You guessed wrong.
Posted on 10/09/2012 7:42:34 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
You guessed wrong.
Yet the Romney arguments are being made, and the group pings being made to support Romney’s abortion, homosexual, polygamy, as “state issues” agenda, on this thread.
Group pings, wow, I haven’t even seen those in a long while.
You guessed wrong.
the circle of life ??? ive been called everything else lately, but a mittbot is pretty low...
as far as social issues such as marriage and abortion, best move the fed [and its candidates] could do is to strike all its influence from the books...since that aint happenin anytime soon [or ever until a reset], we'll just have to hold the feet to the fire and compromise on a few things, until the adult issues, ya know the fiscal stuff, is settled with more un Constitional meddling...
hey SOL, howd I do ??? did I save the universe this time ???
i know, i know, its still all my fault, i destroyed the country with my conscience, and earned a window seat in the bamney cattle cars...dang...
Plus you support polygamy according to ansel :)
thats a scary proposition being as though i cant keep one wife happy...
Lie to yourself all you want, don’t try to lie to those of use who know better.
There’s one abortion extremist in this race: the president
Google “Mitt Romney abortion,” restricting your search to the past 24 hours. You get pages and pages of hits, stories afire with the news that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney doesn’t envision abortion legislation coming before him if he were elected president, but he still supports various pro-life initiatives.
This has lit up the left, who see themselves as the protectors of women’s “lady parts” with their pro-choice stance on abortion, and who view Republicans as enemies of women, licking their chops at the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Before things get too crazy—the vice-presidential debate is coming up, after all, and Paul Ryan is unabashedly pro-life—let’s not forget this: there’s only one candidate in the presidential race who believes that ladies, along with their lady parts, can be discarded with impunity, if they happen to be born as the result of a failed abortion. That is Barack Obama, the candidate who holds the most extreme positions on abortion in this campaign.
Let me repeat this, so journalists eager to report on all candidates’ abortion positions (not just Republicans’) can absorb it: when in the Illinois state legislature, Barack Obama would not support a law saving the lives of babies—real, live human beings, not “fetuses”—who happened to be born after failed abortions.
This places the president to the left of NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League. Here is their statement on so-called Born-Alive Acts from June 2001:
“NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year’s committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”
The president’s defenders (and the president himself) claim that Obama didn’t support Born Alive legislation in Illinois because it was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade, and that he would have supported a bill similar to the federal one on this issue. An investigation by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, however, agreed with the National Right to Life Committee when it found that the president voted in committee against BAIF even though it was “nearly identical” to the federal bill:
We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session.
It’s no wonder the president would want to gloss over or fudge this issue. Common sense tells us that if you were able to survey every single adult American on support or opposition to “Born Alive” bills, you’d probably find support in the super-majority range—certainly 60 percent, probably closer to 90. What reasonable, clear-thinking person could be for letting live infants die in trash bins?
But, as I’ve pointed out before, most Americans who identify with the pro-choice and pro-life positions are in agreement on many abortion specifics. Here’s a quick summary from a Gallup survey last year (click on chart to enlarge)
Of the nine points of agreement in that table, three could be considered solid pro-choice positions—keeping abortion legal under certain circumstances, such as rape or incest—while six of the positions line up with pro-life initiatives that pro-choice absolutists oppose. Pro-choice absolutists such as President Obama.
So even on these nine areas of agreement, most of the points are ones that pro-lifers such as Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan agree with, at least one Joe Biden supports (in 1999, he voted to ban partial birth abortion), while the president, whose administration recently promulgated regulations forcing all health insurers to cover birth control and abortifacients, regardless of conscience issues, is the extremist.
You could summarize the Gallup results by saying that America wants abortion to remain legal, but is not opposed to reasonable restrictions to keep it “rare.”
Speaking of that word, “rare,” scant attention was given to the fact that it disappeared from the Democratic platform’s plank on abortion, while much fuss was made over the Republican platform’s purist pro-life approach, which has remained virtually unchanged for years.
When the economy is in shambles and the Middle East in flames, it’s easy to get frustrated with discussions of abortion, especially when it is unlikely, as Romney said, that legislation will come before him, if he were president, on this topic. But to those who have strong beliefs on abortion and a woman’s access to it, that issue is paramount, above what happens in the world or to our economy.
