The Next Four Years

[candycorn]

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.

You were the one saying that a movie was being released to help Obama's chances...

The example given that I was responding to was that if we put X up to a vote, it would be voted down. Several things would be. Perhaps we should outlaw homosexuality....the majority of people are hetero....Congressional approval ratings are in the single digits or near that....maybe we could vote it off the planet.

I was making the point that "what is right isn't always popular, what is popular isn't always right."

 

[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.

You were the one saying that a movie was being released to help Obama's chances...

The example given that I was responding to was that if we put X up to a vote, it would be voted down. Several things would be. Perhaps we should outlaw homosexuality....the majority of people are hetero....Congressional approval ratings are in the single digits or near that....maybe we could vote it off the planet.

I was making the point that "what is right isn't always popular, what is popular isn't always right."

I love to listen to your blithering idiocy...."You...movie....Obama's....X up to a vote.....people are hetro.....off the planet...."






please continue.

 

[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.

You were the one saying that a movie was being released to help Obama's chances...

The example given that I was responding to was that if we put X up to a vote, it would be voted down. Several things would be. Perhaps we should outlaw homosexuality....the majority of people are hetero....Congressional approval ratings are in the single digits or near that....maybe we could vote it off the planet.

I was making the point that "what is right isn't always popular, what is popular isn't always right."

I love to listen to your blithering idiocy...."You...movie....Obama's....X up to a vote.....people are hetro.....off the planet...."






please continue.

Yep. Incorrigibbering.

 

[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:

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.

The fact that Romney believes Roe should be overturned is not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether he'd appoint activist judges for that singular purpose... and there's no indication in his history as governor which suggests he would.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

But you jokers played that game by going to the courts instead of working through the legislatures to change the laws.

And that's the problem. Roe v. Wade is a judicial fantasy. There was not a right to abortion on demand hidden in the 14th amendment nobody noticed for 100 years.

So really, I refuse to get worked up about it. You're just lucky that this year, I'll vote against the GOP because I hate Mormons so much.

Now, on a personal level, yeah, I think banning abortion would be really stupid. But sometimes you need to do a stupid thing to realize it is stupid. Take Prohibition, for example. The Temperence movement had been screaming in the Churches for decades before they let them get their way. (Thanks to a little anti-German prejudice during WWI to speed things along.) And it quickly became apparent what a dumb idea it was. Even contributed to FDR getting elected.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

But you jokers played that game by going to the courts instead of working through the legislatures to change the laws.

And that's the problem. Roe v. Wade is a judicial fantasy. There was not a right to abortion on demand hidden in the 14th amendment nobody noticed for 100 years.

So really, I refuse to get worked up about it. You're just lucky that this year, I'll vote against the GOP because I hate Mormons so much.

Now, on a personal level, yeah, I think banning abortion would be really stupid. But sometimes you need to do a stupid thing to realize it is stupid. Take Prohibition, for example. The Temperence movement had been screaming in the Churches for decades before they let them get their way. (Thanks to a little anti-German prejudice during WWI to speed things along.) And it quickly became apparent what a dumb idea it was. Even contributed to FDR getting elected.

If the Bain, offshore holdings and tax returns shit doesn't die down - what do you think are the chances that the GOP will seek someone else to run at the convention.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

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.

But you jokers played that game by going to the courts instead of working through the legislatures to change the laws.

And that's the problem. Roe v. Wade is a judicial fantasy. There was not a right to abortion on demand hidden in the 14th amendment nobody noticed for 100 years.

So really, I refuse to get worked up about it. You're just lucky that this year, I'll vote against the GOP because I hate Mormons so much.

Now, on a personal level, yeah, I think banning abortion would be really stupid. But sometimes you need to do a stupid thing to realize it is stupid. Take Prohibition, for example. The Temperence movement had been screaming in the Churches for decades before they let them get their way. (Thanks to a little anti-German prejudice during WWI to speed things along.) And it quickly became apparent what a dumb idea it was. Even contributed to FDR getting elected.

If the Bain, offshore holdings and tax returns shit doesn't die down - what do you think are the chances that the GOP will seek someone else to run at the convention.

Zero to none. Short of him being found to be an actual (suspected) felon through something uncovered, they've hitched their wagon to this greasy game-show host of a man.

 

[Big Fitz]

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:

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


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.

The fact that Romney believes Roe should be overturned is not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether he'd appoint activist judges for that singular purpose... and there's no indication in his history as governor which suggests he would.

Not to mention if such judges could even get past the senate.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

But you jokers played that game by going to the courts instead of working through the legislatures to change the laws.

And that's the problem. Roe v. Wade is a judicial fantasy. There was not a right to abortion on demand hidden in the 14th amendment nobody noticed for 100 years.

So really, I refuse to get worked up about it. You're just lucky that this year, I'll vote against the GOP because I hate Mormons so much.

Now, on a personal level, yeah, I think banning abortion would be really stupid. But sometimes you need to do a stupid thing to realize it is stupid. Take Prohibition, for example. The Temperence movement had been screaming in the Churches for decades before they let them get their way. (Thanks to a little anti-German prejudice during WWI to speed things along.) And it quickly became apparent what a dumb idea it was. Even contributed to FDR getting elected.

If the Bain, offshore holdings and tax returns shit doesn't die down - what do you think are the chances that the GOP will seek someone else to run at the convention.

I would say it is unlikely, unless something really incriminating pops, like someone leaks corporate minutes where Romney was actively involved in some offshoring or downsizing.

The problem with the GOP, I've thought, seeing it from the inside, is that it's always been the plutocratic wing (probably only about 10% of the electorate that is rich or business oriented) manipulating the theocratic wing (Probably about 40% of the electorate) by using emotional hot-button issues like abortion, gays, gun control, frustration with government inefficiency. Romney has played this game reasonably well, but he benefitted from the fact that the more credible candidates- Daniels, Jeb Bush, Thune - opted out this year.

Pawlenty COULD have been credible, but he panicked at Ames.

Newt, Bachmann and Cain were jokes. (Although Newt did okay for himself.)

Rick Perry COULD have been credible, but like Fred Thompson, you have to be at this for years, putting together organization and sharpening your skills on the trail. He half-assed it at the last minute and failed spectacularly. he could have tapped into the working class, but didn't because he just wasn't prepared.

Santorum I think managed to tap into the working class angst of the GOP the way that Huckabee did, (and Pat Buchanan before him) but he didn't have the resources to exploit it.

I think even if Mitt Completely implodes, the GOP will stick with him because it's his turn. Short of finding a dead hooker in his basement, I just don't see them backing off the guy.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I would rather Romney sending jobs offshore for US companies to profit from than Obama take money out of my personal and my childrens pocket to create jobs in another country.

Less of two evils = Romney has my vote.

 

[Mac1958]

.

First they've gotta support Bush, then the Tea Party, now Romney. I have no doubt there are people in the GOP who are thinking that the party has lost its way. It's off the rails, all over the place, and in danger of losing to a President with unemployment over eight freaking percent.

Spin and divert all you want, Republicans, but this party is a mess right now.

.

 

[JoeB131]

I would rather Romeny sending jobs offshore for US companies to profit from than Obama take money out of my personal and my childrens pocket to create jobs in another country.

Less of two evils = Romeny has my vote.

Please, guy. You can't support free trade and then whine that tax dollars are finding their way overseas.

Company I work for makes components for defense contractors with the stipulation that we assemble them in the US, but we get the materials from other countries. Big multi-national corporation, has business units all over the world. You simply can't escape it, mostly because so much has been moved out of this country, thanks to guys like Romney.

I give Obama kudos for being the first to realize this is a real problem.

 

[candycorn]

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.

You were the one saying that a movie was being released to help Obama's chances...

The example given that I was responding to was that if we put X up to a vote, it would be voted down. Several things would be. Perhaps we should outlaw homosexuality....the majority of people are hetero....Congressional approval ratings are in the single digits or near that....maybe we could vote it off the planet.

I was making the point that "what is right isn't always popular, what is popular isn't always right."

I love to listen to your blithering idiocy...."You...movie....Obama's....X up to a vote.....people are hetro.....off the planet...."






please continue.

You're just still upset about you having Denzel standing in as Obama in some movie/election plot you cooked up out of thin air.

Again; if you want to ensure a woman's right to reproductive choice, you should vote for Obama.

If you're comfortable with the changing winds of government approving/disapproving/tinkering with the right as a political football; vote for Governor Romney.

 

[candycorn]

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:

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


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.

The fact that Romney believes Roe should be overturned is not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether he'd appoint activist judges for that singular purpose... and there's no indication in his history as governor which suggests he would.

That is true. It's a coin's flip chance.

 

[candycorn]

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


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



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.

The fact that Romney believes Roe should be overturned is not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether he'd appoint activist judges for that singular purpose... and there's no indication in his history as governor which suggests he would.

Not to mention if such judges could even get past the senate.

The GOP will almost certainly have control of the Senate starting in 2013

 

[OODA_Loop]

I would rather Romeny sending jobs offshore for US companies to profit from than Obama take money out of my personal and my childrens pocket to create jobs in another country.

Less of two evils = Romeny has my vote.

Please, guy. You can't support free trade and then whine that tax dollars are finding their way overseas.

Company I work for makes components for defense contractors with the stipulation that we assemble them in the US, but we get the materials from other countries. Big multi-national corporation, has business units all over the world. You simply can't escape it, mostly because so much has been moved out of this country, thanks to guys like Romney.

I give Obama kudos for being the first to realize this is a real problem.

Obama Administration sent tax money to other countries for job creation.

Enough for me and many others to not vote him

 

[candycorn]

I would rather Romney sending jobs offshore for US companies to profit from than Obama take money out of my personal and my childrens pocket to create jobs in another country.

Less of two evils = Romney has my vote.

You crystalize why I tend to be an issues voter. Neither candidates are going to make much of a difference. Congress is dysfunctional, split, and politics rules the day. Even if you like the candidate's platform, big deal. Congress and the politics will trump the wishes of the President.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You crystalize why I tend to be an issues voter. Neither candidates are going to make much of a difference.

I think business and working people have the best chance of become profitable / sucessful under Romney because of his business experience and policy.

That is BIG difference.

 

[Murf76]

I would rather Romney sending jobs offshore for US companies to profit from than Obama take money out of my personal and my childrens pocket to create jobs in another country.

Less of two evils = Romney has my vote.

You crystalize why I tend to be an issues voter. Neither candidates are going to make much of a difference. Congress is dysfunctional, split, and politics rules the day. Even if you like the candidate's platform, big deal. Congress and the politics will trump the wishes of the President.

Our system is purposefully designed to make foisting new laws off onto the people a slow and arduous process. It's about building consensus and thinking things through. That way, we don't go off on a popular whim and get ourselves into trouble. It's a GOOD THING that a president isn't given the power of a king.

Recent presidents, however, have expanded the power of the presidency in ways which I find unacceptable by legislating through regulatory law in the executive branch. We need to send people to Congress who will INSIST on curbing that trend and leaving legislation to the duly elected representatives WE send there to do the job. Law by executive fiat was never intended.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

The fact that Romney believes Roe should be overturned is not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether he'd appoint activist judges for that singular purpose... and there's no indication in his history as governor which suggests he would.

Not to mention if such judges could even get past the senate.

The GOP will almost certainly have control of the Senate starting in 2013

I actually don't see it going that way. I think we could wind up unfortunately with the same thing we have now. A GOP-held House, a slight Democratic margin in the Senate and Obama in the White House. Which doesn't bode well, but that's sort of how I see things starting to shape up.