The Next Four Years

[Big Fitz]

Damn. Thought I killed this thread when Cderpicus ran for the hills tail between his legs.

Despite the rhetoric; the simple truth remains:

Fact: Governor Romney wishes to overturn Roe. He said so on his website.
Fact: If elected, a President Romney will be likely able to appoint judges who can and will overturn Roe. The liberal and swing-vote on the court that ensure this liberty are advanced in age and will likely be retiring or dying soon.
Fact: If you value a woman's reproductive rights, you should vote for President Obama this November.

It's that simple, and it's that big.

"It's that big" compared to what? Impending economic disaster?

The question is not that pointy headed liberals believe that abortion is a "right" that not only exists, but also is something that deserves to be funded at the federal level: The question is what do Independent voters believe?

Frankly, I haven't seen a groundswell of support among this voting bloc, one way or another regarding the subject.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, then the only person who thinks "it's that big" might be you and a few other's that wish to distract from Obama's record as the biggest amature in office since Jimmy Carter.

To an ant, a cookie crumb is big. A mountain is inconceivable.

 

[JoeB131]

Ginsburg is 79 and is a cancer survivor.

The GOP tried to outlaw all funding for Title X this past session of Congress. It's rather incongruent to think that gee, the GOP will call off the dogs after they get control of the White House.

You can support the right to choose and still think Title X is an awful idea.

If you put Title X to a national vote, it would lose. Americans might think you should be able to have an abortion, but you pay for your own damned abortion.

Fact is, we have had Republican Presidents for 28 of the 40 years since Roe. Roe is still the law of the land. It's just as easy to get an abortion now as it was in 1973.

Dragging out this scare tactic didn't work in 1980, why do you think it is going to work now?

 

[Samson]

Despite the rhetoric; the simple truth remains:

Fact: Governor Romney wishes to overturn Roe. He said so on his website.
Fact: If elected, a President Romney will be likely able to appoint judges who can and will overturn Roe. The liberal and swing-vote on the court that ensure this liberty are advanced in age and will likely be retiring or dying soon.
Fact: If you value a woman's reproductive rights, you should vote for President Obama this November.

It's that simple, and it's that big.

"It's that big" compared to what? Impending economic disaster?

The question is not that pointy headed liberals believe that abortion is a "right" that not only exists, but also is something that deserves to be funded at the federal level: The question is what do Independent voters believe?

Frankly, I haven't seen a groundswell of support among this voting bloc, one way or another regarding the subject.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, then the only person who thinks "it's that big" might be you and a few other's that wish to distract from Obama's record as the biggest amature in office since Jimmy Carter.

To an ant, a cookie crumb is big. A mountain is inconceivable.

Very good, Grasshopper.

But let's see what sort of cockamamie bullshit explaination the ant can issue for believing that Romney's position on abortion will make a "big" impact on Independent voters looking at higher taxes, job loss, and higher costs of living.

 

[candycorn]

Ginsburg is 79 and is a cancer survivor.

The GOP tried to outlaw all funding for Title X this past session of Congress. It's rather incongruent to think that gee, the GOP will call off the dogs after they get control of the White House.

You can support the right to choose and still think Title X is an awful idea.

If you put Title X to a national vote, it would lose. Americans might think you should be able to have an abortion, but you pay for your own damned abortion.

Fact is, we have had Republican Presidents for 28 of the 40 years since Roe. Roe is still the law of the land. It's just as easy to get an abortion now as it was in 1973.

Dragging out this scare tactic didn't work in 1980, why do you think it is going to work now?

For the 3rd time, the former moderates that were appointed during a more civil time in our politics are now retiring in the near future. That is the difference.

The Federal Govt isn't paying for abortion now....by the way.

How many Republicans support a woman's right to chose? Not many. Governor Romney doesn't (this week).

And also, by the way, a lot of Americans don't like tanks...even fewer of them like Congress. Should we be able to vote them into extinction?

 

[Samson]

And also, by the way, a lot of Americans don't like tanks...even fewer of them like Congress. Should we be able to vote them into extinction?

Speaking of cockamamie bullshit, wtf does that even mean: Tanks = Abortion = Congress?

Does this have anything do to with the topic?

I sincerely hope you are an example of the typical Obamot: Incapable of any coherent thought, and full of crap.

 

[JoeB131]

For the 3rd time, the former moderates that were appointed during a more civil time in our politics are now retiring in the near future. That is the difference.

The Federal Govt isn't paying for abortion now....by the way.

How many Republicans support a woman's right to chose? Not many. Governor Romney doesn't (this week).

And also, by the way, a lot of Americans don't like tanks...even fewer of them like Congress. Should we be able to vote them into extinction?

