So Jmervyn and Stevinator are obvious media shills blocking this thread with WOT.
you two are such a Scam it's transparent really..
Ignoring me again!
Keep it up and I will sic the campaign security on you.
So Jmervyn and Stevinator are obvious media shills blocking this thread with WOT.
you two are such a Scam it's transparent really..
Ignoring me again!
Keep it up and I will sic the campaign security on you.
Last edited by BobCox2; 18-02-2012 at 04:54.
Rick Santorum on The Netherlands and it's euthanize/abortions policy! LMAO
Sample reply from a guy named Guustaaf
"Ok for the record, let's just check what he is saying:
There is a "do not euthanize" bracelet In the Netherlands, because half the people that are euthanized are euthanized involuntarily
False, no such bracelets exist, and every euthanasia case must start with a request from the patient. Neither the family nor the doctor can initiate the procedure, which has very clear rules:
the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present
the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)
More on the wiki.
10% of all deaths are from euthanasia
In 2010, 136058 people died in the Netherlands, of which 3136 through (reported) euthanasia. That is 2,3%. Of course not every case will be reported, but I assume most of them will, because when a doctor does not follow the guidelines that have been set in Dutch law for euthanasia (including reporting it to a review committee), it is still illegal, so that would be a huge risk to take for the doctor.
Elderly people in the Netherlands don't go the hospital, they go to another country, because they're afraid, because of budget purposes, that they will not come out of that hospital
While it is true that a growing number of people go to Belgian and German hospitals for non-urgent treatments, this is because of the shortage in healthcare professionals in the Netherlands, because of the population ageing, resulting in waiting lists in Dutch hospitals. This is still a fairly small amount, around 2% of operations on Dutch patients is done in foreign hospitals. But it certainly has nothing to do with 'budget purposes'. The Netherlands is in the top20 for both life expectancy and on the WHO ranking of healthcare systems, well above the US, which I assume would be harder if we were just killing old people left and right."
Lets not even give in to his whining for the good old days of abortions in the shadows where they belong.
This is the new front runner?
Give it up GOP.
Last edited by BobCox2; 20-02-2012 at 03:50.
I think you're getting a little tin foil cappish here, who in particular supports more abortions? Name them. Also, the point was that the church just up and changed it's mind on early term abortions. so the new policy isn't even the historical one. it's not the "god given" one, it's completely made up. I'll grant that that's only tangentially related, but it's not a strawman. If the church says this is our position because god said so, but god apparently had different thoughts previously, then either god changed his mind or their just making it up as they go along. Either way, it takes some of the weight out of their argument.
I'm banging that drum because it's true. They want it repealed so they can ban abortions. They want them banned because they were told by a guy in a pointy hat that god doesn't like them. Okay, not all the church leaders where pointy hats...Patently false. I don't know why you keep banging this drum. Furthermore, you're showing your Progressive slip by illogical, unreasoned claims of causation; removal of a Federal falsification of a "right" just because there's a slim chance that some voter populations will criminalize it makes no sense whatever. If you compare Civil Rights, as you're probably itching to do, it would not make a difference because the situation is in no way the same. Progressives don't really give a rat-feck about the (hypocritical claim) sanctity of a woman's body; they're more than happy to invade people's body under Obamacare. The ONLY other thing it's about is the pipeline of tax money provided by murdering black kids. The first reason is why PP facilities are targeted for inner cities:
The target for inner cities is because that's where people can't afford the care.
Even if there was some merit to your claim that pro-choice = kill all the black people, and there is not. It doesn't matter. Allowing the woman and her doctor to deal with her situation individually is still the better (more true conservative too) option.
My you are frothy. There is a law against the federal government paying for abortions. If you can find a case where it has happened, please report it to the police. thanks.Thanks for accidentally destroying your own strawman. But if you wanted to bother distilling any truth from that poll, it boils down to people not wanting to <outlaw> abortion, just to ensure that what PP's current modus operandi is gets banned (abortion as a State-supported industry).
And stop trying to change my position, I put up a link that clearly indicated a recent poll where the majority of the country supported a woman's right to choose.
Nice try. I'm talking about the woman's right to choose. you're still dodgy a week later. Please quote me where I said i want the state to pay for abortions. Oh, that's right. i didn't. Your bad.You mean, as you do? Or are you trying to refer to me in some diseased fashion? Because, after all, nothing says "individual liberty" like state-mandated funding of infanticide.
