GOP plans Constitutional Amendment banning all abortion as national convention platform

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Gorfias:

Life of Julia is actual internet site of his campaign:

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/

Gorfias, I know you think Life of Julia is Mein Kampf II: Electric Boogaloo but the rest of us are somewhat less horrified by it. And before you start asking people whether they'd 'prefer' welfare or a job, it would behoove you to notice THERE ARE NO FUCKING JOBS RIGHT NOW. And if cutting taxes on the ultra-rich was going to Create Jobs(tm Republican Party) it would've done so by now.

The republicans once controlled Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency at the same time. They didn't try to ban abortion then.

I think this is just an attempt to rally the pro-life base, by pretending they're actually trying to ban abortion.

We and the Republicans all know this amendment will fail in the current climate.

never mind all that the worst thing to come out of the convention for me was finding out Maggie from Northern Exposure is a republican :'(

Father Time:
The republicans once controlled Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency at the same time. They didn't try to ban abortion then.

I think this is just an attempt to rally the pro-life base, by pretending they're actually trying to ban abortion.

We and the Republicans all know this amendment will fail in the current climate.

The GOP is not stupid enough to really try to ban abortion. Why on earth would they intentionally kill one of their best wedge issues?

Father Time:
The republicans once controlled Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency at the same time. They didn't try to ban abortion then.

When was that? Even during the Bush presidency, O'Connell was in support of the Roe decision and there still was a majority in favor of upholding the Roe decision.

DrAlex:

Gorfias:

DrAlex:

What has he done to make you think that? I've seen no proof that he's anything other than right of center.

Life of Julia is actual internet site of his campaign:

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/

I didn't ask for soundbites. I want to hear you describe the actions he has taken in his presidency that has led you to this conclusion in your own words. I think you're being rude by refusing to give me a real answer. I've been straight with you. Please return the favor.

Life of Julia is hardly a sound bite, but his health care reform is a nightmare too:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/6e3udzHIiVs?feature=player_detailpage

He invaded Libya for no good reason. Bush said he needed about $400 billion in stimulus, Obama spent about double. Etc.

arbane:

Gorfias, I know you think Life of Julia is Mein Kampf II: Electric Boogaloo but the rest of us are somewhat less horrified by it. And before you start asking people whether they'd 'prefer' welfare or a job, it would behoove you to notice THERE ARE NO FUCKING JOBS RIGHT NOW. And if cutting taxes on the ultra-rich was going to Create Jobs(tm Republican Party) it would've done so by now.

Funny you should write that. In another thread (Romney lying again) I note that right now, we need welfare, yet it calls Romney a liar for saying the administration is avoiding welfare rules set in 1996. I spank Romney for thinking that a bad thing around now, and I spank Obama for not stating this is not 1996: there are no jobs.

But who do I think more likely to change the "no jobs" problem? Romney. See Carter vs. Reagan.

Gorfias:
He invaded Libya for no good reason.

That's not true and you know it. There was no invasion. He ordered the US air force to wreck a few army columns in the desert that were on their way to cause a genocide, and US planes were withdrawn after just a few days. The US barely was involved in the EU intervention against Khadaffi.

Unjustified also implicates that you think letting Khadaffi's security forces going around murdering raping and looting untill nobody dared stand up to them would've been the right outcome. Sounds like you need to either withdraw that point, or write a hell of an argument why Khadaffi deserved to remain in power at the expense of tens of thousands of lives.

Donuthole:
The GOP is not stupid enough

You are naive my friend. ;-p

"The GOP is stupid enough" is like "There's porn of it"; chances are it'll ever be untrue for any issue are slim.

Blablahb:
You are naive my friend. ;-p

"The GOP is stupid enough" is like "There's porn of it"; chances are it'll ever be untrue for any issue are slim.

Speaking of porn.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/28/uk-usa-campaign-porn-idUSLNE87R00520120828

Another plank in the now finalised by the members GOP platform is calling for a crackdown on pronography.

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
He invaded Libya for no good reason.

That's not true and you know it. There was no invasion. He ordered the US air force to wreck a few army columns in the desert that were on their way to cause a genocide, and US planes were withdrawn after just a few days. The US barely was involved in the EU intervention against Khadaffi.

I'll try to think of it that way if the Canadian Air Force ever starts carpet bombing us. Thanks.

Father Time:
The republicans once controlled Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency at the same time. They didn't try to ban abortion then.