I don’t dismiss that passion—it’s a serious subject, one dealing with fundamental issues of life and liberty. I especially respect pro-lifers, whose viewpoints are often misrepresented as out of the mainstream (despite the areas of consensus found in the Gallup poll) and whose advocates are often ridiculed as religious zealots who all approve of violence to abortion providers (cue Law & Order music).
So, go ahead, talk about abortion, write about it, ask candidates about it. But on this topic, be clear: someone who will not stand up for live baby girls about to be tossed on the trash heap is no true champion of girls, women, ladies or any of their “parts.”
Lie to yourself all you want, don’t try to lie to those of us who know better.
There’s one abortion extremist in this race: the president
Google “Mitt Romney abortion,” restricting your search to the past 24 hours. You get pages and pages of hits, stories afire with the news that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney doesn’t envision abortion legislation coming before him if he were elected president, but he still supports various pro-life initiatives.
This has lit up the left, who see themselves as the protectors of women’s “lady parts” with their pro-choice stance on abortion, and who view Republicans as enemies of women, licking their chops at the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Before things get too crazy—the vice-presidential debate is coming up, after all, and Paul Ryan is unabashedly pro-life—let’s not forget this: there’s only one candidate in the presidential race who believes that ladies, along with their lady parts, can be discarded with impunity, if they happen to be born as the result of a failed abortion. That is Barack Obama, the candidate who holds the most extreme positions on abortion in this campaign.
Let me repeat this, so journalists eager to report on all candidates’ abortion positions (not just Republicans’) can absorb it: when in the Illinois state legislature, Barack Obama would not support a law saving the lives of babies—real, live human beings, not “fetuses”—who happened to be born after failed abortions.
This places the president to the left of NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League. Here is their statement on so-called Born-Alive Acts from June 2001:
“NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year’s committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”
The president’s defenders (and the president himself) claim that Obama didn’t support Born Alive legislation in Illinois because it was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade, and that he would have supported a bill similar to the federal one on this issue. An investigation by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, however, agreed with the National Right to Life Committee when it found that the president voted in committee against BAIF even though it was “nearly identical” to the federal bill:
We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session.
It’s no wonder the president would want to gloss over or fudge this issue. Common sense tells us that if you were able to survey every single adult American on support or opposition to “Born Alive” bills, you’d probably find support in the super-majority range—certainly 60 percent, probably closer to 90. What reasonable, clear-thinking person could be for letting live infants die in trash bins?
But, as I’ve pointed out before, most Americans who identify with the pro-choice and pro-life positions are in agreement on many abortion specifics. Here’s a quick summary from a Gallup survey last year (click on chart to enlarge)
Of the nine points of agreement in that table, three could be considered solid pro-choice positions—keeping abortion legal under certain circumstances, such as rape or incest—while six of the positions line up with pro-life initiatives that pro-choice absolutists oppose. Pro-choice absolutists such as President Obama.
So even on these nine areas of agreement, most of the points are ones that pro-lifers such as Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan agree with, at least one Joe Biden supports (in 1999, he voted to ban partial birth abortion), while the president, whose administration recently promulgated regulations forcing all health insurers to cover birth control and abortifacients, regardless of conscience issues, is the extremist.
You could summarize the Gallup results by saying that America wants abortion to remain legal, but is not opposed to reasonable restrictions to keep it “rare.”
Speaking of that word, “rare,” scant attention was given to the fact that it disappeared from the Democratic platform’s plank on abortion, while much fuss was made over the Republican platform’s purist pro-life approach, which has remained virtually unchanged for years.
When the economy is in shambles and the Middle East in flames, it’s easy to get frustrated with discussions of abortion, especially when it is unlikely, as Romney said, that legislation will come before him, if he were president, on this topic. But to those who have strong beliefs on abortion and a woman’s access to it, that issue is paramount, above what happens in the world or to our economy.
I don’t dismiss that passion—it’s a serious subject, one dealing with fundamental issues of life and liberty. I especially respect pro-lifers, whose viewpoints are often misrepresented as out of the mainstream (despite the areas of consensus found in the Gallup poll) and whose advocates are often ridiculed as religious zealots who all approve of violence to abortion providers (cue Law & Order music).
So, go ahead, talk about abortion, write about it, ask candidates about it. But on this topic, be clear: someone who will not stand up for live baby girls about to be tossed on the trash heap is no true champion of girls, women, ladies or any of their “parts.”
” Great, you even pinged a mob to get into this libertarian gay marriage, pro-abortion stuff.