My ideal conditions are that individuals purchase their own health insurance, and make their own decisions with their doctors. That works perfectly. Also, I put up the suggestion that the church not pay for health insurance if it rubs them the wrong way. they can instead pay their employees more (in the current system--or the ideal system)Wait, so let me get this straight. I'm a liar because the system will never work under your "ideal" conditions, and my belief that infanticide is "murder" doesn't meet your biased standards of accuracy?
That you see abortion (even the pill) as murder was not the falsehood you're putting up. you're saying that right now the government is paying for abortions. that is untrue.
The government does take tax money to murder people though. Remember that cadillac in every driveway? We both support collecting taxes for defense. Further, the government currently pays for all sorts of stuff I don't agree with, supposedly for the betterment of society. If it did help cover the expense of abortions for the poor, I don't think that would be a big deal. We pay for all sorts of medical procedures. Did i tell you about my grandfather's heart surgery? He's doing well, but it was exceedingly expensive and I don't think it was necessary. He's still having the dizzy spells in rehab (so nothing has really been fixed). i really think the doctors wanted to make some money, and they convinced him he'd be able to run and jump and click his heels and all that afterwards.
Anyway, my point is we spend a lot of money on things some people find objectionable. Later on, you bring up bacon. Well there's no law against the government buying bacon. I bet that somewhere, some government money has gone to bacon. so muslim tax payers paid for bacon! OMG!
If you feel the accountants who keep track of these things are doing a bad job, feel free to put in a freedom of information request and audit them. I have a feeling that they're checking things rather closely since the right sees this as such a big issue when it shouldn't be.So just because the massive Gov't funding stream that props Planned Parenthood up, maintained through their incessant dishonesty about operations, doesn't actually show a child being murdered at a particular price, it's just made up? I see. And here I thought my jibe about selling you bridges was a bit harsh.
That's not the pill, that's the morning after drug. The pill, or daily oral contraceptive, or whatever you call it, is considered by the catholic church to be a form of abortion because some of the time when it works, it works after the egg has met the sperm and done their thing. the pill (the daily oral contraceptive one, not RU46), creates a situation (I'm trying to not get too graphic here, hence my vagueness) where it would be very difficult for the fertilized egg to be implanted. Most not crazy people think of the pill as stopping you from getting pregnant, not an abortion. Catholics think the soul is implanted at the very instant of conception, and therefore taking the pill is the same as the "infantcide" you keep mentioning."Current" law meaning Obamacare, correct.
No, all the hoo-ha is about freedom, which you are openly hostile to. That's what seems weird, considering your purported stance.
You really ought to understand these discussions before you argue in them. The term 'abortifacient' means a drug which essentially causes a miscarriage - and that's what you Progressives are falsely claiming is "the pill" in this argument. RU486 is not a preventative; it's a poison. You want a drug which induces miscarriage to be considered equivalent to a prophylactic, because it basically erases the concept of a baby's humanity. Putting kittens in a sack is just as rationally termed "birth control", and Sanger's folks have already been caught at the modern-day equivalent of such behavior, but for a substantial number of people that sort of "birth control" is just a little too unpleasant to condone.
Your link to Ann Coulter actually makes a great point (one I've been making) in that we don't need to have these things covered by insurance. i agree. However, it is included because the pill prevents pregnancies, which are fairly expensive, and thus is considered preventative care. it would be great if you'd read my posts though because I'm repeating myself here a lot.
Steve's plan: individuals buy their own insurance and not through their employer. government doesn't tell you what plans should cover.
Obamacare: Plans must cover things that have been identified to lower healthcare costs at the macro level, everyone has to buy it, whether from employer or individually. Employers have to offer insurance, but are not forced to pay for any of it. Just to re-iterate, this is DIFFERENT from Steve's "ideal".
I see what you did there. since you think the pill is abortion, you're right...Like the way that it does and that I've cited has already been proven, right.
but as for a real instance, you have nothing. There is federal law against state funded abortion. you posted a link that might have discovered a legal loophole, a yet untested legal loophole.
speaking of strawmen, I'm not even sure how that's relevant.So if I only buy the gun, load bullets, place it in your hand, and tell you to go kill Saro, the argument is still pretty weak that I'm inciting murder. I see.