I think if you put "national defense" up to a vote, most people would think that was a pretty good idea. It would probably win.

Not sure what the dislike for "tanks" is, exactly.

given Robert's squishiness on ObamaCare, I'm reasonably sure he doesn't have the testicles to overturn Roe. So the GOP would have to make at least TWO appointments to get to that magic- 5-4 number.

And again, given what an awful, dishonest ruling Roe was, I can't say I would be unhappy to see it go. It never should have been done that way from the get-go.

 

[Si modo]

And also, by the way, a lot of Americans don't like tanks...even fewer of them like Congress. Should we be able to vote them into extinction?

Speaking of cockamamie bullshit, wtf does that even mean: Tanks = Abortion = Congress?

Does this have anything do to with the topic?

I sincerely hope you are an example of the typical Obamot: Incapable of any coherent thought, and full of crap.

Amazing to watch, eh?

 

[Murf76]

Ginsburg is 79 and is a cancer survivor.

The GOP tried to outlaw all funding for Title X this past session of Congress. It's rather incongruent to think that gee, the GOP will call off the dogs after they get control of the White House.

and poster child for mandatory retirement ages for justices.

Now that I can agree with. It needs to be implemented in the future so nobody knows who the POTUS would be when it's enacted.

But back to the point; There will likely be 2 vacancies (at least) this upcoming 4 years. Roe is in jeopardy with Romney in the White House.

There's no indication that Romney would base his Supreme Court appointments on abortion. In fact, that's not what he did as governor of Massachusetts, a history which was challenged in the South Carolina debate by Newt Gingrich:

GINGRICH: Governor Romney did appoint pro-abortion judges.

ROMNEY: I appointed probably 50 or 60 judges--at the trial court level, mostly, the great majority. These were former prosecutors; 80% of them former prosecutors. We don't have a litmus test for appointing judges--asking them if they're pro-life or not pro-life. These were people going after crimes and the like. I am pro-life. And the Massachusetts Citizens for Life and several other family-oriented groups wrote a letter two weeks ago and said they'd watched my record, that I was an avidly pro-life governor. I am a pro-life governor; I am a pro-life individual. Is there any possibility that I've ever made a mistake in that regard, I didn't see something that I should have seen? Possibly. But you can count on me, as president, to pursue a policy that protects the life of unborn, whether here in this country or overseas. And I'll reverse the policies of this president.

South Carolina 2012 Republican primary debate

What's interesting is that Social Conservatives have thrown an utter hissy fit over the fact that Romney did NOT make activist appointments. And yet, here you are, trying to convince us that he will do just that in the future, despite the fact that he didn't do it when he had the opportunity.

It's completely possible for people to be pro-life and still be able to resist the temptation to legislate from the bench. If you read Romney's full response above, he clearly believes that there were some things within his purview as an executor and other things that weren't. Romney appears to have a very well-ordered mind and the capability of understanding his role in governance and the limits to it.

If you're willing to take an honest look at him, I think what you'll find is that Romney doesn't suffer the illusions of grandeur that cause Obama to blur the lines between the three branches of government. He's not looking for activists. He's looking for people who understand the law as written.

 

[Si modo]

and poster child for mandatory retirement ages for justices.

Now that I can agree with. It needs to be implemented in the future so nobody knows who the POTUS would be when it's enacted.

But back to the point; There will likely be 2 vacancies (at least) this upcoming 4 years. Roe is in jeopardy with Romney in the White House.

There's no indication that Romney would base his Supreme Court appointments on abortion. In fact, that's not what he did as governor of Massachusetts, a history which was challenged in the South Carolina debate by Newt Gingrich:

GINGRICH: Governor Romney did appoint pro-abortion judges.

ROMNEY: I appointed probably 50 or 60 judges--at the trial court level, mostly, the great majority. These were former prosecutors; 80% of them former prosecutors. We don't have a litmus test for appointing judges--asking them if they're pro-life or not pro-life. These were people going after crimes and the like. I am pro-life. And the Massachusetts Citizens for Life and several other family-oriented groups wrote a letter two weeks ago and said they'd watched my record, that I was an avidly pro-life governor. I am a pro-life governor; I am a pro-life individual. Is there any possibility that I've ever made a mistake in that regard, I didn't see something that I should have seen? Possibly. But you can count on me, as president, to pursue a policy that protects the life of unborn, whether here in this country or overseas. And I'll reverse the policies of this president.

South Carolina 2012 Republican primary debate

What's interesting is that Social Conservatives have thrown an utter hissy fit over the fact that Romney did NOT make activist appointments. And yet, here you are, trying to convince us that he will do just that in the future, despite the fact that he didn't do it when he had the opportunity.