I can go to the doper threads if I wanted to waste time on this nonsense.”
I get pinged by almost every member of this “MOB” many times every day, especially SOL. Go back and check us all out every day for the past 6 months, if you think I am lying. Fortuitously, almost never to a thread involving you. : )
SOL, correct me if I am wrong here....
SOL is NOT a liberal
SOL is NOT a libertarian
SOL is a moral and fiscal conservative
SOL is anti-abortion
SOL doesn’t like or trust Romney....may or may not vote for him, but lives in a very liberal state anyway.
I don’t like or trust Romney, but since our spineless Republicans in D.C. refuse to expose Obama,and demand impeachment for sedition, I am voting for Romney to remove Obama from power. Obama has done serious harm to us already....10 years to undo it all, if it is even possible to undo all of it.
That's what I was thinking. I can't afford more than one....
WHY DO YOU ALWAYS LIE ABOUT WHICH POST YOU ARE RESPONDING TO, THAT MUST BE AN EFFORT TO HELP YOU DECEIVE THREAD READERS.
Your argument is Romney’s argument, on a Romney thread, it supports Romney, and you can’t pull polygamy out of the mix of marriage meaning whatever and nothing at the same time, in other words, homosexuals, polygamy, whatever.
ansel12:
Lighten up on the “mob” stuff, brother.
SOL’s a good guy, he’s on the right side of things, and he always pings us to his posts.
We’re on the same team, friend. Just disagreeing at the moment.
One team, one fight.
You are still barking up the wrong tree. I have serious concerns about Romney.
and you can’t pull polygamy out of the mix of marriage meaning whatever and nothing at the same time, in other words, homosexuals, polygamy, whatever.
It makes some sense to say that being in favor of gay marriage, for example, leads to polygamy, etc. But in assigning such a collection of values to people who do not believe in them, you are a modern day Madame Defarge. SOL is very sharply opposed to gay marriage, always has been.
If you want to post to me about Romney’s positions on a Romney thread, then do it yourself, you really shouldn’t need to whistle for a crowd.
Do you realize that post after post has been made to me calling the poster’s tribe to his side on this thread?
It is freaky.
Yet here we are, on a Romney thread, and me having to argue with all the pro-Romney crowd that shows up defending his positions on abortion, marriage and so on.
“...If you want to post to me about Romney’s positions on a Romney thread, then do it yourself, you really shouldn’t need to whistle for a crowd....”
Not “whistling for a crowd”. I was included on the ping, and returning the favor.
You included me as part of a “mob”, and I answered you.
I’ve no quarrel with you. Don’t look for a feud where none exists, friend.
“...Do you realize that post after post has been made to me calling the poster’s tribe to his side on this thread?...”
Yes, it’s the way it goes out here sometimes. You’ve been here as long as I have, you know the ropes.
“...It is freaky...”
Nah..it’s just Free Republic, man. Don’t sweat it.
Disagreement doesn’t mean war.
Thanks. I would add another one that I put above all the others : ‘SOL is above ALL not a Koolaid drinker. He thinks for himself and DOES his HOMEWORK’.
PROOF:
““Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, wrote an interesting concurrence in yesterday's partial birth abortion case, indicating that he might be sympathetic to a Commerce Clause challenge to the federal partial birth abortion ban that was just upheld by the Court.” But no one — perhaps fortunately — raised the Commerce Clause, so Thomas and Scalia voted with the rest of them to uphold the ban.”
ref at Catholic Answers Forums,
Q to Palin: Why is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?
PALIN: I think it should be a states’ issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I’m, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, it’s no secret that I’m pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that’s what I would like to see further embraced by America.
Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric Oct 1, 2008
Sarah Palin on Abortion Republican Governor (AK); 2008 nominee for Vice President
The reason I originally included you was that after ansal tried to challenge me for the Nth time, I posted a number of well thought out responses and he completely ignored them and responded with the usual bla-bla-bla. So I figured maybe you would actually read that response since he wouldnt.
This is not about Romney to me. I actually defended Palin on this point against two posters (different times) going after her last year, and the Palinistas certainly didn’t call me a Palin lover.
I’m glad this thread is dying, but I expect to see the Romney, abortion, homo, polygamy, Romney care, as state issues, defense team on future threads.
It works as a Romney strategy. and it serves Utah well.
Screw Romney.
And try using a rational argument next time you ping me. Try something new for a change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.