So they had a medical condition that was covered by their insurance, and they were prescribed medicine to alleviate said problem....so it's not fraud then, you're just mad that it's covered because you don't think old people should have sex. Okay.Oh, so you know different from my factually supported evidence yet again? Particularly considering that my wife was refused a mammogram (on grounds of cost!) at the same time as this first was discussed in the post hospital? Wow, your omniscience is staggering. I'm sorry, but since when is someone being too old to get it up a "legitimate medical condition"? Your claim of fraud is false, but it's no different from the claim that prophylactics are somehow legitimate medical expenditures, like Aspirin.
Again, separating employers and health insurance would resolve this issue. but since that's not what's happening, you do understand that it is not unusual that viagra be covered under insurance right?
I was wondering when the aspirin joke would show up in here.
Again it is currently against the law to have federal money go to paying for abortions. if you think it is happening somewhere then please by all means call the police and let them know, otherwise, please accept that no federal money is going towards abortions.I most definitely think that women should have the individual liberty to determine what they do with their own bodies. If their choice involves unprotected sex, however, I ALSO believe they should pay the price for their choice, and that I should not. If more women chose not to be sluts, if being a welfare mom was recognized as a horrible choice, if Progressives were forced to choose to donate their own money to Planned Parenthood rather than stealing mine through the IRS, well then heck, we'd have a far healthier society. But you somehow imagine that <I> am a totalitarian and a horrible person because I think these choices shouldn't default to your set of decisions.
PP also deals with contraceptives, education/awareness, STDs, and other sexual medical stuff. Your hostility stems from the fact that you don't like that they perform abortions. I don't even think you really believe they exist to kill black people. This is all just a giant smoke screen because you want to shame women who are "sluts". BTW, the fact that you post that another conservative is harassing PP only further proves my claim.
And here's the real tickler. if they broke the law, and they did comngle funds, then someone is in big trouble. If this is just another BS-capade then it blows over and you never acknowledge you were wrong. I'll wait until I hear something more real than something drummed up from some "news" organization that uses "faith" as one of their news categories. Also, they have no sports section? No international section? No science section? It goes like this: The stories, business, faith, tech, real news (the other sections aren't real?), blogs.
Furthermore, the story is from 2009 and still nothing has happened? Or did they just not want to include the new info? Nothing has happened since October 2011 when they last got kicked out of court. C'Mon. I haven't posted up one BS link. Not one. I'm shooting straight with you and THIS is what you bring me?
And let's say for instance that this was all true. then why aren't there other cases of this all over the country? Don't you think this would be the exact kind of story that a major media company would be all over? Hell, at least Fox. I mean if they won't touch it, there's nothing to it.
I certainly don't feel "bombarded". You essentially did go to a no-name rag that lists "faith" as one of the five news categories it covers. Hardly impartial.I won't continue to bombard you with facts, since you're obviously immune to them. But by your logic, I should use StormFront for grounds of any of my opinions on American fascism.
Ha, that's a fun trick. It reminds me of a similar dirty trick some Dem pulled.So the grounds for the organization, as expressed the founders themselves, and supported by the current organization, is quackery. Immune to facts indeed.
I'm sure that over the many years, you've had some client or customer of whom you thought was just a beast of a person. I've worked with some real nutbars in my day. I had one guy who i actually kinda liked, but he was just a terrible guy--politics wise anyway. racist, sexist, more homophobe than you even. He would say things that just made you cringe. I'm pretty sure i only got his business because his other bank's branch had no white men in it, and I happened to knock on the right door at the right time. Anyway, I never told him i agreed with him, but I listened to him rant on and on about whatever, and i am pretty sure he knew he was making me slightly uncomfortable. i think it was a sport for him. What can i get the kid to agree to, and can i get him all riled up. Anyway, we took his money, and i handled just as well as i would have for anyone else. It was not my job to be political. i would have loved to have debated with him and put him in his place--even though he was terrible about his politics, I still didn't mind talking to the guy for the most part. instead though, I came back here and argued with you and llad. As much as i don't blame scott walker for getting caught by the gotcha, i don't blame any of the PP donation people for it either. I'm sure they're paid or graded in some way by what they bring in. i imagine they probably all got a good chuckle after they got off the phone. I'd love to listen to some of those phone calls. awkward like a "the office" episode.
yeah, but word has it she doesn't put out...hmm, poor taste?Yes, Lila Rose is hot.
