Neither Romney nor Ryan give a shit about overturning Roe v. Wade. The fact they can't overturn Roe v. Wade means they can campaign with a pro-life agenda and never actually have to live up to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Printable View
Neither Romney nor Ryan give a shit about overturning Roe v. Wade. The fact they can't overturn Roe v. Wade means they can campaign with a pro-life agenda and never actually have to live up to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Oh, wow. No, just no. For most people in this country, abortion is an issue that has been settled for quite some time. On the other hand, the GOP panders to a segment of society that wants desperately to overturn it and they apparently have gotten in a habbit of saying really stupid shit while doing this pandering.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
The GOP not being able to articulate its own damn message well is not the Democrats doing. The GOP has no one to blame but themselves for not being able to walk without tripping over their own feet.
Could happen I suppose, but I'm not convinced it's very likely. And I think the second point Ryan made was that he's not the guy at the top of the ticket making the decisions if the first big domino falls.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
He is if anything happens to Romney.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Ate you arguing that Ryan's policy stances are irrelevant to the 2012 election?
http://www.rumproast.com/images/uplo...e-Bachmann.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by elpimpo3cc
Not at all. Everyone should know the stances of both VP candidates on all issues and weigh them in their decision. I don't personally agree with Ryan, but I don't put much weight on this stance because there are several unlikely events that must occur for it to make a legislative impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
But that's just me.
Which would be bullshit. Someone running for the legislature who says their morals won't affect their judgement is already either an idiot or a liar. Take your pick.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
:lmao since GOP VP candidates are repeatedly shitty, Republicans have now developed the crutch that, "Whoever the VP is doesn't matter!"
Anyone who doesn't think Cheney's views had significant legislative impact from 2000-2008 is blind. That example alone proves that the VP's views are pretty important.
Historically the VP doesn't matter. You just cited the lone exception in recent history. Congratulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE
I would also disagree with Ryan being a shitty pick.
So you admit the last Republican Vice President had significant influence. Glad we're clear there.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Right, I'm sure that's why you're trying to argue he'll have minimal impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Cheney's party affiliation has nothing to do with the dynamic that led to his larger than normal influence on administration policies. He was the one example of either party to exert that type of influence in the history of the office. So, why would I expect Ryan to be as influential when historically it doesn't bear out?Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE
Ryan is a smart pick. He's intelligent and articulate. He has a plan that, though criticized, will continue framing the argument of the president's (and democrats in congress) utter lack of one.Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE
The economy and fiscal policy are the strengths of this ticket and those will be the two issues that decide this election; one way or the other.
Again, Ryan was a smart pick.
What do you think did lead to his exertion of larger than normal influence?Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Be specific.
Unless you include all the examples where the vice president ended up being president.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Why does his plan matter if he doesn't have legislative influence?Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
You're talking out of both ends of your mouth.
How can Ryan give the ticket strengths if he won't have any influence?Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
I find it odd you're trying to minimize the influence such a "smart pick" is gonna have.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
This issue is waaaaaay more important than the economy --
Not nearly as important as light bulbs. Thats for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE
No wonder Republicans don't want to talk about their platform
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-productio...peg?1346084665
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...=Google+Reader
ok you'll probably never see me do this again...but it's important for right wingers to understand that their beliefs on abortion in the event of incest and rape is complete and utter BS..Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE
Case in point: The Bible example of David and Bathsheba...For those who don't know it goes something like this...David was the King if Israel. Uriah was a soldier with a fine ass wife. David wanted this soldiers wife and went after her...He eventually busted a nut in her and she got pregnant. To cover it up he then had her husband put on the front line of a war so that he be killed and no one would ever know about but the lord then condemned that child to die...the same concept applies to rape...it's really pretty simple...
Here's the Biblical context:
http://bible.org/seriespage/death-da...samuel-1214-31Quote:
David gets up from his bed about the time his soldiers (and others) usually go to bed. As he is strolling on the roof of his palace, David happens to see something that was not meant to be seen -- a young woman cleansing herself, most likely a ceremonial cleansing ceremony done in keeping with the law. The woman is beautiful, and David decides that he wants her. He sends messengers to find out who she is. Their answer -- that she was Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite -- should have ended the matter, but David had no intention of being deprived of anything he wanted. He sent for the woman and lay with her.
For David, it was all over after that one night of self-indulgence. He did not want another wife; he did not even appear to want an affair, just a night of pleasure. But God had other plans. Bathsheba conceived and eventually sent word to David that she was pregnant. When David's efforts to deceive Uriah (and the people) into thinking Uriah had fathered this child, he had Uriah killed in battle with the help of Joab. After she had mourned for her husband, David brought Bathsheba into his home, taking her as his wife. Now at last, David hoped, it was over.