It's completely possible for people to be pro-life and still be able to resist the temptation to legislate from the bench. If you read Romney's full response above, he clearly believes that there were some things within his purview as an executor and other things that weren't. Romney appears to have a very well-ordered mind and the capability of understanding his role in governance and the limits to it.

If you're willing to take an honest look at him, I think what you'll find is that Romney doesn't suffer the illusions of grandeur that cause Obama to blur the lines between the three branches of government. He's not looking for activists. He's looking for people who understand the law as written.

She imagines shit that not only has no foundation in any reality, but the reality points to the opposite of her imagination.

Seriously, is that some craziness or what?

 

[Samson]

And also, by the way, a lot of Americans don't like tanks...even fewer of them like Congress. Should we be able to vote them into extinction?

Speaking of cockamamie bullshit, wtf does that even mean: Tanks = Abortion = Congress?

Does this have anything do to with the topic?

I sincerely hope you are an example of the typical Obamot: Incapable of any coherent thought, and full of crap.

Amazing to watch, eh?

USMB would be a very quit place without Moronic Posters

 

[Murf76]

Now that I can agree with. It needs to be implemented in the future so nobody knows who the POTUS would be when it's enacted.

But back to the point; There will likely be 2 vacancies (at least) this upcoming 4 years. Roe is in jeopardy with Romney in the White House.

There's no indication that Romney would base his Supreme Court appointments on abortion. In fact, that's not what he did as governor of Massachusetts, a history which was challenged in the South Carolina debate by Newt Gingrich:

GINGRICH: Governor Romney did appoint pro-abortion judges.

ROMNEY: I appointed probably 50 or 60 judges--at the trial court level, mostly, the great majority. These were former prosecutors; 80% of them former prosecutors. We don't have a litmus test for appointing judges--asking them if they're pro-life or not pro-life. These were people going after crimes and the like. I am pro-life. And the Massachusetts Citizens for Life and several other family-oriented groups wrote a letter two weeks ago and said they'd watched my record, that I was an avidly pro-life governor. I am a pro-life governor; I am a pro-life individual. Is there any possibility that I've ever made a mistake in that regard, I didn't see something that I should have seen? Possibly. But you can count on me, as president, to pursue a policy that protects the life of unborn, whether here in this country or overseas. And I'll reverse the policies of this president.

South Carolina 2012 Republican primary debate

What's interesting is that Social Conservatives have thrown an utter hissy fit over the fact that Romney did NOT make activist appointments. And yet, here you are, trying to convince us that he will do just that in the future, despite the fact that he didn't do it when he had the opportunity.

It's completely possible for people to be pro-life and still be able to resist the temptation to legislate from the bench. If you read Romney's full response above, he clearly believes that there were some things within his purview as an executor and other things that weren't. Romney appears to have a very well-ordered mind and the capability of understanding his role in governance and the limits to it.

If you're willing to take an honest look at him, I think what you'll find is that Romney doesn't suffer the illusions of grandeur that cause Obama to blur the lines between the three branches of government. He's not looking for activists. He's looking for people who understand the law as written.

She imagines shit that not only has no foundation in any reality, but the reality points to the opposite of her imagination.

Seriously, is that some craziness or what?

It's just so bizarre that she'd be so convinced that Roe is under imminent threat by Romney when we see so many social conservatives treating him like he's murdering babies in his garage. Weird.

 

[Samson]

It's just so bizarre that she'd be so convinced that Roe is under imminent threat by Romney when we see so many social conservatives treating him like he's murdering babies in his garage. Weird.

"So many"

You mean like 3 or 4?

Maybe you could name them?

Or you could continue to post ridiculously mixed metaphore nonsense.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Supreme Court is just one of the many reasons to re-elect President Obama. The court does not need more far right ideologs that spout Hannity's and Limpbaugh's talking points from the bench. 70% of the country opposed the Citizens United ruling. A President Romney would double down on that crap.

which is why these should not be lifetime positions......

 

[salem.hills]

She imagines shit that not only has no foundation in any reality, but the reality points to the opposite of her imagination.

Seriously, is that some craziness or what?

"Vote them into extinction"

 

[Big Fitz]

Speaking of cockamamie bullshit, wtf does that even mean: Tanks = Abortion = Congress?

Does this have anything do to with the topic?

I sincerely hope you are an example of the typical Obamot: Incapable of any coherent thought, and full of crap.

Amazing to watch, eh?

USMB would be a very quit place without Moronic Posters

So many cretins...

...so much entertainment value.