I think this is just an attempt to rally the pro-life base, by pretending they're actually trying to ban abortion.

We and the Republicans all know this amendment will fail in the current climate.

you have to remember though the republican party is further to the right now than ever before. they also have the batshit insane tea party. extremism is the new republican party and until the people let them know that the shit they are doing is not right the better america will be.

voter suppression
legislation against women, this includes the abortion stuff
anti gay
anti tax
supply side economics
and now anti porn

i could probably list more things but those were just off the top of my head.

Gorfias:
Life of Julia is hardly a sound bite, but his health care reform is a nightmare too:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/6e3udzHIiVs?feature=player_detailpage

Why do you refuse to give me an answer in your own words? Why do you keep linking me to everything else but your own words? I'm not asking for other people's opinions, I'm asking for yours. Why won't you be straight with me?

In regards to his healthcare reform, most of the best parts of the ACA are taking effect, but I wanted a public option instead of the individual mandate. I blame the Republicans for that. The mandate itself is rather toothless as the only thing they can do if you don't get insurance is withhold your tax return.

He invaded Libya for no good reason. Bush said he needed about $400 billion in stimulus, Obama spent about double. Etc.

We did not invade Libya, we provided air support. There was no US occupying force. They asked for help and we provided it.

As for the stimulus, it worked, so what's the problem? I don't understand. The Republicans hypocritically denounced it, and yet almost all of them ended up taking the stimulus money when it was offered.

But who do I think more likely to change the "no jobs" problem? Romney. See Carter vs. Reagan.

How would he? You cannot point to his time at Bain Capital as experience. Private equity firms are not businesses in the traditional sense. They're more like financial firms. Anyway, a businessman does not create jobs, he simply responds to a demand. A good marketer can artificially create demand, but Romney never worked in marketing. Do you know how private equity firms work? I personally see them as a scam.

Gorfias:
He invaded Libya for no good reason.

You guys shouted up and down about how Saddam was killing his own people. Qaddaffi does the same, and far more limited intervention is for "no good reason"?

Mkay.

Gorfias:
Bush said he needed about $400 billion in stimulus, Obama spent about double.

And considering Obama's double wasn't enough, that makes your boy Bush twice as wrong as Obama. Lawyered.

DrAlex:

In regards to his healthcare reform, most of the best parts of the ACA are taking effect, but I wanted a public option instead of the individual mandate. I blame the Republicans for that.

I don't. I blame Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman for that.

DrAlex:

Why do you refuse to give me an answer in your own words?

If my last links didn't answer your question, I'm confused. What am I answering?

We did not invade Libya, we provided air support.

I keep writing, I'll remember that if Canada starts carpet bombing us.

But who do I think more likely to change the "no jobs" problem? Romney. See Carter vs. Reagan.

How would he? You cannot point to his time at Bain Capital as experience. Private equity firms are not businesses in the traditional sense. They're more like financial firms. Anyway, a businessman does not create jobs, he simply responds to a demand. A good marketer can artificially create demand, but Romney never worked in marketing. Do you know how private equity firms work? I personally see them as a scam.

Reagan was just an actor, but his vision saved us from the Carter malaise. I want the same from Romney.

Donuthole:

You guys shouted up and down about how Saddam was killing his own people.

I thought we thought him a threat, if for no other reason, according to ABC news, he was rattling WMD programs. Quadaffi? Not so much.

Gorfias:
Bush said he needed about $400 billion in stimulus, Obama spent about double.

And considering Obama's double wasn't enough, that makes your boy Bush twice as wrong as Obama. Lawyered.

There are schools of thought that state, "don't stimulate, it'll just end up as debt for waste, fraud and abuse." I think they have a point.

Yeah, and those schools of thought are full of shit.

It amazes me how no Republican in 30 years knows DICK about economics.

I often read stories like this and I feel outraged because I am a woman and the outcome of such a decision would drastically affect my freedom to choose what I want for myself and my body. But then I remember that crap like this proposition to completely ban abortion will probably never happen because we live in a smart society. A single person is smart and logical so that knowledge gives me hope that even though idiocy of this magnitude will always present itself, there are smart, sane individuals who will vote this nonsense down.

I've said in the past that I don't mind anti-abortion people. I totally understand where they are coming from when they say that abortion shouldn't be an option. However, I believe that if Republicans truly want to get rid of abortion they cannot do it through laws. To decrease the number of abortions the Republicans should promote the idea that just because a woman is pregnant does not mean she has to keep that baby or raise it and perhaps promote *gasp* social programs that help her do this. They should not attack choice, but rather try to persuade a pregnant girl or woman to give up the baby that she doesn't want to one of the many couples waiting to adopt who are unable to have children. Reaching out to someone and trying to help them is far more effective than telling them they cannot do something because God said "no". I've seen protests and public gatherings against abortion and they always attack choice. The idea of choice is the most important thing in this whole debate. Pro-choice people obviously want it and anti-abortion people try to take it away. We need to stop attacking choice and instead promote certain ones. We should always have options but should instead be encouraged to make one that ends with a new life and a happy set of parents who get to raise that new life.

Gorfias:
If my last links didn't answer your question, I'm confused. What am I answering?

I want your opinion, not somebody else's. All you do is link to videos of other people saying things, or you point to Obama's campaign and expect me to have the same reaction to it that you do. That's not answering my questions. I've been nothing but polite to you, aren't I owed a straight answer?

I keep writing, I'll remember that if Canada starts carpet bombing us.

That's a non sequitur.

Reagan was just an actor, but his vision saved us from the Carter malaise. I want the same from Romney.

Another non sequitur. I like Matt Damon, but I'm not going to ask him to run for public office. I'm asking for what proof there is that Romney knows enough about both micro and macro-economics to help the country. Pointing to Ronald Reagan is not a good answer because it tells me nothing.

The problem for me as a voter is that Romney is a cipher. He's changed his position on multiple issues several times and insists that he has a plan, but tells us very little about what it is or how it works. Obama on the other hand has made efforts to repair the economy through stimulus spending, and according to the data it was working until he got stonewalled. Since I've seen results, I want to continue with this plan. To convince me to go with Romney's you need to tell me what it is, and why it will work better.

reonhato:

Father Time:
The republicans once controlled Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency at the same time. They didn't try to ban abortion then.

I think this is just an attempt to rally the pro-life base, by pretending they're actually trying to ban abortion.

We and the Republicans all know this amendment will fail in the current climate.

you have to remember though the republican party is further to the right now than ever before. they also have the batshit insane tea party. extremism is the new republican party and until the people let them know that the shit they are doing is not right the better america will be.

voter suppression
legislation against women, this includes the abortion stuff
anti gay
anti tax
supply side economics
and now anti porn

i could probably list more things but those were just off the top of my head.

Modern Republicans are anti-porn, as in trying to ban porn?

When did this happen?

I thought all the "let's ban porn" people gave up. I mean I can't think of a bigger waste of time than trying to get rid of adults' access to (adult) porn. You'd have to do nothing less than get rid of the internet, because even if you got every single country to ban porn it'd just go underground, and you'd have 4chan/Anonymous helping out the people looking for porn.

The Gentleman:

Father Time:
The republicans once controlled Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency at the same time. They didn't try to ban abortion then.

When was that? Even during the Bush presidency, O'Connell was in support of the Roe decision and there still was a majority in favor of upholding the Roe decision.

Didn't know that.

Still, even with control over Congress and the President they did nothing to try to ban it.

Father Time:

reonhato:

Father Time:
The republicans once controlled Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency at the same time. They didn't try to ban abortion then.

I think this is just an attempt to rally the pro-life base, by pretending they're actually trying to ban abortion.

We and the Republicans all know this amendment will fail in the current climate.

you have to remember though the republican party is further to the right now than ever before. they also have the batshit insane tea party. extremism is the new republican party and until the people let them know that the shit they are doing is not right the better america will be.

voter suppression
legislation against women, this includes the abortion stuff
anti gay
anti tax
supply side economics
and now anti porn

i could probably list more things but those were just off the top of my head.

Modern Republicans are anti-porn, as in trying to ban porn?

When did this happen?

I thought all the "let's ban porn" people gave up. I mean I can't think of a bigger waste of time than trying to get rid of adults' access to (adult) porn. You'd have to do nothing less than get rid of the internet, because even if you got every single country to ban porn it'd just go underground, and you'd have 4chan/Anonymous helping out the people looking for porn.

Added as an additional plank in their party platform at the same time as the anti-abortion language.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/gop-anti-porn-plank-platform_n_1833840.html

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Father Time:

reonhato:

you have to remember though the republican party is further to the right now than ever before. they also have the batshit insane tea party. extremism is the new republican party and until the people let them know that the shit they are doing is not right the better america will be.

voter suppression
legislation against women, this includes the abortion stuff
anti gay
anti tax
supply side economics
and now anti porn

i could probably list more things but those were just off the top of my head.

Modern Republicans are anti-porn, as in trying to ban porn?

When did this happen?

I thought all the "let's ban porn" people gave up. I mean I can't think of a bigger waste of time than trying to get rid of adults' access to (adult) porn. You'd have to do nothing less than get rid of the internet, because even if you got every single country to ban porn it'd just go underground, and you'd have 4chan/Anonymous helping out the people looking for porn.

Added as an additional plank in their party platform at the same time as the anti-abortion language.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/gop-anti-porn-plank-platform_n_1833840.html

20 year olds aren't interested in sex because of porn?

This has to be something from the onion. I mean if you weren't interested in sex you'd stop looking at porn.

But yeah this is stupid.

Father Time:

This has to be something from the onion. I mean if you weren't interested in sex you'd stop looking at porn.

But yeah this is stupid.

Seems like the Republicans would want more porn if that where the case, less children out of wedlock.

The Lesbian Flower:
I've said in the past that I don't mind anti-abortion people. I totally understand where they are coming from when they say that abortion shouldn't be an option. However, I believe that if Republicans truly want to get rid of abortion they cannot do it through laws. To decrease the number of abortions the Republicans should promote the idea that just because a woman is pregnant does not mean she has to keep that baby or raise it and perhaps promote *gasp* social programs that help her do this. They should not attack choice, but rather try to persuade a pregnant girl or woman to give up the baby that she doesn't want to one of the many couples waiting to adopt who are unable to have children. Reaching out to someone and trying to help them is far more effective than telling them they cannot do something because God said "no". I've seen protests and public gatherings against abortion and they always attack choice. The idea of choice is the most important thing in this whole debate. Pro-choice people obviously want it and anti-abortion people try to take it away. We need to stop attacking choice and instead promote certain ones. We should always have options but should instead be encouraged to make one that ends with a new life and a happy set of parents who get to raise that new life.

Now that is an idea I can get behind. I've never understood why the Republican party seems to value the lives of the unborn so much, but as soon as that baby is born if the mother happens to not have the funds to properly care for it, suddenly she's the scum of the earth for having a baby and having to "live off the government" to support it. They love these babies so much, until they're born. Then they don't want to hear from that baby again until it's a productive member of society.

It still irks me because that still means the woman still has to go through the nine months of pregnancy against her will, but at least if they make the processes of adoption and government aid more amicable and stop making the feel like shit for using those services they won't feel so scared about what they're going to do after the baby is born.

DrAlex:

Gorfias:
If my last links didn't answer your question, I'm confused. What am I answering?

I want your opinion, not somebody else's. All you do is link to videos of other people saying things, or you point to Obama's campaign and expect me to have the same reaction to it that you do. That's not answering my questions. I've been nothing but polite to you, aren't I owed a straight answer?

My opinion about what again? Obama and Romney? I really am trying to answer you.

I think Obama is an unreconstructed leftist member of the academic left that has a distaste for all things USA and would like this country to be more like Europe.

I think Romney wants to be the next Reagan, but for our times. That's why I like him.

I keep writing, I'll remember that if Canada starts carpet bombing us.

That's a non sequitur.[/quote]

I infer from your previous that Canada, carpet bombing US military targets would not constitute a military invasion. I disagree.

Reagan was just an actor, but his vision saved us from the Carter malaise. I want the same from Romney.

Another non sequitur. I like Matt Damon, but I'm not going to ask him to run for public office. I'm asking for what proof there is that Romney knows enough about both micro and macro-economics to help the country. Pointing to Ronald Reagan is not a good answer because it tells me nothing.

The problem for me as a voter is that Romney is a cipher. He's changed his position on multiple issues several times and insists that he has a plan, but tells us very little about what it is or how it works. Obama on the other hand has made efforts to repair the economy through stimulus spending, and according to the data it was working until he got stonewalled. Since I've seen results, I want to continue with this plan. To convince me to go with Romney's you need to tell me what it is, and why it will work better.

I think Obama got to do double the "stimulus" spending Bush II thought he needed. I'll be honest, I think spending was a distant 2nd behind doing the health care reform thing. For someone that can be thought of as an unaccomplished incompetent, he managed to do what Clinton did not.

As for Romney, three things about him: He helped grow Staples from a small chain to an international office supply super store. I heard he helped with an Olympics. He was governor of a very left wing state, Massachusetts, and kept it from self destructing.

I have heard, hey! Mass had among the slowest growth of the States while he was governor. Look at the list next time: it is harder to grow when you're already rich. Wealthy Connecticut was way down there at that time too.

My 2 cents. Hope that helps answer your questions. I'd be happy to add things. It may be me, not you. I get a lot of snarky quote posts and they can get confusing.

Gorfias:

Life of Julia is hardly a sound bite, but his health care reform is a nightmare too:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/6e3udzHIiVs?feature=player_detailpage

Yah I've heard stories about how the healthcare reform is giving business a hard time to expand, and to be honest it's the only good point I've heard from the RNC because it attacks something specific that the only the Democrats have done (ok not exactly accurate but it was the closest they got) and can go into detail why it is. All their other points are always generalizations that aren't true (like Obama has been and is raising taxes! They're the lowest they've been in decades, or how Obama wants to weaken America when he's been noted to actually be more aggressive) and one out of context sound bite. But I haven't seen any statistic showing the actual effects of Obamacare on job growth so I'm not sure how accurate that statement has been.

Gorfias:

He invaded Libya for no good reason.

He didn't invade, he created a no fly zone where the other NATO nations did most of the fighting where the US did most of the supplying. All he did was make it so the rebels could win and that's what happened.

Gorfias:

Bush said he needed about $400 billion in stimulus, Obama spent about double. Etc.

To begin with Economists were arguing it wasn't enough for Bush hence why Obama did double. The thing though was that the stimulus isn't a Conservative economic policy, but it was something that nearly all Economists agreed it was necessary.

Gorfias:

Funny you should write that. In another thread (Romney lying again) I note that right now, we need welfare, yet it calls Romney a liar for saying the administration is avoiding welfare rules set in 1996. I spank Romney for thinking that a bad thing around now, and I spank Obama for not stating this is not 1996: there are no jobs.

I think Romney was accusing Obama of removing the right-to-work requirement out of welfare, this was a gross distortion from a bill Obama passed to help troubled families. Other than that nothing other than generalizations.

Gorfias:

But who do I think more likely to change the "no jobs" problem? Romney. See Carter vs. Reagan.

So you want lower taxes? Taxes are lower under Obama than under Reagan. The only other thing was de-regulation, but I don't think that was up for debate then because Carter was the one who began the campaign for de-regulating the economy and had done it first with the airline industry. Maybe then inflation? But that was solved by Carter's Federal Reserve policy which took 3 years to take effect (they started in 1979 so it was already in Reagan's term) along with cheap gas which combined with the fuel-efficient machines businesses expanded like crazy.

Gorfias:
I think Obama is an unreconstructed leftist member of the academic left that has a distaste for all things USA and would like this country to be more like Europe.

See, that. You make these claims but offer nothing of substance to explain why you claim to such conclusions. It's all just TV punditry sensationalism, and I'm tired of it because it makes me feel like I'm being talked down to.

I infer from your previous that Canada, carpet bombing US military targets would not constitute a military invasion. I disagree.

No. It's a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with what actually happened. And I'm insulted that you think so poorly of my intelligence that you're going to use scaremongering on me.

I think Obama got to do double the "stimulus" spending Bush II thought he needed. I'll be honest, I think spending was a distant 2nd behind doing the health care reform thing. For someone that can be thought of as an unaccomplished incompetent, he managed to do what Clinton did not.

And what did he do that Clinton didn't?

As for Romney, three things about him: He helped grow Staples from a small chain to an international office supply super store. I heard he helped with an Olympics. He was governor of a very left wing state, Massachusetts, and kept it from self destructing.

I have heard, hey! Mass had among the slowest growth of the States while he was governor. Look at the list next time: it is harder to grow when you're already rich. Wealthy Connecticut was way down there at that time too.

My 2 cents. Hope that helps answer your questions. I'd be happy to add things. It may be me, not you. I get a lot of snarky quote posts and they can get confusing.

None of that impresses me because none of it is a qualification for public executive office. I don't know want a businessman in the White House because you don't run a government the way you do a business. They're not the same thing. I can say that because I am starting a business and have read up on politics. They're totally different and require different skills.

As for Massachusetts, Romney's governorship was actually fairly unremarkable. It seems that you're only voting for Romney because he's not Obama. Not because he's as exceptional candidate. Not because he's an effective administrator. Not because he's a financial genius. He's just not Obama.

Warforger:

Gorfias:

He invaded Libya for no good reason.

He didn't invade, he created a no fly zone where the other NATO nations did most of the fighting where the US did most of the supplying. All he did was make it so the rebels could win and that's what happened.

Nope. This is tame, but easy to find:

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/benghazi/news/2011/mar/20/us-allies-bomb-libya

We bombed them too. If Canada did that to us, I'd consider it war.

Gorfias:

Funny you should write that. In another thread (Romney lying again) I note that right now, we need welfare, yet it calls Romney a liar for saying the administration is avoiding welfare rules set in 1996. I spank Romney for thinking that a bad thing around now, and I spank Obama for not stating this is not 1996: there are no jobs.

I think Romney was accusing Obama of removing the right-to-work requirement out of welfare, this was a gross distortion from a bill Obama passed to help troubled families. Other than that nothing other than generalizations.

Supposedly, even leftists like Mickey Kaus are putting the lie to that. When someone can call, "helping out friends and family" a job, you've gutted the requirement.

And I've written things are different now than in 1996. But rather than evade the truth, Obama and his cohorts should confront it.

I expect Romney et. al. though, to keep taxes low or even cut them (I note that unlike when Reagan came to office with 70% rates, rates are lower now and cutting them wouldn't much stimulate the economy) but Romney has a good business background. If he cuts regulations, maintains our infrastructure, etc. and makes our country look solvent, it will be good for business.

DrAlex:

Gorfias:
I think Obama is an unreconstructed leftist member of the academic left that has a distaste for all things USA and would like this country to be more like Europe.

See, that. You make these claims but offer nothing of substance to explain why you claim to such conclusions. It's all just TV punditry sensationalism, and I'm tired of it because it makes me feel like I'm being talked down to.

I'm still guessing at what you mean. I give a link and it is passing the buck. I tell you my opinion and I'm offering nothing of substance. I could say I was outraged when he said the Cambridge police acted stupidly. Am I failing you if I don't include a link? Seriously, I'm trying to help you out here. Please be specific about what you want.

[quote="DrAlex" post="528.385801.15421434"]
None of that impresses me because none of it is a qualification for public executive office.

His having been a State Governor doesn't count? Even if unremarkable?

Gorfias:
His having been a State Governor doesn't count? Even if unremarkable?

I asked several things of you, and this is all I get. Regretfully, this conversation must end as you have made it clear that you are not interested in giving me the answers that I ask for. I hope that in the future you will be more willing to speak to me as an adult.

Gorfias:
Nope. This is tame, but easy to find:
http://www.sanduskyregister.com/benghazi/news/2011/mar/20/us-allies-bomb-libya
We bombed them too. If Canada did that to us, I'd consider it war.

So you're admitting that you were wrong when you claimed Obama ordered Libya to be invaded?

Donuthole:

Gorfias:
He invaded Libya for no good reason.

You guys shouted up and down about how Saddam was killing his own people. Qaddaffi does the same, and far more limited intervention is for "no good reason"?

Mkay.

Oh, that's easy to explain. When Bush The Elder referred to Saddam Hussein as "Worse Than Hitler", that wasn't just warmongering hyperbole, it was a precise scientific measure of Hussein's inherent evil, which was SO great that it made his slaughters of civilians EVEN WORSE than if some other, less-evil dictator had done them. (Libruls have this ridiculous notion that the 'goodness' or 'evilness' of an action depends on the outcome, instead of who's committing them. This is why the US could torture prisoners - since we're the Good Guys, EVERYTHING 'we' (by which I mean, of course, Republicans) do is Good, instead of the reprehensible war-crimes they'd be if some non-good lesser nation were to do them.)

Ghaddaphi has barely rated 0.2 Hitlers ever since the 1990s, so his civilian-killing is inherently less evil than Saddams, and thus not worth any sort of military action. After all, it's not like the Republicans give a crap about the peasantry in THIS country, let alone some other one.

Gorfias:
His having been a State Governor doesn't count? Even if unremarkable?

It's rather hard to take his time as the Governor of Massachusetts seriously when every time he talks about it he only has regrets and apologies (given you can get him to admit it happened at all).

Gorfias:

Nope. This is tame, but easy to find:

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/benghazi/news/2011/mar/20/us-allies-bomb-libya

We bombed them too. If Canada did that to us, I'd consider it war.

That's exactly what a No-Fly zone is, you shoot down any plane that attempts to fly into the zone

Gorfias:

I think Romney was accusing Obama of removing the right-to-work requirement out of welfare, this was a gross distortion from a bill Obama passed to help troubled families. Other than that nothing other than generalizations.

Supposedly, even leftists like Mickey Kaus are putting the lie to that. When someone can call, "helping out friends and family" a job, you've gutted the requirement.

Not sure about that

Gorfias:

And I've written things are different now than in 1996. But rather than evade the truth, Obama and his cohorts should confront it.

Not sure if he's been asked about it yet. The GOP has been running alot of lies and distortions that just make it unbearable for me to sit through a speech. I have no problem with attacking Obama as long as you can cite sources as though you were doing a basic English paper. But they mostly just rely on generalizations and that's what really turns me away. Nevermind Chris Christie's delusion of his own state, a state 47th in job creation in the nation and a budget that's only balanced because literally he made a new way of calculating it which didn't project a deficit. Great if he were elected President then he would just write our debt out of existence as well.

Gorfias:

I expect Romney et. al. though, to keep taxes low or even cut them (I note that unlike when Reagan came to office with 70% rates, rates are lower now and cutting them wouldn't much stimulate the economy) but Romney has a good business background. If he cuts regulations, maintains our infrastructure, etc. and makes our country look solvent, it will be good for business.

Um the latest budget he proposed IIRC raised taxes on everyone while it lowered taxes for the rich.

Dear Gorfias, from a Massachusetts resident.

Simply put, no his Governance means jack shit. Why? Because everything that got him elected he has forsaken or "Had a change of heart" with. Including the fact that he cannot discuss his Governance now that he is the GOP's crusader without blushing, implying of course you get him to acknowledge it all.

P.S. I will ignore that little comment about "self destructing" and adjoining it with "Left wing state"

With love, A Massachusetts resident.

Gorfias:

Warforger:

Gorfias:

He invaded Libya for no good reason.

He didn't invade, he created a no fly zone where the other NATO nations did most of the fighting where the US did most of the supplying. All he did was make it so the rebels could win and that's what happened.

Nope. This is tame, but easy to find:

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/benghazi/news/2011/mar/20/us-allies-bomb-libya

We bombed them too. If Canada did that to us, I'd consider it war.

Gorfias:

Funny you should write that. In another thread (Romney lying again) I note that right now, we need welfare, yet it calls Romney a liar for saying the administration is avoiding welfare rules set in 1996. I spank Romney for thinking that a bad thing around now, and I spank Obama for not stating this is not 1996: there are no jobs.

I think Romney was accusing Obama of removing the right-to-work requirement out of welfare, this was a gross distortion from a bill Obama passed to help troubled families. Other than that nothing other than generalizations.

Supposedly, even leftists like Mickey Kaus are putting the lie to that. When someone can call, "helping out friends and family" a job, you've gutted the requirement.

And I've written things are different now than in 1996. But rather than evade the truth, Obama and his cohorts should confront it.

I expect Romney et. al. though, to keep taxes low or even cut them (I note that unlike when Reagan came to office with 70% rates, rates are lower now and cutting them wouldn't much stimulate the economy) but Romney has a good business background. If he cuts regulations, maintains our infrastructure, etc. and makes our country look solvent, it will be good for business.

DrAlex:

Gorfias:
I think Obama is an unreconstructed leftist member of the academic left that has a distaste for all things USA and would like this country to be more like Europe.

See, that. You make these claims but offer nothing of substance to explain why you claim to such conclusions. It's all just TV punditry sensationalism, and I'm tired of it because it makes me feel like I'm being talked down to.

I'm still guessing at what you mean. I give a link and it is passing the buck. I tell you my opinion and I'm offering nothing of substance. I could say I was outraged when he said the Cambridge police acted stupidly. Am I failing you if I don't include a link? Seriously, I'm trying to help you out here. Please be specific about what you want.

[quote="DrAlex" post="528.385801.15421434"]
None of that impresses me because none of it is a qualification for public executive office.

His having been a State Governor doesn't count? Even if unremarkable?

So if the United states Government suddenly became tyrannical and the people rose up to fight it, you would be angry at Canada for helping you?

ChairmanFluffy:

So if the United states Government suddenly became tyrannical and the people rose up to fight it, you would be angry at Canada for helping you?

I'm pretty sure that would depend entirely upon which side Gorfias was rooting for.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked