
  • On The Bayou
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:01am

    I`d vote for Peter Pan if he ran against Obama

    Report Post » On The Bayou  
    • afishfarted
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:16am

      and folks voted for a convicted embezzeler. I sorta like the idea of having a prez in jail BEFORE he takes the oath

      Report Post »  
    • Teabunny
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:35am

      Peter pan was busy…will you settle for Richie Rich? (ps thats the next wave of attack)

      Report Post » Teabunny  
    • On The Bayou
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:59am

      Buggs Bunny

      Report Post » On The Bayou  
  • justangry
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:00am

    Shut up Romney you‘ve been given a pass on Civil Liberties and that’s a significant issue I’d like to here you discuss. Tell us why you hate the Bill of Rights.

    Report Post » justangry  
    • justangry
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:12am

      *hear

      Report Post » justangry  
    • CapitalistUno
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:13am

      Hear*

      Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:14am

      Yes, you truly are a Conservative. LIAR

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • AmericanStrega
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:14am

      Have you “asked” Obama the same thing?

      Report Post »  
    • marvlus
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:15am

      Shut up Justangry. You need to take a chill pill,

      Report Post »  
    • PJL
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:17am

      Get a Life!

      Report Post » PJL  
    • justangry
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:22am

      @American… I’m not a party lacky. All politicians should be accountable for what they’re doing to us. So yes, I’ve hammered Obama as much as I have any other slimy politician who thinks they can decide to take away my rights.

      @13th, So loving the Bill of Rights isn’t conservative in your mind? Seems pretty progressive to me. Keep calling me names though. It makes you look childish.

      Report Post » justangry  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:30am

      It isn’t Romney that is trying to silence free speech,take away the 2cd amendment,attacking the 4TH,5TH,6TH,AND 10TH. ….aND IT WAS rOMNEY THAT SIGNEDE THE NDAA BILL. REMOVING ALL THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ANYONE THEY DEAM A THREAT…..that was OBAMA

      Report Post »  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:50am

      Point of fact; Romny supports NDAA, as well as SOPA and CISPA.

      Romney = Obama = Bush

      Only Ron Paul offers you true freedom.

      Report Post »  
    • justangry
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:10pm

      @John, Yes Obama signed those bills. Who sent them to him? Republican congress? Check into Romney’s positions deeper, he supports all those bills as well. The only thing the D‘s and R’s can come together on is screwing us. He was in charge of Massachusetts’ tough gun laws and he “supports them”. You can find videos of Romney’s support for the others all over the web. He also defended them in the debates.

      Report Post » justangry  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love