 

[Murf76]

It's just so bizarre that she'd be so convinced that Roe is under imminent threat by Romney when we see so many social conservatives treating him like he's murdering babies in his garage. Weird.

"So many"

You mean like 3 or 4?

Maybe you could name them?

Or you could continue to post ridiculously mixed metaphore nonsense.

Huh? Was the primary that far back that some of us can't remember it?

 

[Samson]

It's just so bizarre that she'd be so convinced that Roe is under imminent threat by Romney when we see so many social conservatives treating him like he's murdering babies in his garage. Weird.

"So many"

You mean like 3 or 4?

Maybe you could name them?

Or you could continue to post ridiculously mixed metaphore nonsense.

Huh? Was the primary that far back that some of us can't remember it?

You said "we see." Present tense. Meaning now "we see so many."

Apparently, now you cannot name one, proving that you're full of crap.

 

[Murf76]

"So many"

You mean like 3 or 4?

Maybe you could name them?

Or you could continue to post ridiculously mixed metaphore nonsense.

Huh? Was the primary that far back that some of us can't remember it?

You said "we see." Present tense. Meaning now "we see so many."

Apparently, now you cannot name one, proving that you're full of crap.

This isn't the only board I frequent or my only source of political news. In fact, until 2 days ago, I hadn't signed in for something like two years, as I find belligerence for belligerence's sake quite wearing. My use of "we see" would be somewhat ubiquitous.
Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[candycorn]

and poster child for mandatory retirement ages for justices.

Now that I can agree with. It needs to be implemented in the future so nobody knows who the POTUS would be when it's enacted.

But back to the point; There will likely be 2 vacancies (at least) this upcoming 4 years. Roe is in jeopardy with Romney in the White House.

There's no indication that Romney would base his Supreme Court appointments on abortion. In fact, that's not what he did as governor of Massachusetts, a history which was challenged in the South Carolina debate by Newt Gingrich:

GINGRICH: Governor Romney did appoint pro-abortion judges.

ROMNEY: I appointed probably 50 or 60 judges--at the trial court level, mostly, the great majority. These were former prosecutors; 80% of them former prosecutors. We don't have a litmus test for appointing judges--asking them if they're pro-life or not pro-life. These were people going after crimes and the like. I am pro-life. And the Massachusetts Citizens for Life and several other family-oriented groups wrote a letter two weeks ago and said they'd watched my record, that I was an avidly pro-life governor. I am a pro-life governor; I am a pro-life individual. Is there any possibility that I've ever made a mistake in that regard, I didn't see something that I should have seen? Possibly. But you can count on me, as president, to pursue a policy that protects the life of unborn, whether here in this country or overseas. And I'll reverse the policies of this president.

South Carolina 2012 Republican primary debate

Well, his website says he wants to see Roe overturned.

What's interesting is that Social Conservatives have thrown an utter hissy fit over the fact that Romney did NOT make activist appointments. And yet, here you are, trying to convince us that he will do just that in the future, despite the fact that he didn't do it when he had the opportunity.

He has never been POTUS (or will he ever).

It's completely possible for people to be pro-life and still be able to resist the temptation to legislate from the bench. If you read Romney's full response above, he clearly believes that there were some things within his purview as an executor and other things that weren't. Romney appears to have a very well-ordered mind and the capability of understanding his role in governance and the limits to it.

If you're willing to take an honest look at him, I think what you'll find is that Romney doesn't suffer the illusions of grandeur that cause Obama to blur the lines between the three branches of government. He's not looking for activists. He's looking for people who understand the law as written.

Well, he says he wants Roe overturned and will have the opportunity (more than likely) to appoint judges who can do just that. Sorry, those are the facts and they are not in dispute.

 

[candycorn]

For the 3rd time, the former moderates that were appointed during a more civil time in our politics are now retiring in the near future. That is the difference.

The Federal Govt isn't paying for abortion now....by the way.

How many Republicans support a woman's right to chose? Not many. Governor Romney doesn't (this week).

And also, by the way, a lot of Americans don't like tanks...even fewer of them like Congress. Should we be able to vote them into extinction?

I think if you put "national defense" up to a vote, most people would think that was a pretty good idea. It would probably win.

Not sure what the dislike for "tanks" is, exactly.

given Robert's squishiness on ObamaCare, I'm reasonably sure he doesn't have the testicles to overturn Roe. So the GOP would have to make at least TWO appointments to get to that magic- 5-4 number.

And again, given what an awful, dishonest ruling Roe was, I can't say I would be unhappy to see it go. It never should have been done that way from the get-go.

Well, you're discussing the stones of a Supreme Court judge. The overturning of Roe and a woman losing the rights to reproductive choice is a game of chicken we shouldn't play.