FOr those of you not reading all the links, she started a pro-life foundation that has supplied half of Jmerv's links in this post, here's a bio:
notice that "liveaction", does that seem familiar?
I don't see that goal in your link, but there's a properly vitriolic "news" article that apparently the employees at PP have the audacity to throw an Xmas party.I'm sure you'd prefer your blatant misdirect to be the question, obviously. That way you don't have to recognize, much less admit, that you're supporting an abomination that flies in the face of what you claim to believe. Any organization with a goal of 3 abortions per woman is something I wouldn't be proud to support.
LOL, you just didn't like that I got you there. BTW-- I never said you should have to pay for it. I've been saying for several pages that you DON"T have to pay for it so stop whining. This trick that lets you say you're paying for abortions is this daily birth control pill is abortion BS. No one thinks that way but religious nuts. Religious nuts who's own religion didn't even back them until later when they changed their mind.I love how you Progressive Statists claim that not being given money to do something means not ALLOWING someone to do it. No wonder people like you aren't actually willing to put your money where your mouth is, when you can bully someone else into putting THEIR money where YOUR mouth is. Me, I call that 'evil'.
If the law says this is the insurance coverage you have to provide, then that's the law. you can't just self insure, that's the whole mandate issue. Otherwise I would merely "self-insure" for my policy and save myself the much larger premiums from Obamacare. There is the option to offer but not pay for the health insurance. i don't believe there is any set percentage the employers have to cover, they just have to offer it (which is dumb, but is the law).So the Church paying an insurance policy really isn't paying for it, employees really don't have to use the policies which the Church is being forced to pay for, and who really gives a feck what you fascist/racist Xians really think anyway? You're going to bully me into agreement whether it's legal or not.
Again, I didn't write this law, and contraception is not abortion. you're conflating again.
i spent paragraphs explaining why they are different, so that wasn't me (see above).As you have done throughout this thread so far?
Strawman.Cool. So when it becomes a matter of settled law that you Atheists are to be shot on sight as criminal threats to the society (particularly under that theocracy you keep insisting we're on the brink of), I don't need to worry about that silly Constitution or the Freedoms it contains? I can just lock & load? Cool!
Also, if you read the details it wasn't the abortion that was paid for anyway it was the post-abortion follow up meeting. That meeting is not supposed to be covered (by law--shock!), because the meeting relates to an abortion. So basically, you failed on the source--iffy at best, you failed on the scandal (not really for an abortion, but close), and your source confirms that the feds are not allowed to pay for abortions, which proves me right.
Now, if you could find me a better source that proves me right, i'd appreciate it, because while i totally know I'm right, it would be nice to have it from a more legitimate news source.
I do really appreciate you doing my homework for me though.
I'm not going to agree to any of that drivel.What would be even MORE nifty is if we can pretend for just a second that funding of an organization dedicated to race-based infanticide is something NOT worth funneling massive amounts of tax dollars into. You know, like with the whole America's looming bankruptcy thing?
instead of re-typing it I'll just copypasta:
Originally Posted by Steve in the post above
okay...I don't get your point. but that's a nice little survey you got there. Looks like a lot of reasons why you might get an abortion...Sure. You just keep sucking that Kool Aid. Meanwhile, since after my wife & I spent over a year trying to conceive, the first thing the Doctor did was suggest an abortion, I think I'll just stick to those nasty facty things...
Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
- Feels she can't afford baby 23%
- Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
- Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
- Feels she isn't mature enough 7%
- Interference with education/career plans 4%
- Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%
- Other reasons <6.5%
TOTAL: 93% (Approx.)
"Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)
- Mother's Health 4%
- Baby may have health problem 3%
- Rape or Incest <0.5%
TOTAL: 7% (Approx.)
I'm sorry to hear that. I wish her he best.My sister had one. She mourns her part in the murder every day. I would, just as I refuse to use any other Politically Correct Happy-Speak to disguise the blatant evil that you and the Progressives pretend you don't advocate.
Um, no. I don't think we need to be telling women to get abortions, I'm merely saying they should be legal and available. I'm pro-choice. I understand you want to be able to put word in my mouth, but I will not allow that. Also, I reject the term infantcide.You're demonstrably pro-abortion, given your claims here.
I'm not talking about infantcide. I was talking about abortion, and occasionally I've clarified things when you confuse/conflate contraception with abortion. Most people do not consider the birth control pill to be abortion. in fact some don't even think RU46 (the morning after pill) is abortion, but for our purposes we'll wrap it (RU46, but not the daily oral) in there.inĚfanĚtiĚcide/inˈfantiˌsīd/
- The crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
- The practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.
I too reject infantcide. However, when the baby cannot support itself outside the womb, it is the mother's decision on what to do with her own body. If she makes the choice to keep it then great. If she feels she cannot do that, then i would rather there were places she could go to discuss that with a medical professional. in that sense, i support planned parenthood because many young women have support systems that are lacking--like you know calling them sluts or telling them they have to keep it because god said so.Otherwise you'd not be desperately avoiding the truth I've cited here. I accept that any society will practice infanticide; it's been in the social lexicon for millennia. I'm just not at all interested in you holding a gun to my head to pay for it, particular when the solution is in no small part for women to be less immoral and self-destructive.
Oh please. changing the christmas party to a holiday party doesn't make for "anti-christian". Religious folks have their own news network (that we've seen some of today), ridiculously unfair taxbreaks, Tim Tebow, and you basically control the one of the political parties. The religious nutbars have plenty of power over the rest of us. Sure it's not as good for you as it was a few hundred years ago, but really, it's time to get over that.My GOD if you could only comprehend how insane that sounds! We live in a more anti-Christian, religious-mocking, secular-cheering time than ever has existed, and look at the devastation your demands have caused - yet you're claiming that the religious have declared war on "the rest of us"?
Legal abortion does what now? What right is abrogated? (good word, don't hear that one much)Because it abrogates the rights of the majority and supports the tyranny of the minority, maybe? Just like the claims about queer rights?
not sure what you're grinning at, you don't like statistics, and apparently you have had people close to you go through some things--I won't pry about your sister--but you don't care, because...The ironing is delicius.
Doubly ironic, per above.
That is an option, some women will choose that and some will not. Most abortions happen in the first trimester, the site with your cute little friend there even refers to later term abortions as "rare", "relatively small group". They quote 88%, but then say the numbers are iffy because definitions vary. "late term" is often considered to be well after the first trimester, so there's a gap there.No, but maybe you could have discussed putting the baby up for adoption rather than smashing in the skull and hoovering out the remnants. No invading the sanctity of the woman's body there, for sure.
What you are describing is a partial birth abortion. This is an extremely late term abortion where it is possible for the fetus to survive outside the womb (though it may not necessarily be ready, so a birth could result in all sorts of medical issues). Partial birth abortions are not something we've discussed here. For the most part, we've been discussing very early term abortions, or at least i have been. You've been using the term "infantcide" which means they've already been born up to a year ago...
You want to hold homosexuals "responsible for their own decisions"? Nah, I'll drop that one.All for the point of people being responsible for their own decisions, which you obviously can't stand.
So you've banned abortions. What would you do with the woman who broke that law? Would you put her in jail? How would you "hold her responsible for her own decision"?
The existence of the girls scouts is partly just because there were boy scouts and the boy scouts didn't want to let them in. So it's already an activist group anyhow. I imagine that over the years though, they've probably moved farther center.
You must be far more attractive than me, in a ghey type of way.I thought I'd already mentioned my queer boss in Philadelphia, and how he pleaded with me to crash at his place with his lover?
You're losing me on the london bobby thing--aren't those cops? Anyway, I can understand that no one should be alone with the kids. But being a *** parent shouldn't disclude him from the trips with his son.Which is why your continuing to conflate the two makes no sense in this argument. A Flaming parent won't be allowed to hang out with the boys in any capacity, but there's plenty of other conduct-related reasons a boy (or leader) would be dismissed. One of the most reprehensible reasons was when my old Scoutmaster was dismissed for the crime of being a London "Bobby", because some new dads from Bechtel Corp. didn't like the troop being 'boy run' and wanted to make us all good little corporate automatons under their leadership.
Okay but is "Theist" a religion? I don't think so. it's more a category. I think Atheism is more like that. Not all atheists are the same, but supposedly all (roman) catholics are. You could argue that a skeptic (like myself) is an a-theist. Or person that doesn't believe in a god(s). but lack of belief doesn't necessarily mean positive unbelieving on faith. If you took an atheist and showed them proof of a god, some (the skeptics) might switch, others (the positive type) would not. I have known far more of the skeptical variety than the ardent atheist kind.Touche. However, Atheism IS a religion; agnosticism is not. Despite all the disgusting word-games and self-important fluffing that Atheists do with themselves, theirs is a positive belief in NO God, rather than a negative belief as they pretend.
