ishii;9864323:
Duly noted, katcecelia.I was not accusing anyone in particular. Sorry if you felt I was directing my comment specifically to you.
The general tone of the posts were becoming quite confrontational.
Additionally, my conscience also tells me I must vote for Romney, as the lesser of the evils.
She is reffering to Stericyle which was acused by MotherJones of Romney having a part in investing in. That was debunked by the documents that showed Romney had left Bain Capital prior
That lie has already been debunked see Abyssinia’s post.
“Debunked”?, “scrubbed” might be a better term.As for Romney being anti-Life
Are you accusing CatholicVote.org, the National Right to Life Committe, The Missouri Right to Life Federal Political Action Committee, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) Federal PAC, Oregon Right to Life, and the Susan B. Anthony List of being hypocrites?
And now they endorse him?
It appears that just $25,00.00 will essentially buy a pro-abortion politician endorsements from pro-life groups.
Wow did not know Romney ahd given that money to pro life groups, awesome“Debunked”?, “scrubbed” might be a better term.
I don’t know about Irish,
I’ll step up and say “if it quacks like a duck”…
Romney refused to sign the Pro-Life Pledge. Another example of talking the talk, but refusing to walk the walk.
dailycaller.com/2011/06/18/romney-draws-fire-for-not-signing-pro-life-pledge/
And now they endorse him?
As much as it would be wonderful to believe that all Pro-Life organizations are idealistic, unfortunately they are run by humans, with human weaknesses for money.
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_conversion/2012/02/mitt_romney_s_abortion_record_flip_flop_or_conversion_.7.html
It appears that just $25,00.00 will essentially buy a pro-abortion politician endorsements from pro-life groups.
Sad but true.
I think Vangaurdian has taken it upon himself to be the supreme authority on all pro-Life matters and condemns every and all major pro-Life groups for endorsing Romney. Apparently Vangaurdian is more concerned with trashing Romney than Obama’s pro-Abortion record and it’s apparent with his obviously anti-Romney (but silent on Obama
) signature. 
Interesting, personal attack.I think Vangaurdian has taken it upon himself to be the supreme authority on all pro-Life matters and condemns every and all major pro-Life groups for endorsing Romney. Apparently Vangaurdian is more concerned with trashing Romney than Obama’s pro-Abortion record and it’s apparent with his obviously anti-Romney (but silent on Obama
Not a personal attack but an observation based on on:Interesting, personal attack.
Very charitable of you.
Shall I register a complaint?
Not my style. I enjoy free speech unlike some who cannot handle reasonable presentation of facts.
Side note,
It is refreshing to know that presentation of facts is a concern for those who are active in suppression of knowledge to those who may be lurking.
and observing from your posts on this thread, you seem to be silent on Obama’s pro-Abortion record and instead want to be focused on Romney’s sketchy “supposed pro-Life”
The pro-life movement as a whole needs to reconsider its options. I’ve seen pro-life legislation and amendments get tossed out South Dakota and Mississippi.“Debunked”?, “scrubbed” might be a better term.
I don’t know about Irish,
I’ll step up and say “if it quacks like a duck”…
Romney refused to sign the Pro-Life Pledge. Another example of talking the talk, but refusing to walk the walk.
dailycaller.com/2011/06/18/romney-draws-fire-for-not-signing-pro-life-pledge/
And now they endorse him?
As much as it would be wonderful to believe that all Pro-Life organizations are idealistic, unfortunately they are run by humans, with human weaknesses for money.
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_conversion/2012/02/mitt_romney_s_abortion_record_flip_flop_or_conversion_.7.html
It appears that just $25,00.00 will essentially buy a pro-abortion politician endorsements from pro-life groups.
Sad but true.
Oh I see.
Nail on the head.
Oh, so she is perpetuating a false claim? Isn’t making false claims engaging in calumny?
Let me help you out here, Vanguardian: “stacking the supreme court” refers to an attempt to increase the number of justices so that a president can nominate the extra judges and influence the ideological makeup of the court. The most famous (and recent) example of this is FDR’s attempt to add justices sympathetic to the New Deal in the late 1930’s. The more recent movement to nominate constructionist judges to bring about a successful overturn of Roe V Wade is not “stacking the supreme court”, it is merely replacing a retiring judge with one who reflects the president’s judicial philosophy. I hope that helps you understand.
No, on the contrary Republicans and Conservatives who are for Romney have a duty to ensure he gets the job done or replace him during the 2016 Primaries.
Except Romney wants to repeal Title X, if Romney was so pro-choice, why would he take such a hard stance in regards to Federal funding of Planned Parenthood? Clearly a candidate who is pro-PP wouldn’t make such bold and clear statements. A pro-choice in disguise Republican would use vague language as “making sure Federal funding does not go to abortion” and say nothing about repealing all Federal aid to Planned Parenthood.
Well that some is practically 90% of the American voting populace…so if you think you can convince 41% to change their vote within 29 days to vote for one of the 3rd-parties, then good luck with that.
It’s not that we are “conditioned” or our minds are “small” but instead we are pragmatic and rational and know that ideally it would be great that the 3rd parties could get a shot, but the problem with the 3rd parties (ie Constitutional and Libertarian) is that they reach for unrealistic and unattainable goals. They expect that working one state or going out via alternative media such as Alex Jones show is going to get them the Presidency. That’s why I have little respect for the Libertarian and Constitutional parties. While I agree with the Constitutional Party on a lot of issues. I lose respect when they don’t take themselves seriously.
You seriously posted something from LewRockwell
So you’re saying that since Bush and the GOP failed to ban funding of PP in 2007 that Romney and the GOP will also fail? I normally regard information coming from Republican hating sites like Lew Rockwell as suspect. Its possible that they (the GOP) didn’t have the votes to do it - there were unfortunately some GOP senators who would have voted to keep the PP funding. That said, I have never alleged that the GOP was 100% pro-life at all times did I? I have been critical in the past of the GOP for not being effectively pro-life enough. But GOP failures in 2007 is hardly a reason to not support GOP pro-life efforts in 2012, is it? Doing so doesn’t sound like a good way to encourage pro-life efforts in the GOP to me, but what do i know.
I’ll wait for an actual argument.You seriously posted something from LewRockwell
Wow talk about torpedoing your own argument.
They’re pro-life when it’s convenient for them, but do nothing about it when they have the majority in Congress. They had it from 1994-2007. They also had the presidency from 2000-2008. What did they do with that?