View Full Version : President Romney?
Mangano's Gold
5-24-11, 1:27am
I'm not great at judging beauty contests but I like Romney's chances.
As much as the initial set of Republican potential nominees looked like a "Star Wars Bar Scene" I expect the relatively sober-minded Romney to get the nod. It's his turn, no?
And given the state of the economy you've got to think that the opposition party has a very good chance of winning.
Can anyone besides Obama stop the stormin' Morman? Rick Perry? The cute ex-Alaska governor?
Also being Mormon, most think that I would automatically vote Romney for President, but not so. What I do like is that he is a successful businessman AND has had experience in government service. I think most in the Obama administration have only worked in the public sector and don't have a clue about what it takes to operate a business.
What I don't like about Romney running for President is all the mis-information about our Church that gets dragged through the media.
What I do like is that he is a successful businessman AND has had experience in government service. I think most in the Obama administration have only worked in the public sector and don't have a clue about what it takes to operate a business.
I feel pretty much the same way. It's a long way to Nov. 2012, but Mitt has the inside track for my vote right now. As far as his religion goes I could not care less. Who is the most qualified to run the country and able make the tough decisions that will get us going in the right direction? That's the only question that needs answering for me to make a decision.
Anyone but Rick Perry, please!!!
Zigzagman
5-24-11, 10:58am
I can only speak to your reference to Tex. Gov. Rick Perry - I think that is pretty funny. ;)
According to the latest Texas Poll (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/perrys-not-the-texas-frontrunner-uttt-poll-finds/) of Repubs only 4 percent of Texas Republicans say they'd vote for the governor.
Good Lord, 5% of Texas Republicans like ebola, and a full 12% think burkas are a good idea.
I think I could get at least 8% of Texans to say they support him just to get him out of Texas.
Perry is George Bush without brains - think about that one. :laff:
Peace
With Romney maybe we could get a good Health Insurance program like they got in Mass. I wished he wouldn't run away from it to get the far right wackos. He could get support of us lefty's.
iris lily
5-24-11, 11:36am
With Romney maybe we could get a good Health Insurance program like they got in Mass. I wished he wouldn't run away from it to get the far right wackos. He could get support of us lefty's.
If that's supposed to be a cut, guess what: I think it is fine that states do whateverthehell they like with health care for their citizens. Let them make a choice about what is best for them rather than a one-size-fits-all federal mandate. In fact, if it's a good enough deal, I'll move there (well, I will establish legal residency) ;) :)
As will many people, methinks.
I think the precursor-to-Obamacare taint will hurt him too much in the primaries. I think it liklier that Pawlenty or Huntsman will get the nomination, now that Daniels has opted out.
The Storyteller
5-24-11, 12:42pm
There is no way Romney gets the nomination. Too moderate. In Oklahoma he would be a liberal Democrat.
I also think he is the only candidate who has better than a snowball's chance in hell to unseat Obama.
Which isn't saying a whole lot.
The Storyteller
5-24-11, 12:45pm
Perry is George Bush without brains
Wait, didn't we already have that?
The Storyteller
5-24-11, 1:32pm
What I don't like about Romney running for President is all the mis-information about our Church that gets dragged through the media.
But on the plus side, Mountain Meadows would be brought up.
I also think he is the only candidate who has better than a snowball's chance in hell to unseat Obama.
Which isn't saying a whole lot.
I’m not so sure Obama's all that invincible, with approval numbers hovering around 50% or so.
Having a few years of governing under his belt, he won’t be able to run as the great left-wing Lochinvar, thwarting Wall Street, closing Guantanamo, making military actions less kinetic, and leading us into the sunlit single payer uplands. It’s hard to believe his base will be as enthusiastic as when he could run as a cipher they could project their own dreams onto.
If the GOP can make the next election a referendum on expanding government at the expense of everything else, I think they have a decent chance.
goldensmom
5-24-11, 1:35pm
Speaking of beauty contests, I met Mitt Romney at Gov. George Romney’s inauguration ball in 1967. I was in junior high, Mitt was so handsome and I was smitten. I’ve no idea of who I will vote for but I sure have good memories of meeting Mitt Romney way back when.
The Storyteller
5-24-11, 1:55pm
I’m not so sure Obama's all that invincible,
He is against this lot.
Plus, he hasn't yet kicked into campaign mode. And as he has shown, he is an excellent campaigner.
He is against this lot.
Plus, he hasn't yet kicked into campaign mode. And as he has shown, he is an excellent campaigner.
But this time he has a record to run on. "Hope and Change" won't work again.
The Storyteller
5-24-11, 2:33pm
Well, I guess you can always hope, for a change.
If that's supposed to be a cut, guess what: I think it is fine that states do whateverthehell they like with health care for their citizens. Let them make a choice about what is best for them rather than a one-size-fits-all federal mandate. In fact, if it's a good enough deal, I'll move there (well, I will establish legal residency) ;) :)
As will many people, methinks.
You are a perfect example of why a good medical system can not be established at the state level. People from other states will take advantage of it and cause the program to fail.
You are a perfect example of why a good medical system can not be established at the state level. People from other states will take advantage of it and cause the program to fail.
Why is that? If a person establishes legal residency, won't they still have to pay income/property/sales taxes whether they live there full time or not?
Well, excepting those folks who establish legal residency in states like Texas, Florida and Tennessee and then live in high tax states such as California.
loosechickens
5-24-11, 4:09pm
I find myself actually pleased that people like Romney, Pawlenty and Huntsman are coming to the fore in the Republican free for all. Not because I agree with them on ideology or views, but because all three of them have some degree of competency.
I'm quite happy with President Obama's performance, especially given all the things he's had to deal with, and with an opposition that seems sometimes to be willing to run the country in the ground just to make sure he isn't able to accomplish goals, but that's another story.
Some of the President's supporters have hoped for someone like Donald Trump, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman to be the Republican nominee, but I care way too much about my country to want a weak or incompetent opponent running against the President. While I hope that Obama wins a second term, there are always things that could prevent that, and if we are to have a Republican in office, for the sake of the country, I at least want a Republican that has ability, intelligence and judgement to be President without the whole thing running right off the tracks, which I fear could be a real possibility with people like Trump and Palin who have been very popular with the less informed voters, but miserably unqualified for the job.
So.....bring on the best and brightest the Republicans have to offer. Either President Obama will win or he won't, but if he doesn't, we'd have someone that wouldn't make us totally cringe. I'm glad to see that the "silly season" of Republican contenders is starting to sort itself out, and some serious possibilities are starting to appear.
For myself, of the three, I'd prefer Romney or Huntsman. Neither are conservatives, no matter how much they are "talking the talk" and adjusting past positions to fit the primary market. Just as President Obama was nowhere near as liberal as his base wanted to think he was (Obama is far more what would have been a moderate Republican not all that many decades ago), Romney and Huntsman are way more like Obama than the Republican base could believe. I doubt that either Huntsman or Romney would be all that different in policy than Obama, so I could live with either one of them.
Obama, Romney or Huntsman would be likely to govern from the middle, which, IMHO, is really what the country needs, despite the wishes of the far left partisans OR the far right ones.
There is no way Romney gets the nomination. Too moderate. In Oklahoma he would be a liberal Democrat.
Hmmm... maybe that's why I always liked Mitt ;-)! Actually, I wasn't always a democrate and was a fairly stanch McCain supporter (and before that Romney) back in the day (B.S. - Before Sahra :-)! "McCains Mistake" IMHO), but switched sides mainly based on the healthcare issue (somethng I think Romney would support as well) as I am fairly conservative fisically otherwise.
Mitt was so handsome and I was smitten. Oh! - Maybe that's why I like him :devil:
As a socially progressive, fiscally conservative independent (well, it's more complicated than that, but this is the easiest way to box me into some sort of stereotype), I'm intrigued by a Romney primary win.
Anyone but Rick Perry, please!!!:laff::laff::laff::laff:
Yes folks considering the actions of the president,:spam: the bar is set low, very low....
It's time to quit electing Harvard Law grads and elect people that understand business
Gary Johnson would be a great prez in these times of trouble, but i don't think he could get the money behind him to make it past the primaries.
Ron Paul will make it to the primaries, but again the money won't get behind him after the Primaries.
So my guess Mitt is It.... sigh, America is floundering with the two major parties, both of them are fleecing us blind and hungry.... one could one hope this age of political rectal-cranial inverson does not go on much longer.... the empire is crumbling rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
I find myself actually pleased that people like Romney, Pawlenty and Huntsman are coming to the fore in the Republican free for all. Not because I agree with them on ideology or views, but because all three of them have some degree of competency.
I'm quite happy with President Obama's performance, especially given all the things he's had to deal with, and with an opposition that seems sometimes to be willing to run the country in the ground just to make sure he isn't able to accomplish goals, but that's another story.
I'm with you on both points, but would delete the "sometimes" part.
It is pretty clear that the goal of the Republican right is to "drown the Federal Government in a bathtub." As it becomes more and more obvious that (even without recent immigration) the United States is a multinational state like Canada or Belgium, rather than the single nation of historical myth, maybe state primacy is for the best.
I'm with you on both points, but would delete the "sometimes" part.
It is pretty clear that the goal of the Republican right is to "drown the Federal Government in a bathtub." As it becomes more and more obvious that (even without recent immigration) the United States is a multinational state like Canada or Belgium, rather than the single nation of historical myth, maybe state primacy is for the best.
Or maybe the Republican right just wants to see the limited government that our Constitution promised us.
Or maybe the Republican right just wants to see the limited government that our Constitution promised us.
I'm not seeing that either. I'm with Noam Chomsky... "We certainly have two candidate-producing parties. We don't have two parties that people participate in. We don't have two parties with different interests. They basically reflect one or another faction (of business)."
I'd be happy to be corrected on this outlook.
Or maybe the Republican right just wants to see the limited government that our Constitution promised us.
I'm sure that an authoritarian, corporate run government in constant foreign wars, throwing the religious right the the bone of appearing to be an Old Testament theocracy is exactly what the man who both authored the Declaration of Independence and edited this little tract (http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/62/The_Jefferson_Bible_The_Life__Morals_of_Jesus_of_N azareth_1.html) had in mind.
I think you may have a slightly jaundiced view of TJ and the "Republican right", but, whatever.
Mangano's Gold
5-25-11, 12:44am
Maybe I am biased because I live in Texas but I think the only one who can stop Romney is Rick Perry, and it sure looks like he is running. I'll be very surprised if he doesn't announce his candidacy shortly after this triumphant state legislative session ends. He'll have a balanced budget without rasing taxes or using reserves. He'll have the toughest anti-abortion law in the country (requiring sonograms before abortion). And perhaps most importantly, he'll have really honed his ability to talk tough budget choices. I think he does this very well.
Iowa is wide open. Perry probably wouldn't win NH, but with a good show/win in Iowa he would almost definitely win SC and he'd be off to the races.
I'm as curious as anyone to see how the "Texas is #1" talk will play outside of Texas. If you aren't from Texas, get ready to hear about how great Texas is. Rick Perry is coming!
Mangano - please not Gov. Goodhair. His performance as Gov. of Texas has proven that he is all the things you say (which as a Texas conservative I should love) but, he is deeply embroiled in cronyism and has thrown Texas Public education to the wolves...Even though he is an AGGIE (whoop!) no way, could I vote for this man. I like Mitt ok, folks here know I lean way to the right but my primary mission is to get BHO out of the whitehouse...any Repub. challenger will get my support, even if I have to hold my nose and vote for Perry.
Unless something really unforeseen happens, I will vote again for President Obama. That being said, I like Mitt although I wish that it weren;t necessary for him to apologize for trying to come up with a plan that would ensure all the citizens in his state had some access to healthcare. (BTW, it annoys me when it is implied that people will not vote for Romney because he is a Morman--they may vote for someone else because they disagree with his policies, like someone else better, or just don't like his hairstyle. OK, some may refuse to vote for a Morman but most voting for someone else will do so for other reasons.)
He is against this lot.
Plus, he hasn't yet kicked into campaign mode. And as he has shown, he is an excellent campaigner.
He never left campaign mode. Witness the recent Mideast speech. It's hard to believe he really thinks he can convince Israel to withdraw to indefensible borders or Hamas to foreswear their exterminationist aspirations. That was aimed at the American electorate in an attempt to look like a leader.
As a socially progressive, fiscally conservative independent (well, it's more complicated than that, but this is the easiest way to box me into some sort of stereotype), I'm intrigued by a Romney primary win.
Well my friends joke that I'm a socialist-libertarian :-)! I also say I'm socially progressive but fiscally conservative. Fund the Big 4 (military, universal healthcare, education and social security) with taxes and keep civil liberties safe but otherwise stay the heck out of my life ;-)! I'll also be voting for Obama again. Even though I can't stand many of his financial policies (especially all the bail outs UGH!) but otherwise on a social level I'm with him. Want universal healthcare but don't like his program. Hope he goes back to the drawing board and makes it better next time around.
I'll also be voting for Obama again. Even though I can't stand many of his financial policies (especially all the bail outs UGH!) but otherwise on a social level I'm with him.
I can't stand the fact that, not only did he not ease up on Bush's intrusion on habeas corpus, he's pushed to extend it. We should worry as well about their push for a copyright crackdown that could conceivably lead to a carte blanc power for the FBI to wiretap just about everyone. Yes, this sounds extremist, but the push is to lump anyone who's ever illegally streamed copyright material in with other serious crimes. And, let's face it, if you've used youtube at all, you've likely streamed material that impinged on the copyright holder.
I agree with you on your points... but, I refer to my earlier Chomsky quote on all matters ;)
Well my friends joke that I'm a socialist-libertarian :-)! I also say I'm socially progressive but fiscally conservative. Fund the Big 4 (military, universal healthcare, education and social security) with taxes and keep civil liberties safe but otherwise stay the heck out of my life ;-)! I'll also be voting for Obama again. Even though I can't stand many of his financial policies (especially all the bail outs UGH!) but otherwise on a social level I'm with him. Want universal healthcare but don't like his program. Hope he goes back to the drawing board and makes it better next time around.
You often hear people refer to themselves as “social liberals and fiscal conservatives”, but I wonder what that means in practical terms. Keep my entitlements coming, but don’t tax me? Allow the free market to operate, except for critical items like health care, food, energy and education? Keep government value-free, but crack down on hate speech? Legalize drugs and regulate fast food? Guard us but don’t watch us?
I think its probably easier to define “fiscal conservative”, because you can quantify it in terms of budgets and deficits. My problem is more on the “social liberal” side. Should that be taken in the libertarian, let-me-starve-but-leave-me-alone sense, or in the progressive we’re-all-responsible-for-each-other-so-pay-your-dues-to-the-common-good sense?
You often hear people refer to themselves as “social liberals and fiscal conservatives”, but I wonder what that means in practical terms.
For me... more or less....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
Although I don't subscribe to lower taxes as part of my fiscal conservative outlook.
For me... more or less....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
Although I don't subscribe to lower taxes as part of my fiscal conservative outlook.
That’s fine, but how does it apply in the real world?
For example, the President’s health care reform: Should a right-thinking FCSL approve of the promise to more efficiently ration care, or disapprove of the added regulation, individual mandate or distribution of waivers to favored groups?
That’s fine, but how does it apply in the real world?
For example, the President’s health care reform: Should a right-thinking FCSL approve of the promise to more efficiently ration care, or disapprove of the added regulation, individual mandate or distribution of waivers to favored groups?
Well, part of the problem is that the government is already half-in. We have Medicare, Medicaid, significant regulatory oversight, a cartel-like hold on licensing doctors by the AMA, and tax codes that encourage employer sponsored group health insurance plans. I'd prefer them to be all-out, but if they're going to be half-in and screw it up then they might as well be all-in.
As someone who's been through the aggravation of buying individual insurance and sees the wonderful idiocy of waiting for my primary care doctor to submit payment requests to my insurer (that we both know will get rejected as I'm on a high deductible plan) simply so I can pay the negotiated rate, I at least favor anything that divorces health care from working for a 'large' employer. I'm fortunate to have moved to a state where BCBS is the insurer of last resort (and I'm fortunate to live in a state that has an insurer of last resort). However, I would have preferred to see this happen at the state level and I would have preferred to see risk pools combined with Medicare.
Mangano's Gold
5-25-11, 3:14pm
Mangano - please not Gov. Goodhair
The guy does have nice hair. If he were to meet Donald Trump face-to-face I suspect we'd see an interesting look on the Donald's face. It might be a look of envy, or contempt, but Perry's hair would dominate the aura.
As for Texas, I admit that I am surprised that they don't appear to be going into the "Rainy Day" fund. Very surprised. But it makes sense in the context of Rick Perry seeking higher office.
Mangano's Gold
5-25-11, 3:22pm
My understanding of the term "Fiscal Conservative" is that such persons love real tax cuts and theoretical spending cuts. I'm not referring to anyone in this thread (just people in general) but it is easy to be a Fiscal Conservative when you think that the government spends most of its revenue on foreign aid and welfare.
I consider myself economically liberal. To me, that means that quite often an increase in taxation and services is, on balance, a good thing. For example, Obamacare increases both taxes and spending, and Americans will be better off as a result. Ditto Social Security. Ditto Medicare. Ditto public education. Un-ditto the military.
I consider myself economically liberal. To me, that means that quite often an increase in taxation and services is, on balance, a good thing. For example, Obamacare increases both taxes and spending, and Americans will be better off as a result. Ditto Social Security. Ditto Medicare. Ditto public education. Un-ditto the military.
But what happens when the government consistently spends more than it can possibly collect through taxation? We're already at the point where if we taxed "the rich" at a 100% rate we still couldn't cover the annual deficits. Where will the revenue needed for entitlements come from?
My understanding of the term "Fiscal Conservative" is that such persons love real tax cuts and theoretical spending cuts.
I would love more tax transparency and possibly higher taxes. I'm more interested in what my true tax burden is and what it's spent on than I am in trying to slash a few basis points off my already really low tax rate. I think we do need to stop the deficit spending though... and I'm guessing that something's going to have to give "soon" with regard to medicare, medicaid, social security, and wars... so many wars.
Mangano's Gold
5-25-11, 3:57pm
I would love more tax transparency and possibly higher taxes.
Just curious, what do you mean by tax transparency?
Mangano's Gold
5-25-11, 4:03pm
But what happens when the government consistently spends more than it can possibly collect through taxation? We're already at the point where if we taxed "the rich" at a 100% rate we still couldn't cover the annual deficits. Where will the revenue needed for entitlements come from?
Speaking for myself, I think that taxes need to go up for just about everyone. I do not think that those at the top of the economic heirarchy should bear the increased burden alone, even if the numbers did add up.
I think the burden should be shared, including certain modifications to entitlements.
Just curious, what do you mean by tax transparency?
Well, so I'm told all the time that a certain level of people pay far far too much in income tax. In our highest earning year, 2008, our adjusted gross income was $220k. Our real tax rate was 19.82%. I know $220k isn't rich by any stretch, but it at least should have put me in the category of being morally outraged that the evil dems wanted to hike my taxes.... but I'd consider 20% a steal for the services I get. (and, heck, back then at that salary, I was more financially comfortable than a majority of my countrymen)
But, that income tax was just a small percentage of the other taxes I pay at the federal level. There's also my contributions to social security and medicare. That's fairly transparent as it's on my pay stub. Then there's my employer's contributions to social security and medicare. Those aren't on my pay stub but reflect how much I'm paying in. If my employer wasn't a complicit tax collector, and I paid the entire amount out of my paycheck, I think I'd care more.
Then there's also a tax that goes to road maintenance (well, I assume it more likely goes to some sort of general fund now) when I put gas in my car.
Then there's corporate taxes. Wal-mart pays corporate taxes. But, Wal-mart only makes money by selling stuff to me (well, I don't shop there, but you get the idea). So, Wal-mart's only recourse to pay taxes is to bake the cost of those taxes into its profit margin on the stuff it sells me. And, Wal-mart employs an army of accountants and auditors to help it pay as few taxes as possible. Paying for that staff is also a drain. Then the IRS needs its own staff of auditors to make sure Wal-mart is paying the correct tax... another drain. (feel free to replace Wal-mart with any villain, GE would do nicely... even better).
I could go on, but that's all just on the tax collection side.
Maybe it turns out that, inclusive of all the other taxes I pay (and I'm only focusing on the fed level here, mind you), my effective tax rate is actually 30%.
Then, there's really not a lot of transparency on where that money is spent on the other side. We mere mortals don't know what our government spends on our military. We know it's a lot. We can guess at a number, but we're not given an exact number because that's a matter of national security.
It'd be interesting if, at the end of the year, you were given a tax statement that says "here's how many dollars you paid in taxes, here's how much of that money when to each of these programs." I know that type of report would be impossible given our current tax collection method, but that's what I think of when I talk about tax transparency. If we did something radical like eliminate corporate taxes altogether, eliminate all other taxes (employer-side of FICA, etc) and went to a flat tax (I'd even be in favor of a flat tax that was higher but didn't kick in until $x dollar amount so as not to punish the impoverished) then something like that would be much easier.
It's all just a creative exercise in problem-solving at this point though.
Rick Perry - Surely you jest - How a woman could possibly vote on one of these morons is beyond me - oh well, it's your body. :confused:
This is from Juanita Jean's Beauty Shop (http://juanitajean.com/2011/05/24/texas-state-senator-dan-patrick-god-and-your-vagina/).
Texas will now require a woman to have a sonogram prior to an abortion. Most of it will involve this medical procedure (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003779.htm):
You will lie down on a table with your knees bent and feet in holders called stirrups. The health care provider will place a probe, called a transducer, into the vagina. The probe is covered with a condom and a gel. The probe sends out sound waves, which reflect off body structures. A computer receives these waves and uses them to create a picture. The doctor can immediately see the picture on a nearby TV monitor.
You will not be forced to look at the image but you will be forced to listen to a description of it. Forced.
Republican State Senator Dan Patrick praised God (http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/05/perry-ceremonially-signs-sonog.html) for allowing the State of Texas to insert a probe into your vagina.
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Sen-Dan-Patrick.jpg (http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Sen-Dan-Patrick.jpg)Dan Patrick: A Disturbed Man
Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who has tried to pass the bill in previous sessions, said the timing wasn’t right before, but that God was finally ready for passage.
“This was the time,” he said. Patrick said if only 20 percent of the women viewing the sonograms decide against an abortion, 10,000 to 15,000 lives will be saved each year.
Women can decline to view the sonogram image and hear the fetal heartbeat, but, with some exceptions, they still must hear a description of the image.
Before the bill signing Patrick called it the best bill in the country, and afterward said, “Praise the Lord.”
“The good news is through the blood of Jesus Christ he forgives, and women who have aborted children need to know that message,” Patrick said.
I am a woman of faith. But, for the life of me, I do not believe that God wants Dan Patrick and power of the State of Texas in my vagina or forcing me to listen to anything. It shames when other people of faith force women to do anything. It also shames me that they would want to do something this graphically sexual to a woman.
There is something horribly sick, demented, and terribly disturbing about this.
I think Dan Patrick is the one who needs to ask for forgiveness. That level of sanctimony makes Sweet Jesus nauseous. I’m real certain of that.
Peace
Well zig, I don't doubt the state of Texas will require women to submit to an ultrasound, but the description of it just isn't correct. An ultrasound can be done on a woman's stomach, no need to violate her, although i think it's a violation of her dignity and privacy to demand she submit to this. Might as well throw a burka on her and be done with it.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T (http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/120861/gov_rick_perry_assumes_texas) - enough said -
There's only one explanation as to why Republican Governor Rick Perry signed into Texas law one of the most extreme sonogram before abortion bills (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/rick-perry-sonogram-bill-center-for-reproductive-rights-retaliates_n_866811.html) in the country: As an attorney for the Center of Reproductive Rights explained, it's because he thinks women are "too immature and incompetent" to make the decision of whether or not to get an abortion on their own. Several mandatory sonogram bills have been passed in states like Arizona and Louisiana under the guise of providing women seeking abortions with "all the facts they need." But Texas' law is among the most excessive in that it requires doctors to tell a woman the size of her fetus' limbs and organs, even if she does not want to know.
Apparently, Gov. Perry thinks he knows better than Texas women what they need to know to make a good decision.
Of course, abortion rights advocates are harshly criticizing the law, and the Center for Reproductive Rights is preparing to file a lawsuit in Texas to challenge it. Here's Bebe Anderson, senior counsel for CRR, explaining why the law is so patronizing to women:
It hijacks the doctor-patient relationship, assumes what a woman must know to make a decision and forces doctors to say things to their patients that they otherwise shouldn't and wouldn't.
Informed consent in the face of a serious health decision like abortion is one thing. But forcing women to hear or see information that has nothing to do with medical risk -- like fetus limb and organ size -- when they have deliberately chosen not to is a disturbing turn of events. Essentially lawmakers (mostly men) are assuming they know better than the women facing an unwanted pregnancy, and this superior stance is both condescending and demeaning.
Not to mention the fact that it's entirely inappropriate for the government to be dictating what doctors say to their patients. This sonogram bill represents everything Republicans say they're against -- increased spending, big government, government regulation, and politicians putting themselves between doctors and patients. And, I'm willing to bet most women are mature and competent enough to recognize the inherent hypocrisy in that.
Peace
Mangano's Gold
5-25-11, 9:17pm
benhyr, you make some good points on tax transparency, particularly on the employer side of FICA. And on corporate taxes.
zigzag, from a pro-life perspective the new Texas legislation is good policy, if not a little over the top in some of the details. And for Rick Perry it is good politics. This can do nothing but help him in a Republican primary, especially in Iowa where social conservatives hold a lot of sway. And if he wins Iowa....
Informed consent in the face of a serious health decision like abortion is one thing. But forcing women to hear or see information that has nothing to do with medical risk -- like fetus limb and organ size -- when they have deliberately chosen not to is a disturbing turn of events. Essentially lawmakers (mostly men) are assuming they know better than the women facing an unwanted pregnancy, and this superior stance is both condescending and demeaning.
Peace
I think it's good to look a person in the eyes before you kill them. It's so impersonal otherwise.
iris lily
5-25-11, 10:54pm
....I am a woman of faith...
Gosh, congrats! When did that change take place?
:devil:
Zigzagman
5-25-11, 11:03pm
Gosh, congrats! When did that change take place?
:devil:
"This is from Juanita Jean's Beauty Shop (http://juanitajean.com/2011/05/24/texas-state-senator-dan-patrick-god-and-your-vagina/)."
I guess the issue is not important to you, Lilly? Times change - if that is the prevailing opinion of most women that who the heck am I to care? Nanny government at it's best. The conservative female mind is something to behold.
Peace
You often hear people refer to themselves as “social liberals and fiscal conservatives”, but I wonder what that means in practical terms. Keep my entitlements coming, but don’t tax me? Allow the free market to operate, except for critical items like health care, food, energy and education? Keep government value-free, but crack down on hate speech? Legalize drugs and regulate fast food? Guard us but don’t watch us?
I think its probably easier to define “fiscal conservative”, because you can quantify it in terms of budgets and deficits. My problem is more on the “social liberal” side. Should that be taken in the libertarian, let-me-starve-but-leave-me-alone sense, or in the progressive we’re-all-responsible-for-each-other-so-pay-your-dues-to-the-common-good sense?
For me the "social liberal" is more about social issues rather than increasing or even maintaining many of our current entitlements. It's about protecting constitutional freedoms, civil liberties, and equallity for all - i.e supporting Gay marriage, women in combat, etc... It's not giving Octo-Mom a life of luxury on the tax payer dime. And of course as far as entitlements go, I have no problem with increased taxes for thibgs like universal healthcare, education, or the military. The military is our biggest social entitlement after all. A fully tax payer funded protection program for all citizens and US interests at home and abroad (whether we like it or not :-)!). Haven't seen too mant privately funded militias around lately - Halliburtons Green Mountain Boys anyone? "Fiscally conservative" would mean to keep govmint out of the free market (other than corporations paying their fair share of taxes and being minimally regulated for public safety and environmental protection reasons) and let it sink or swim on it's own. No bailouts for corporations or their shareholders. When you choose to invest in a company , you shouldn't expect taxpayer funds to rescue you if it all goes south. And the same if you live beyond your means in a home that is too expensive, then you sink or swim with the rest of the corporate world and investors.
loosechickens
5-26-11, 1:05am
Of course, the legislators so insistent on coercing women to bear unwanted children lose their concern for said children the minute they exit the womb into the world. That's what gets me.....all those guys SO concerned about the welfare of a fetus, and with so little concern at all for all the already born children who lack food, clothing, good education, health care, etc. Give me a break!
Those guys never found a fetus they didn't want to force a woman to bear, but never found an already born child that they gave a tinker's dam for what quality of life might await him or her after exiting said womb.
Where will the revenue needed for entitlements come from?
Where is the revenue for all these frickin' wars coming from? I'd rather support social security and health care than wars. Entitlements help keep our populace healthy... wars kill people. That's my pro-life stance.
Re: the ultrasound before the abortion: well, ya have to have a blood test before you get married. Looking at your fetus on a screen before you abort...hmmm, if you are determined to abort anyway, what's the big deal? Also, ultrasounds to check size, postion, etc on fetuses are not done with a probe.
Where is the revenue for all these frickin' wars coming from? I'd rather support social security and health care than wars. Entitlements help keep our populace healthy... wars kill people. That's my pro-life stance.
I think you should petition your congress on this. You know our latest foray into war hasn't been approved by congress yet and the time limitations on the war powers act have expired and there's really no difference between a war and a "kinetic action". Someone really needs to be held accountable for such things.
Of course, the legislators so insistent on coercing women to bear unwanted children lose their concern for said children the minute they exit the womb into the world. That's what gets me.....all those guys SO concerned about the welfare of a fetus, and with so little concern at all for all the already born children who lack food, clothing, good education, health care, etc. Give me a break!
Those guys never found a fetus they didn't want to force a woman to bear, but never found an already born child that they gave a tinker's dam for what quality of life might await him or her after exiting said womb.
Agreed, with an exception. There are circumstances where young women are basically encouraged to have more children because of the way some welfare programs work. There are very real monetary incentives in the form of ever increasing monthly payments meant to support more and more children when the parent(s) *can't*. The IDEA behind the program is valid and the right thing to do. The way those programs are set up simply encourage abuse so they need to be overhauled. As long as you're reworking it why not limit payments to a maximum of one/two/? children and provide birth control to anyone who asks for it. That is the socially liberal view of this fiscal conservative. BTW...abortion is between a woman and her God (and her man in a perfect world). My government doesn't fit in that puzzle.
BTW...abortion is between a woman and her God (and her man in a perfect world). My government doesn't fit in that puzzle.
Now if you had said 'birth control' instead of abortion I could easily agree with you. If government will not protect the weakest among us, those without a voice, what good is it?
Now if you had said 'birth control' instead of abortion I could easily agree with you. If government will not protect the weakest among us, those without a voice, what good is it?
The weakest among us? You mean, like the elderly on a very limited fixed income? You mean, like people who cannot afford health care for themselves or their families? You're right! Gee Alan, welcome to the reasonable side of universal health care. You're absolutely right. We SHOULD take care of the weakest PEOPLE among us, i.e. medicare for the elderly. And general health care for everyone else, just like Romney did in Mass. Thank you.;)
Interesting world where requiring people who can afford it to buy health insurance is an overstepping government intrusion - but forcing women to submit, and I assume to pay, for these sonograms, which are medically unnecessary is ok.
Texas has a safe haven law (up to 2 months old), I expect it's going to get a lot more use.
The weakest among us? You mean, like the elderly on a very limited fixed income? You mean, like people who cannot afford health care for themselves or their families?
That's a good diversion, but no, that wasn't what I meant at all. Unless of course you mean that the elderly and people who cannot afford health care should be destroyed, that would be a good parallel. But I don't think that's what you meant is it?
Zigzagman
5-26-11, 10:21am
The real tragedy of our current conservative thinking here in Texas is that it is totally phony politics that plays well in Texas as well as the US of A.
With a 25+ billion dollar budget shortfall in Texas the top priorities (as pushed by Perry) were "Voter ID, Abortion Law, sanctuary cities, and so-called tort reform". Education is only important when it comes to dictating that textbooks teach "Christian Values", otherwise it is none of the states business. The Texas lege sounds more like Glenn Beck on a daily basis.
Republicans are bullies. It’s that simple. They go after children, old people, the poor, minorities. They are bullies.
All this and Rick Perry is parading around celebrating how great we have handled the recession.
Rick Perry for President? If it wasn't such a sickening thought, it would ensure a loss for the GOP - hard choices.
Peace
That's a good diversion, but no, that wasn't what I meant at all. Unless of course you mean that the elderly and people who cannot afford health care should be destroyed, that would be a good parallel. But I don't think that's what you meant is it?
no, what I mean to point out is that deciding which collection of cells you want to champion gets interesting when you choose to ignore the collections which are walking and talking and breathing all around you. The only conclusion I can come up with is forcing women to bend to your ideals of religious rightness doesn't really cost you anything, but you just might have to shell out a few bucks to ensure all the living collections have decent basics of health.
This is NOT a theocracy, and all your wringing of hands over 'nanny' government loses it's credibility in the face of this. Zig is right. These republicans are bullies, and you can add women to that list. But then women have historically carried the weight of religious repression. Cover your hair, cover your ankles, wear a dress, don't have sex, and certainly don't enjoy it, stay home, go to church, obey your man, and give him sons, because they are the only ones who really count.
This is what it boils down to. Both parties want to, and will, spend every dime we send. Question is, who do you want your dime going to? Us, we the average people in the form of health care, education, security, good roads, libraries, education (said twice because of it's importance), Or insurance companies, oil companies, the Waltons, endless war.
Do we want a party that is trying to look out for us, protect us from polluters, greedy big business who would cut corners if not watched, those who would push their religion down our throats, or, those who will push their religion down our throats?
no, what I mean to point out is that deciding which collection of cells you want to champion gets interesting when you choose to ignore the collections which are walking and talking and breathing all around you. The only conclusion I can come up with is forcing women to bend to your ideals of religious rightness doesn't really cost you anything, but you just might have to shell out a few bucks to ensure all the living collections have decent basics of health.
This is NOT a theocracy, and all your wringing of hands over 'nanny' government loses it's credibility in the face of this. Zig is right. These republicans are bullies, and you can add women to that list. But then women have historically carried the weight of religious repression. Cover your hair, cover your ankles, wear a dress, don't have sex, and certainly don't enjoy it, stay home, go to church, obey your man, and give him sons, because they are the only ones who really count.
Actually, being a godless heathen, I don't have any "ideals of religious rightness".
As a father and grandfather I simply refuse to equate abortion with universal healthcare, where one means killing an innocent and the other means that someone else gets to pay for my benefit. I also refuse to default to a woman's "right to abortion" over her child's right to live. If we're going to do comparisons, we should at least compare like for like.
I think you should petition your congress on this. You know our latest foray into war hasn't been approved by congress yet and the time limitations on the war powers act have expired and there's really no difference between a war and a "kinetic action". Someone really needs to be held accountable for such things.
WORD! And, my representatives know precisely how I feel about this.
This is what it boils down to. Both parties want to, and will, spend every dime we send. Question is, who do you want your dime going to? Us, we the average people in the form of health care, education, security, good roads, libraries, education (said twice because of it's importance), Or insurance companies, oil companies, the Waltons, endless war.
Do we want a party that is trying to look out for us, protect us from polluters, greedy big business who would cut corners if not watched, those who would push their religion down our throats, or, those who will push their religion down our throats?
Very well said, Peggy. The issues you bring up are categorically ignored in favor of "social engineering" as the Newt says. Tax Cuts, Guns, Gays, Abortion, and Women's issues and the never ending Religious crap that spills from the mouths of these right-wing heathens is enough to choke a horse >8)
Give me some good old Democratic values that put working people above corporations, that considers American workers important, and stop this idea that unless we constantly consume more we are failing and that person will get my vote. IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE!
Oh, and while we are at it - instead of pandering to the public about becoming energy independent for decades - really do it. I fear that the emerging markets will control the new energy technologies simply because we are so beholding to the oil oligarchies In the US?
Peace
I hate to even think about it but I see a Perry Palin ticket in the future. And a country dumb enough to fall for it. Just like they did George Bush.
On the Texas sonogram bill...I have very strong thoughts. As long as government money is not paying for those abortions and I don't believe it should, who in the world could think it OK for a woman to have to submit to that. If one looks at the official photo of the signing of the bill, you will see middle-aged and old, white men (maybe a few white women) at the helm. How could any man ever know what a difficult decision that is for a woman and why is it any of their business? Grrrr....don't mess with Texas women!
@Peggy - "Collection of cells"...that is a sickening description of a tiny baby..the left's attempt to dehumanize babies so abortionists, abortionees, etc. won't really have to face what they are doing...killing babies.
Catwoman: do they still require blood tests to get married in Texas!?! That's pretty archaic if they do.
I dunno -come to think of it, maybe not,mine was 33 yrs ago!
I dunno -come to think of it, maybe not,mine was 33 yrs ago!
Not in Texas, at least not anymore. Blood tests are still required in Connecticut, District of Columbia, Indiana, Mississippi and Montana.
I guess veneral disease is much less likely to go untreated these days.
@Peggy - "Collection of cells"...that is a sickening description of a tiny baby..the left's attempt to dehumanize babies so abortionists, abortionees, etc. won't really have to face what they are doing...killing babies.
But that's exactly what it is, a collection of cells. Look at a zygote under a microscope sometime. it doesn't resemble that cute baby on the protest posters. It literally IS just a collection, or bundle, of cells. Not fully human, not even partially human, and completely incapable of sustaining life without it's host. I suppose some would call it a parasite, but I don't believe it's that either, although it behaves like a parasite. It's kind of like a finger or a hand, alive as long as it's attached, but not alive if it isn't, nor capable of life if it isn't. Why don't we have funerals for a miscarriage, or a criminal investigation when a woman miscarries? How is an IUD not an abortion as it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching? Are you against IUD's?
And to be truthful, I, you, and all of us are collections of cells. That's what we are made of. Not to get sidetracked into a philosophy discussion but, are you your fingers, your hair or your knee cap, or are you all the thoughts, feelings and experiences you've had? The places you've been and the people you've known. No, a new born doesn't have these things yet, but a new born is/has the possibility of these things. A 3 week old zygoat does not have the possibility of these things, or the ability to experience them, or the ability of sentience.
This is what that collection of cells looks like near the end of the first trimester.
http://www.babycenter.com/i/m/fetal/index/13.jpg
That looks like a human being to me.
Well - a human is a collection of cells with a soul!!! Oooh...we are on a roll, now we can roll our political and religious discussion into one... hard to actually separate them unless one engages in a deliberate smokescreen of philosophical claptrap to justify any action or belief...
please not Gov. Goodhair.
I'm sorry this is way OT, but I had to :laff: at "Gov. Goodhair."
That would make Rod Blagojevich "Gov. Badhair."
I live in IL and Mr. Hair actually testified today at his retrial. Boy, would I love to see THAT!:0!
Blago wins the hair contest, dontcha think?
Mangano's Gold
5-27-11, 12:09am
On requiring sonograms, putting the merits of the policy aims aside, my sense is that this would be effective public policy in reducing the number of abortions. Perhaps it would be even more effective than a state banning the procedure? I don't follow the abortion arguments/legislation too closely but don't both sides claim that they wish to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions? Granted, this legislation is rather coercive. All laws are coercive to some extent, though. Laws intend to nudge people into doing things they may not otherwise want to do.
On the fiscal front, I suspect this would be costly. In Texas, I guess that at least half of births are paid for by Medicaid, probably a good bit more than half. But that's a secondary issue.
Tying it back to the original thread, I bet Mitt Romney has an abortion position we could agree with. !
The Republican Party long ago betrayed their principles by striking a deal with the Christian right to support causes like abortion in return for their votes. They knew this was a group where people don't think for themselves but do whatever their leaders say, including voting.
Ronald Reagan supported an abortion bill in California. Nelson Rockefeller supported abortion in New York. I think Mitt Romney used to support abortion before he was against it. Planned Parenthood had lots of bipartisan support before conservative evangelical Christians acquired a strangle-hold on the Republican Party. Unless a candidate is acceptable to the Christian Right, they won't get anywhere in the Republican Party nationally these days.
Mitt Romney, like any other GOP candidate, will agree with anything the Christian Taliban says if that is what it takes to get elected.
Peace
Ziggy - here's my take on the Christian right (of which I am one): They are people with firm, studied beliefs, beliefs stemming from family teaching, church teaching, etc. It is not that we don't think for ourselves but we think alike due to our faiths and upbringing. The Republican party best supports OUR beliefs. It is not a Christian Taliban, that is ridiculous - women are not flogged, caned, or second class citizens. Many of us have been brought up on these beliefs since infancy. The things you learn as a small child generally stay ingrained and don't leave. Take for instance, Pres. Obama's youth in Moslem schools in Indonesia....Hmmm...Ask DearLeader how many states in the union..he once said 57 ...hmmm
"President Obama's youth in Moslem schools in Indonesia?"
Ok, well, I'm out of this ridiculous discussion. Sorry I even entered it. And here I thought I was in a serious, thoughtful conversation. Guess not! :doh:
When does life begin, when does a fetus become sentient and does life suddenly become more valuable when the being is self-aware? Are there any deeper questions? The abortion debate is quite literally trying to answer (at least part of) the biggest one of all, "what is the meaning of life?" Conception, sentience, live birth... Which is the starting point of life? Two are easy to define, the other one causes all the problems.
Overwhelming opposition to late term abortions, for any but the most extreme medical reasons, says to me that most people believe a fetus is able to perceive its environment by that time and that makes it more "valuable" in most people's eyes. It's earlier in a pregnancy where the heated debate takes place. I think Peggy brought up an excellent point regarding IUD's. If life starts at conception then an IUD is a form of abortion. There's a lot more to it than teen girls in suburban malls needing abortions of convenience.
Abortion was never an issue in my house because it was not a decision either DW or I could have lived with. A very large part of that choice is based on our own version of morality. It's between us and has nothing to do with the government and we do not wish to include the government. We also do not wish to force our moral decision making process on anyone else. We're not qualified to answer the deep questions for others, they need to think for themselves. We've pretty much settled in to feeling that birth control should be very easy to get, abortions should be very hard to get but available and a candidate's stand on Roe v. Wade will probably not influence our voting whatsoever. YMMV.
Zigzagman
5-27-11, 11:24am
Ziggy - here's my take on the Christian right (of which I am one): They are people with firm, studied beliefs, beliefs stemming from family teaching, church teaching, etc. It is not that we don't think for ourselves but we think alike due to our faiths and upbringing. The Republican party best supports OUR beliefs. It is not a Christian Taliban, that is ridiculous - women are not flogged, caned, or second class citizens. Many of us have been brought up on these beliefs since infancy. The things you learn as a small child generally stay ingrained and don't leave. Take for instance, Pres. Obama's youth in Moslem schools in Indonesia....Hmmm...Ask DearLeader how many states in the union..he once said 57 ...hmmm
I understand. I went through the same indoctrination myself but I guess because I left "home" early in my youth because of the Army that the traditional rituals just didn't stick as I became a young adult. I don't care what anyone believes in term of faith but I do have a problem when government is inclined to base laws and political decisions on a particular belief. They simply do not represent me at that point - and by golly, I deserve equal representation.:confused:
I personally think that the Christian religion discriminates against women is many ways and cannot understand why any woman would continue to support that belief system.
As far as the GOP and religion - it is simply about doing what ever it take to get votes. Pandering. Using wedge issues to excite the masses and get elected. These policies are putting the U.S. on the path toward becoming a "Christian" nation.
Just leave opinions of faith as a personal decision and respect others people's equal right to think differently about their faith or not at all. Laws and governance based upon faith in my mind is not secular government - which I think was the message of our founding fathers.
I'll leave it at that because it is what it is but I hope at some point when we take about government and leadership that it leaves religious faith out of the conversation.
Peace
Just read in our local paper that Guv'ner Goodhair Rick Perry is definitely considering a run for presidency once legislative matters here in Texas are wrapped up. I have no doubt that his handlers are busy cleaning up any issues. It is well known that he and Obama can't stand each other so it will be interesting.
Alan, I got married in Indiana almost 6 years ago. Blood test not required.
Just read in our local paper that Guv'ner Goodhair Rick Perry is definitely considering a run for presidency once legislative matters here in Texas are wrapped up. I have no doubt that his handlers are busy cleaning up any issues. It is well known that he and Obama can't stand each other so it will be interesting.
I imagine Sister Sarah will also joining the field soon - this reminds me of a SNL skit. It will be funny to hear Perry defend being last in almost every category in the nation.
I don't really think that Texas politics will come across well in states that have higher than a 30% HS graduation rate. Maybe a Palin/Perry ticket - wonder who will be on top and who has the biggest gun?
Just when you thought the clown car was already full...
Peace
Sorry, my mistake. Just goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.
http://family-law.freeadvice.com/family-law/bloodtestmarriage.htm
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/blood_test_requirements/index.shtml
I imagine Sister Sarah will also joining the field soon - this reminds me of a SNL skit. It will be funny to hear Perry defend being last in almost every category in the nation.
I don't really think that Texas politics will come across well in states that have higher than a 30% HS graduation rate. Maybe a Palin/Perry ticket - wonder who will be on top and who has the biggest gun?
Just when you thought the clown car was already full...
Peace
Yep, from succeeding from the Union to leading the Union! HELLO..!
Zig said "I don't really think that Texas politics will come across well in states that have higher than a 30% HS graduation rate. Maybe a Palin/Perry ticket - wonder who will be on top and who has the biggest gun?"
I think Palin has the biggest gun and will be on top. She also has bigger hair than Perry.
If life starts at conception then an IUD is a form of abortion.
This is where it really goes to the extreme for me. I've always been a "shades of gray" girl, and never a black/white girl. I will also admit to being a recovering Catholic/now atheist.
Yes, at the end of the first trimester, you can see a human form. My own son's 10wk ultrasound had recognizable head, and little limbs. But was he a human? No. Would I have grieved if I'd miscarried? Probably.
But an IUD being abortion? I had 3 pregnancy losses last year (I was 40. I knew what I was getting myself into). I simply cannot believe that life begins at conception. I mean, you don't even know you are pregnant until after implantation. I was certainly sad and disappointed at the 6 wk pregnancy loss. But the earlier ones? I have a really hard time believing that ANYONE can say that life begins at conception, or even implantation. Can I pick when it begins?
For me, maybe. For others. No.
I was wondering why the Morman church has been having a ton of P.R. commercials recently about how good Morman is.
poetry_writer
6-7-11, 6:44pm
This is where it really goes to the extreme for me. I've always been a "shades of gray" girl, and never a black/white girl. I will also admit to being a recovering Catholic/now atheist.
Yes, at the end of the first trimester, you can see a human form. My own son's 10wk ultrasound had recognizable head, and little limbs. But was he a human? No. Would I have grieved if I'd miscarried? Probably.
But an IUD being abortion? I had 3 pregnancy losses last year (I was 40. I knew what I was getting myself into). I simply cannot believe that life begins at conception. I mean, you don't even know you are pregnant until after implantation. I was certainly sad and disappointed at the 6 wk pregnancy loss. But the earlier ones? I have a really hard time believing that ANYONE can say that life begins at conception, or even implantation. Can I pick when it begins?
For me, maybe. For others. No.
Where do most things begin? At the beginning.....
abortion should not be taken lightly, but ultimately I think it is a woman's personal descision, not the govs..........
Mangano's Gold
6-7-11, 8:02pm
For those here who would vote in a Republican primary if your state had one (that mattered) who would you strongly consider? Anybody a "not him/her!!!"? Who would you like to see run that hasn't thrown their hat in? Who do you think will win?
I was wondering why the Morman church has been having a ton of P.R. commercials recently about how good Morman is.
The Mormon Church has always had PR commercials. The new ads relate how members of the Church are just like everyone else. I can assure you that the Church will distance itself from Romney, Huntsman and any others who may enter the Presidential race. Members can belong to any political party and be good members of the Church. Harry Reid is a case in point!
Political topics are just not discussed in our Church. The Church does encourage it's members to be political and active in their communities, but does not support any candidates or parties. I have NEVER heard a hint of political talk from our pulpit. So this is why I always think it is very strange to see Obama and others speaking at a Church service -- what is that all about?! I think that just so inappropriate.
The LDS Church does on occasion speak up on "moral" issues. Gay marriage is one of those topics. The Church supports marriage between a man & a woman. See Mormon.org and FAQ
T...
Political topics are just not discussed in our Church. The Church does encourage it's members to be political and active in their communities, but does not support any candidates or parties. I have NEVER heard a hint of political talk from our pulpit. So this is why I always think it is very strange to see Obama and others speaking at a Church service -- what is that all about?! I think that just so inappropriate...
But I don't think that ANY church can support a specific candidate or party. Doesn't that endanger their non-profit status?
Just because President Obama speaks at one church doesn't mean that the church as an entity supports him as a political animal. Most all churches would welcome the President of the United States in their midst and would want him to say a word.
But I don't think that ANY church can support a specific candidate or party. Doesn't that endanger their non-profit status?
Just because President Obama speaks at one church doesn't mean that the church as an entity supports him as a political animal. Most all churches would welcome the President of the United States in their midst and would want him to say a word.
When I see Obama and others speaking at a church with the choir in the back - saying "amen" "amen" he is sending a political message. If they are preaching a sermon that is one thing - but I think they are fishing for votes. It should endanger their non-profit status -- but everyone seems to turn a blind eye to it.
The last church I went to was stridently pro-Republican. I detested the implication that to be a "good Christian" (which I'm not anyway) I'd have to vote Republican. I grew up in a fundamentalist pentecostal-type church in the UK and not once were we ever exhorted to vote for this or that political party. We also cared a whole lot more about the Sermon on the Mount than whether a woman had followed the advice of her doctor to terminate a pregnancy.
What gets me about the whole abortion debate is the exaltation of the "unborn child" over the very real needs of women who are having to make those difficult decisions. I predict, with confidence, that the current demonization of Planned Parenthood will lead to MORE abortions, and more children living in povery, but who cares about those poor "born children" because, hey, we shut down an evil abortion provider.
Give me a break!
As a father and grandfather I simply refuse to equate abortion with universal healthcare, where one means killing an innocent and the other means that someone else gets to pay for my benefit.
Actually, universal healthcare means everyone pays for everyone's benefits but I assume that's politically inconvenient for you to accept.
Actually, universal healthcare means everyone pays for everyone's benefits but I assume that's politically inconvenient for you to accept.
Uhmmm, that's what I said.
Actually, universal healthcare means everyone pays for everyone's benefits but I assume that's politically inconvenient for you to accept.
++1
Where do most things begin? At the beginning.....
Okay, then birth.
My birth.
When the eggs that are in my ovaries were created. Because before conception, there was the egg. I guess that's the beginning.
Actually, universal healthcare means everyone pays for everyone's benefits but I assume that's politically inconvenient for you to accept.
If only everyone would pay. Many don't pay now, many will be subsidized under Obamacare. But I guess if the country is going bankrupt anyway, I'll take my freebies too. Its nice to be able to control income for the government handouts. I need to look into buying a farm or ranch also.
But many more who don't pay but can pay, will pay. That's the point. Many don't pay now, but the health care reform will help those who have been shirking their responsibility to live up to it. How can that be wrong? It's taking personal responsibility to the people. If you pay insurance, and /or taxes now, you are paying for those who refuse to pay but still expect to be treated when they need it. Like young people (20's / 30's) who don't think anything will ever happen to them, or middle class people who would rather buy a ranch or farm than pay for insurance knowing full well they won't be turned away from the emergency room when their time comes. It's called personal responsibility, something the republican party used to stand for.
I know the argument is that a person can choose to be covered or not, but that's not really true is it. We can't choose to turn them away from the emergency room, and somebody has to pay. They are taking the shared benefit. They need to step up and take some of the shared responsibility. We pay now. The government pays now. We aren't going to start turning people away. It won't cost any more, and in fact has been shown to cost less in the long run. It's a win win.
You know, republicans used to be all for universal health care. That whole personal responsibility thing. So what happened? Well, big business/corporations bought the republican party, and,well, the democrats want it so of course it must not be a good thing.:(
When Romney pushed the insurance thing here in MA, it was done on a platform of personal responsibility.
Mangano's Gold
6-16-11, 10:34pm
Well, unless Rick Perry gets in it looks like the Republcian electorate is going to fall in line and pick Ronmey.
Anyone but Obama in 2012. It's still to early to tell. No one thought Obama had a chance early on and he was elected anyway.
Anyone but Obama in 2012. It's still to early to tell. No one thought Obama had a chance early on and he was elected anyway.
I agree let it be Palin.
Edited to add: Obama's big problem is he tries to keep the left and right happy and no one is happy. He needs to get some back bone and stand up for something.
I agree let it be Palin.
Edited to add: Obama's big problem is he tries to keep the left and right happy and no one is happy. He needs to get some back bone and stand up for something.
I don't think that either of those is going to happen.
I never thought I would have something public to say of Mitt Romney that was supportive but here goes...I was born and raised in Massachusetts. One thing Mitt did for Massachusetts while Governor was to personally take on William Bulger and campaign for his removal as Chancellor at UMass. Only Mitt as a true outsider to Beacon Hill politics could have had the guts to do this. Mitt also did not take a dime of salary while Governor. True he can afford not to, it may have been symbolic, but he did it.
If anyone is following the unfolding Bulger story of this week, it was Mitt who pushed and pushed until Billy was out of public office. Too true that Billy Bulger has a fat pension to enjoy the rest of his days. However, it looks like karma may be coming around as the judge told Whitey that his family (looking right at Billy in court yesterday), would be responsible for his defense bill.
Mitt also went after Matt Amarello with the same push to remove someone who wasn't qualified and was placed in the job by a friend on Beacon Hill. Matt was in charge of the famous Big Dig for several years and was on the job when a motorist died because of a fault in the construction. True Matt took over far into the project but Mitt grasped the bigger picture and understood that once again, Massachusetts residents have not been supported by those that represent them. Sorry to sound so cynical but if you grew up on Massachusetts politics, you'd be bitter too.
I never thought I would have something public to say of Mitt Romney that was supportive but here goes...I was born and raised in Massachusetts. One thing Mitt did for Massachusetts while Governor was to personally take on William Bulger and campaign for his removal as Chancellor at UMass. Only Mitt as a true outsider to Beacon Hill politics could have had the guts to do this. Mitt also did not take a dime of salary while Governor. True he can afford not to, it may have been symbolic, but he did it.
If anyone is following the unfolding Bulger story of this week, it was Mitt who pushed and pushed until Billy was out of public office. Too true that Billy Bulger has a fat pension to enjoy the rest of his days. However, it looks like karma may be coming around as the judge told Whitey that his family (looking right at Billy in court yesterday), would be responsible for his defense bill.
Mitt also went after Matt Amarello with the same push to remove someone who wasn't qualified and was placed in the job by a friend on Beacon Hill. Matt was in charge of the famous Big Dig for several years and was on the job when a motorist died because of a fault in the construction. True Matt took over far into the project but Mitt grasped the bigger picture and understood that once again, Massachusetts residents have not been supported by those that represent them. Sorry to sound so cynical but if you grew up on Massachusetts politics, you'd be bitter too.
Well this is exactly what we need. More first hand experience with Mitt. How did you like the health care plan? How was he liked, generally, in Mass? People who have first hand experience with these guys are the ones we should be listening to.
I'm a democrat, but I think Mitt is one republican I could live with. I may not agree with his politics, but he at least seems reasonable. Not much crazy talk from him...yet.
poetry_writer
6-26-11, 3:25pm
Okay, then birth.
My birth.
When the eggs that are in my ovaries were created. Because before conception, there was the egg. I guess that's the beginning.
Before your conception there was a sperm and an egg. At the moment of conception, there was.....you!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.