I think you'd be better off feigning ignorance to be honest, if you've got an educated opinion on the topic and still come to such piss-poor conclusions, that's even worse.Coito ergo sum wrote: Take that nonsense and shove it. I am far from ignorant on this topic,
I'll let the record in this and other threads speak for itself on the topic of dopey insults. Unless you'd like to tell me to go fuck myself too.and I would be willing to bet that I know more about the Lily Ledbetter Act, Roe v Wade and the Constitutional right to abortion, not to mention the laws governing Planned Parenthood funding than you do, as well as the role of the President and Vice President in our government. Feel free to disagree, but keep your dopey insults to yourself.
At least that's what he's saying this week. The man has been all over the map with his opinions, he consistently voiced opposition over mandatory contraceptive coverage and then said that he is for every woman getting access to contraception coverage during the second debate, likely because he simply wasn't polling well on that issue. Who's to say he won't change his mind on whether or not to focus on abortion if elected? It's looking like he'll owe the religious right a lot of favors if he makes it in, after all.Not at all -- if a person is going to make the claim that the election of Romney is going to result in the elimination of abortion rights, then one needs to back that up. Romney says he's proLife, but he also said that abortion will not be anything his presidency is going to concern himself with.
And yes, the character of a president and his views certainly do matter, whether or not you think he can or can't do anything about it. Tell me honestly that you wouldn't make a big stink if Obama voiced an opinion you didn't like, that he had no power to move on. Say, if he supported mandatory euthanization of people who claim ultimate knowledge of a topic they clearly don't understand as well as they think. You and I both know he'd never be able to actually pass a law to kill you, but I don't think you'd be writing it off as no big deal, because he's not the Republican.
Two far-right justices would be a radical shift.Moreover, to repeal Roe v Wade, we'd need a radical shift of the makeup of the SCOTUS,
And I guarantee that, given the means to do it, the far right would move mountains to accomplish this. We can't afford to give them the means and brush it off as not a problem because it'll still take some effort on their part.and then a case would have to make its way up the ladder and be accepted for certiorari by that SCOTUS and the SCOTUS would have to take the dramatic step of actually reversing Roe v Wade which now forms the bulwark of four decades of SCOTUS jurisprudence. That is a tall order, and one that would take years if it even was to become possible.
Whether or not they'd repeal Lily Ledbetter, we know which side of the table they'll come down on in future cases on the topic. It's not the side of equality.Further, to repeal Lily-Ledbetter, you'd have to get the House and the Senate to both approve repeal. Not going to happen, as either the Dems will have control of the Senate or they'll filibuster it and require a 2/3 majority vote. Moreover, you'd have to have enough Republicans actually care enough to waste political capital on repealing a law which merely changes the start date of a statute of limitations.
It's not absurd -- it's reality. Whether an issue is important enough to worry about is directly related to how likely it is to come to fruition.
Show me the same large-scale assault on men's healthcare as is taking place on Planned Parenthood. Show it to me or shut up.Sure they are. The same people that oppose funding for planned parenthood generally oppose funding for medical procedures in general.
Women are currently treated quite fairly in this country on the topic of reproductive health, in large part due to Planned Parenthood's efforts. They provide essential care to women who otherwise would not have it, much of which is important preventive care, and is a bargain considering how much it SAVES us on healthcare in the long run. Planned Parenthood's funding is a drop in the bucket to overall government spending, it's going to do jack shit to fix anything if we cut Planned Parenthood, an expenditure that accounts for about 0.0095% of the federal budget. It's not about fixing the deficit, it's about taking preventive care and contraception away from women who need it.The issue we were talking about was "equality" for women. And, women being treated equally is not dependent on government funding. If you think it does depend on that, then you're suggesting that women are inherently unequal and can't be treated equally in our society without the government providing funding for Planned Parenthood. I think that is patently false, and that women can very well be treated equally without having Planned Parenthood funded.
Equality doesn't always mean 50/50, dollar for dollar even steven. The simple fact is that women require more in the way of reproductive health services than men do. This need is met in large part here in the United States by Planned Parenthood, ensuring that women have access to the healthcare they need on the same level as men do, even if it costs our nation a thousandth of a percent of our budget to do so. It most certainly is an equality issue, and it's also a public health issue and an economic issue. Without Planned Parenthood we have higher occurrences of STD's, we will spend more on health care, trying to fix problems that could have been caught earlier, we will lose women in the workforce for lack of contraceptive care, and ultimately, women who did not get the care they needed, when they needed it, will die. All for less than a thousandth of a percent in government spending savings.Maybe they wouldn't earn your vote, but women's EQUALITY does not depend on Planned Parenthood funding. Let's not confuse a thing of benefit to women with a thing that is necessary for equality of the sexes.
The only info we have on the topic is that a Romney adviser that said he wouldn't have signed it as president. Romney has been asked if he would have supported it and been quiet on the topic. If he would have signed it, I'm sure he'd have no problems saying where he stood on it.Romney is not against it.
It improved the ability for women to get justice for pay inequality. Give me a good reason why Romney/Ryan would oppose it, other than not believing that women should be able to defend themselves against income inequality in the workplace.Moreover, again -- the Lily Ledbetter act doesn't make women "more equal." It changes the start date of the statute of limitations under the civil rights act for equal pay discrimination cases. The law still required nondiscrmination and nothing changed in that regard. Again, my question for Kristie was how would women, who she said were being treated equally now, be not treated equally under Romney's administration. She posted in response to that question the cartoon with the Ryan position statements.
So? Romney's done everything in his power to make it clear he's not Bush.During both Republican and Democrat administrations. Roe v Wade didn't go away under W.Bush and he took no steps to try to get it reversed.
And yet you've done nothing to prove that Romney would make this nation succeed. We're still waiting to hear your explanation of how Romney's tax cuts add up and won't just put us another 5 trillion in the hole, along with trillions in additional military spending. I'm amazed at the doublethink in play by the Conservatives in this country who are FINALLY willing to admit that Bush's economic policies were a failure, but somehow think that another president who wants to cut taxes while increasing military spending will fix things.I'd rather live in a succeeding nation with a broad, generally non-discriminatory middle class. Equal poverty doesn't do anybody any good, and is no virtue.
The auto industry bailout was an unpopular choice when it was introduced but has ultimately proven to be a success. Romney was opposed to it, and his plan would have meant the end of GM. Romney made millions sending American jobs overseas at Bain, a practice they are continuing today as Bain-owned Sensata flies the Chinese flag over their headquarters while American workers train their Chinese replacements. I don't see how you think this man is better suited to handle the economy than Obama is.
.