This thing which David had done displeased God, however, and God would give David no rest or peace until he had come to see his sin for what it was and repented of it. After some period of distress (see Psalm 32:3-4), God sent Nathan to David with a story, a story which deeply upset David. David was furious. He insisted that the rich man who stole the poor man's pet lamb deserved to die! Nathan then stopped David in his tracks with the words, “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12:7). As David heard Nathan's recital of his sin, he broke, declaring to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord” (2 Samuel 12:13).
Nathan's response to David's confession was both comforting and disturbing. Although he deserved to die for his sins, David would not die because God had taken away his sin (12:13). What a relief these words must have been. But what followed would pierce David through: the son his sin had produced would die.
Ryan folds his principles to fake a show of unity
Following Akin Controversy, Romney Shifts Position On Abortion
"After coming out against abortion rights in 2005, Romney has argued that abortion should only be limited to rape, incest, or life of the mother — a position his running mate Paul Ryan echoed as recently as this week. Here is how Romney has previously described his beliefs:
– “I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.” [Boston Globe, 7/26/2005]
– “I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.” [National Review, June 18, 2011]
– “QUESTION: Is there any abortion you would — you would accept? ROMNEY: Yes in — in the case of rape, incest or the risk to the life of the mother. I believe in those circumstances that abortion should be legal. [December 12, 2011]
Ryan opposes abortion in cases of rape or incest, but has said that he would back Romney on the issue. “Look, I’m proud of my record…. Mitt Romney is going to be the president; the president sets policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother. I’m comfortable with it because it’s a good step in the right direction. I’ll leave it at that.” He has previously argued that “the health exception would render this [abortion] ban virtually meaningless.”
Asked if Romney has expanded or changed his support for abortion, a campaign spokesperson replied “No,” but did not provide examples of where the candidate had previously backed a “health and life” exception.
The GOP platform does not explicitly include exceptions for rape, incest, health or life of the woman.
Update
Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul denies the shift to the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent: “Gov. Romney’s position is clear: he opposes abortion except for cases of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is threatened.”
"
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...n-on-abortion/
Romney Tries to Claim that Abortion Not an Executive Branch Issue
“My position has been clear throughout this campaign,” Romney said. “I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother….This is a matter in the courts, it’s been settled for some time in the courts.”
When the late-term abortion ban was being legislated during the Bush Administration, a guy named Paul Ryan said that such a health exception “would render (the ban) virtually meaningless.”
Andrea Saul, Romney’s spokeswoman, basically denied that Romney used the word health, saying that “Gov. Romney’s position is clear: he opposes abortion except for cases of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is threatened.” Maybe he’s had the position so recently, he can’t always articulate it properly.
Perhaps more important, Romney claimed that Presidents have no role in the abortion issue:
“Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court,” Romney told CBS. “The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It’s been settled for some time in the courts.”
Paul Ryan was quoted yesterday saying that the term “forcible rape” was “stock language”, which is why it was used in the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act. I’m surprised he didn’t say “I don’t want to get wonky on you” beforehand.
Abortion, and more broadly women’s health and women’s rights, is on the ballot in November, as much as the Republican ticket would like it not to be.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/...-branch-issue/
GOP :lmao
“The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years"
:lol
Repugs since 2010 have put up about 30 anti-abortion Congressional bills or amendments.
But the Democrats politicize a strictly legal issue? :lol
Gecko is a dumbfuck :lol
oops!
Mitt Romney’s Sister Assures Female Voters: ‘He’s Not Going To Be Touching’ Abortion
In an interview with National Journal, Mitt’s sister Jane Romney said that her brother won’t “be touching” the issue of abortion:
Mitt Romney would never make abortions illegal as president, Jane Romney said when National Journal asked her about the subject after a “Women for Mitt” event. “He’s not going to be touching any of that,” she said. “It’s not his focus.”
Democratic warnings that abortion rights are under threat are an ungrounded fear tactic, Jane Romney said. “That’s what women are afraid of, but that’s conjured,” she said. “Personally, I don’t think abortion should be used as a football in the political arena.” [...]
[The Republican platform] does not specify any exceptions.
But as Jane Romney put it, “Mitt’s much more in the middle” when it comes to abortion.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...hing-abortion/
:lol
Where's the infamous Repug "message discipline"? :lol
I'd like to say good, now maybe some of those single issue voters will vote their pocketbook, but I know that is not going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux