rolltide316 0 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 So my choices in this matter are one who is rabidly pro-choice right now and has reiterated that stance in no uncertain terms and one who claims to be pro-life now even if his past causes me to question how deep that change runs. You think this revelation of yours makes the decision harder? Not for me, but you have a conundrum I really don't. Not between these two. One is utterly and despicably committed to giving the unborn no rights at all. The other at least claims to be different and has to answer to a voting base that supports the unborn's right to live. Obama has made it rather easy even with Romney's past. And not just on abortion. Romney's decision on this issue was driven by profits. Convince yourself you feel a-okay with that if you need to. How does claiming to be pro-life make more profit for Romney? Well from what I've learned about elections . During primaries, candidates will polarize and seek out the extremes of their ideology. Since they already have the support of the extremes in their party the focus changes in the general election to get the votes "in the middle". -Median Voter Theorem So Romney wants to appear moderate to gather all the voters that fall in between both parties, which is like 90% of all Americans. If you win the middle you win it all. So the more moderate he appears the more he may potentially receive in support with donations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 Well he is a capitalist. He didn't let his "moral" beliefs overide the opportunity to make him some money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 Yes, Obama doesn't reluctantly abide by Roe while working to get it overturned or at the very least modified to have some humane and common sense restrictions. He zealously defends and applauds it as is. I may not be certain what Romney's heartfelt principles are on this, but I know Obama's and they are repugnant. I've never met a single pro choice person who are in favor of late term-partial birth abortions( except in mothers health, etc..). I'm sure you can find some link to some wacked out people who are. Just like I can find examples of prolifers killing doctors and blowing up clinics. President Obama I'm pretty sure is on the record for saying the samething I just said Obama is one of those persons. A pro-life activist in Illinois says Barack Obama has repeatedly mischaracterized his opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act while he was a state senator.The Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act was signed into law in 2002 after receiving unanimous support from the U.S. Senate. The measure that forces hospitals to give medical care to abortion survivors -- if warranted -- even received the backing of liberal senators Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts ), Barbara Boxer (D-California), and Hillary Clinton (D-New York). Obama now says he did not support the Illinois measure because it "lacked the Federal language clarifying the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek recently wrote a column for WorldNetDaily.com titled "Obama's biggest lie about supporting infanticide." She points out Obama actively opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act for three years in the Illinois senate. "He voted against it. He was the sole senator speaking against it on the [illinois] senate floor [for] two years. And the third year, he held the bill from being considered altogether in committee and killed the bill," Stanek contends. She says Obama's explanation for opposing the Illinois bill does not pass the straight-face test because, as a committee chairman, he blocked the measure's sponsor from adding the federal language protecting Roe vs. Wade. That federal provision says the bill does not deny or add rights to the species Homo sapiens before birth. Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after holding a live aborted baby at a Chicago-area hospital where she worked as a registered nurse. "Barack Obama is now saying that, had that provision been in the Illinois bill he would have voted for it, which is absolutely false – because in 2003, the senate sponsor tried to add that provision and Barack Obama, as the chairman of the committee where the bill was being held, disallowed him from adding that provision, disallowed me from testifying, disallowed the committee from even voting on it. So, it sat in committee for 22 months," Stanek explains. She reveals it was not until Obama left the Illinois Senate that the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed in August of 2005. "Prolife blogger Jill Stanek recently wrote a column for the WorldNetDaily" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 21,583 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 And yet, despite you not liking the source, it's true: http://factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,185 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Don't confuse them with the facts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,706 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 So my choices in this matter are one who is rabidly pro-choice right now and has reiterated that stance in no uncertain terms and one who claims to be pro-life now even if his past causes me to question how deep that change runs. You think this revelation of yours makes the decision harder? Not for me, but you have a conundrum I really don't. Not between these two. One is utterly and despicably committed to giving the unborn no rights at all. The other at least claims to be different and has to answer to a voting base that supports the unborn's right to live. Obama has made it rather easy even with Romney's past. And not just on abortion. Romney's decision on this issue was driven by profits. Convince yourself you feel a-okay with that if you need to. How does claiming to be pro-life make more profit for Romney? Well from what I've learned about elections . During primaries, candidates will polarize and seek out the extremes of their ideology. Since they already have the support of the extremes in their party the focus changes in the general election to get the votes "in the middle". -Median Voter Theorem So Romney wants to appear moderate to gather all the voters that fall in between both parties, which is like 90% of all Americans. If you win the middle you win it all. So the more moderate he appears the more he may potentially receive in support with donations. Thanks for a potential explanation. It makes sense that Romney could get more campaign contributions by appearing to be more pro-life. It is always amusing here that people make up new definitions for words ("profits" in this example)and then people chastize you for not understanding their new, false definition. It is fun trying to see the world as a liberal sees it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,185 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Did "1984" get taken out of the school system after 1984? I can't believe the populace doesn't see what this administration is doing .... as you point out, let's redefine profits...let's use names like "affordable care act" for something that is not affordable and reduces the quality of care.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolltide316 0 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 So my choices in this matter are one who is rabidly pro-choice right now and has reiterated that stance in no uncertain terms and one who claims to be pro-life now even if his past causes me to question how deep that change runs. You think this revelation of yours makes the decision harder? Not for me, but you have a conundrum I really don't. Not between these two. One is utterly and despicably committed to giving the unborn no rights at all. The other at least claims to be different and has to answer to a voting base that supports the unborn's right to live. Obama has made it rather easy even with Romney's past. And not just on abortion. Romney's decision on this issue was driven by profits. Convince yourself you feel a-okay with that if you need to. How does claiming to be pro-life make more profit for Romney? Well from what I've learned about elections . During primaries, candidates will polarize and seek out the extremes of their ideology. Since they already have the support of the extremes in their party the focus changes in the general election to get the votes "in the middle". -Median Voter Theorem So Romney wants to appear moderate to gather all the voters that fall in between both parties, which is like 90% of all Americans. If you win the middle you win it all. So the more moderate he appears the more he may potentially receive in support with donations. Thanks for a potential explanation. It makes sense that Romney could get more campaign contributions by appearing to be more pro-life. It is always amusing here that people make up new definitions for words ("profits" in this example)and then people chastize you for not understanding their new, false definition. It is fun trying to see the world as a liberal sees it! It's nice to get a response that isn't a link to another article lol. Glad it helped. Just to be a devil's advocate regarding the ever changing definition of words in politics....you could also say that the new mandate is truly not a tax, it can pressure a state to take measures in the form of a tax, but all the mandate can do is fine states...funny how we sometimes play the game too.....but hey the Supreme Court says it was...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted July 8, 2012 Author Share Posted July 8, 2012 Romney definition of "profit"- making money by disposing of fetuses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,892 Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Romney definition of "profit"- making money by disposing of fetuses Obama definition of profit - getting the government to pay for all abortions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 21,583 Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Romney definition of "profit"- making money by disposing of fetuses Obama's definition: Making sure there is ample supply of fetuses for companies to profit from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 14,575 Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 So my choices in this matter are one who is rabidly pro-choice right now and has reiterated that stance in no uncertain terms and one who claims to be pro-life now even if his past causes me to question how deep that change runs. You think this revelation of yours makes the decision harder? Not for me, but you have a conundrum I really don't. Not between these two. One is utterly and despicably committed to giving the unborn no rights at all. The other at least claims to be different and has to answer to a voting base that supports the unborn's right to live. Obama has made it rather easy even with Romney's past. And not just on abortion. Romney's decision on this issue was driven by profits. Convince yourself you feel a-okay with that if you need to. How does claiming to be pro-life make more profit for Romney? Well from what I've learned about elections . During primaries, candidates will polarize and seek out the extremes of their ideology. Since they already have the support of the extremes in their party the focus changes in the general election to get the votes "in the middle". -Median Voter Theorem So Romney wants to appear moderate to gather all the voters that fall in between both parties, which is like 90% of all Americans. If you win the middle you win it all. So the more moderate he appears the more he may potentially receive in support with donations. Thanks for a potential explanation. It makes sense that Romney could get more campaign contributions by appearing to be more pro-life. It is always amusing here that people make up new definitions for words ("profits" in this example)and then people chastize you for not understanding their new, false definition. It is fun trying to see the world as a liberal sees it! I didn't make up a defnition. I used the old-fashioned one. And it wasn't in reference to him being "pro-life." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 Romney definition of "profit"- making money by disposing of fetuses Obama's definition: Making sure there is ample supply of fetuses for companies to profit from. Then Romney's stock ought to do well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 If he was smart, he would have invested in companies that produce stem cells from fetuses too. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 He would have to waited for Bush got of office first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUn Collierville 1 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 He would have to waited for Bush got of office first What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAG-91 1,629 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 He would have to waited for Bush got of office first I'm going to need the "arnald-to-English" dictionary for this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,137 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 He would have to waited for Bush got of office first Don't have a grandson with a dog collar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.