That implies that the answer is unknowable. I don't think it is.Right, just like being a Mets fan. Stick with "agnostic".
If by above you mean like 5 pages ago (or more), I found that page lacking.Sure they do; it's just as I expressed above.
You might say that atheists have a idea about creation--but i don't think science is a religion. if they came up with new evidence that the big bang happened differently, I'd change, but the religious would not. so #1 is iffy.
#2 is a big no. There's atheists that think all sorts of crazy stuff. Lenin and Rand were polar opposites, and i don't consider myself a follower of either.
#3 again we don't meet, nor do we have a body of agreed upon tenets, practices, rituals etc.
#4 doesn't apply
#5 talks about faith, which I reject.
So like I said, while i do think we should have the same rights as religious people, atheists (if you must call me that) really are so because of a lack of belief, not a particular religion. You may not like that answer because you see the world as out to get you, but that's how it is.
Well, "religion" or not, those nasty theologies are always trying to weasel their way into our lives, into the laws, trying to tell others how to live their lives. Look at this thread. The whole thing was about a woman's right to hold dominion over her own body, and you a self-proclaimed "true conservative" won't even back her in that.Interestingly enough, it is the grounds for what you demand - recognition of your views as being protected by the Gov't. See, otherwise the States COULD be those evil, nassty theocracies you imagine are lurking under every bed. If you don't know about it, you can research some history.
I'm not sure why it would need to come up....If there was a *** father in my son's troop, I'm not sure I'd know or care unless they made it an issue--or when there was a ceremony and the kid brought other dad. I don't see how it would affect anything really. I mean, if it weirds you out, let him bring his own tent. If i remember, the dads/scoutmasters all mostly had their own tents most of the time anyway--unless we were hiking somewhere where weight was an issue.Yet you fail to recognize why people would object to a queer "father figure"?
i think you know why that would be different. but we're not talking about a pedophile. We're talking about a committed (married possibly depending on the state) *** man who adopted a child. He's not a pedophile. He just wants to be there with the kid, the way many dads don't get the chance.Precisely - so why would a Scoutmaster sneaking off into the woods with the Senior Patrol Leader somehow be less of an issue?
Because you're assuming he's going to diddle the kids just because he's *** and your boss hit on you once.See, we're back to "terrible". Why is it that not supporting queer proselytization is terrible?
Yes, there were gays in the military, i acknowledge that, but it's unfair that if they don't sneak around and hide it they get fired. that's wrong.That's also dishonest, as well as untrue. If you think there were no queer soldiers during my time in the Army, to say nothing of centuries previous, you're just deluding yourself. The whole point is to keep it in their pants and behind closed doors, which is precisely why the ACLU had to destroy it - anything to destroy U.S. cohesion, the ACLU has a good chance of endorsing.
Are you kidding me? You've got to be kidding me.It would most definitely be grounds to keep them from running Scout units.
I don't have an issue with it in principle, but then i don't think the government should grant any benefits to being married at all. I'm not sure why the government is policing marriage. I do worry that some of those polygamists you hear about are cultists with all these young girls--but that's a different thread.But why not take your claim to the logical grounds of polygamy?
I had a heterosexual woman as my scout master, so I guess I'm lucky she didn't take me out into the woods and rape me . . . or something.
What kind of sense to it make to discuss about the Republican candatate that extensively? I doubt that any of them will be elected. The GOP needs somebody who has to skills to fascinate and inspire the people with something like a vision at the right time. The current candidates seem to be either too bland or too much screwed up to be an option for any kind of majority in the US.
Maybe it's a good idea for the Republicans to elect some figurehead, don't bother too much if he fails (or maybe even get rid of him that way) and concentrate more on finding, nurturing and promoting a more promising candidate in 4 years, somebody who has the balls and the charisma to achieve something.
But I admit that my opinion isn't that well funded. It's more like an impression. Maybe I'm wrong and one of the current candidates already has these talents?
Plus, look at the political fights that have been going on in swing states. Wisconsin had the big mess with scott walker which superceded all the government running away and camping out in rockford. Wisconsin is a little more blue than red, but could have swung if walker hadn't mishandled his spending cuts.
There was a similar, but not quite as crazy mess in Ohio. People went crazy there and we all know how important Ohio is. The list goes on, but basically, the GOP have not managed their surge well. They could have taken the tea party thing to a new era of fiscal responsibility, but instead they spent much of their political capital on the debt ceiling debate. I don't think they came off winners there.
Now coming bak to the social issues is another tactical mistake. All that's going to do is turn off the other half of the party. People who actually vote on the issues Jmerv and i have been going on about are always going to vote GOP, or stay home. they're easy to rile up because look how passionate they can be about something that affects them zero like abortion or *** rights. you can pretty much just count those votes now. What the GOP is in trouble of losing though is their support from the fiscal conservatives. If come election day the choice is between obama and someone that looks like they're going to spend about as much, then they are going to lose interest. Blame Bush2 for that I suppose. Sure Obama's record is worse, and that's good for a 30 spot, but i don't think romney is scoring points by going to detroit and saying wouldn't have bailed out the car companies (people from the mitten are crazy about the auto industry). He's going to let people think, well obama spent that money to save the economy. he's basically giving obama a pass on his spending, and that's a bad bad move for him.
I'm a swing voter, i'm a little more republican leaning than democrat, but as I'm sure you've noticed, the positions republicans take on social issues is really...unsettling. I want a good fiscal conservative that's not going to turn the country into a theocracy. I'm thining I don't have one, so all i can do is ask is this guy going to have better foriegn policy than Obama? I'm not sure. Obama didn't do it all the way i would have, but he has been fairly successful in foreign policy.
He got UBL, and did it with a strike team. (he then proceeded to publicize the details about it which I'm not happy about)
He handled the egypt mess very well, spending very little to take out mubarak, and leading from behind the scenes so we dont look like we did with bush.
He's maintained pressure on Iran, and set us up to make some headway there. I don't know that it'll work, and then we'll have a tough question, but certainly the economic pressures are going to probably squeeze Ahmadinejad out of office. We'll see about the guy who seems to be primed to take his seat. I think he'll be a hardliner.
I also like the handling of isreal. give them a little grief knocked them back to their place (they were over-reaching), but still willing to support them as an ally if iran gets a nuke. I think that was the right take. I'm not a big Isreal supporter, but as Jmerv has intoned, the muslims there are definitely worse.
I'd still like some more work to be done on the chinese. there haven't been many tangible wins there, we've been talking about getting them to float their currency for years (longer than Obama has been around for sure) and all we've really ever gotten were steps towards where the market price would be. I do know that trumps negotiating tactic will not do well against the chinese. If i get a hint of that from one of our candidates it might give me some pause.
Anyway, i am sure I'm not the only swing voter thinking about these things. That's a lot of hoops to jump through to get a fiscal conservative. If I have to stomach their bad social policies, and potentially bad foreign policy, then Obama's weaknesses might not seem that bad. The GOP better wake up or their going to push themselves right out of relevancy, just when we need them the most. If they let Obama get another four years, and he doesn't fit their mold of the crazy spendthrift (and he won't because there won't be bailouts and stimuluses to do, plus as the economuy improves revenues will rise), then he'll come out looking all shiny and it won't be hard to pass the torch to the next dem. The GOP need to find out how to not marginalize themselves. The party needs to come into this century. I fear if they don't lighten up on the social issues, and better communicate their plans for debt reduction, we'll be stuck with an era of big spenders. You think it's bad now, just wait.
I can't believe they are actually starting to go down the social crusader road! I'm flabbergasted! It seemed like they had a pretty decent strategy harping on the economy and spending, although I think both of your impressions are right: Obama likely has 4 more coming his way unless something goes off the cliff. However, social conservative thinking has been losing ground by leaps and bounds over the last couple of decades. I can't believe they are trying to ride that! I thought Dems were masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, but perhaps the GOP is taking a stab at snatching catastrophe from the jaws of defeat? They have to drop this immediately, this isn't grandpa's electorate anymore. If they don't drop it, they could lose massively in the legislature. Furthermore, they have to drop this kinda stuff for the long haul, because the only people (en masse) who give a crap about these issues are going to be dead in 20-30 years and the GOP risks going into the ground with them.
I don't think this will last though. I think they *generally* know better, the primary voters are just going back through their exes since Newt has trailed off. Republican operatives have admitted that since this recent war on women/sex has come up, their internal polling has shown independent women FLEEING the GOP. I don't think they are suicidal.