Romney didn’t overturn Roe V Wade as governor?
Dude, do you not understand that governors do not nominate justices to the US supreme court? Its the president who nominates supreme court justices. Robert Bork is advising Romney on which justices to nominate as president. Do you know who Robert Bork is? His nomination to supreme court was blocked by Democrats because… they knew he would vote to overturn Roe V Wade.
I understand that governors do not have the power to overturn federal legislation - I should have worded my sentence better. What I meant to convey is that Romney did not appear to take any great strides toward fighting the Roe vs. Wade decision. Fighting an ideology with which one strongly disagrees is not confined to merely waiting for a proposal to be placed in front of you and then choosing whether or not to sign it into law. Though he cannot as governor reverse federal law, he
could have at the very least authored or sponsored any anti-Roe vs Wade bills which could be formally presented to Congress.
Let’s be clear. Everyone has the right to change their minds on issues, and perhaps Romney’s “evolved and deepened” views on abortion are genuine, despite his history of waffling on the subject. However, voters should seek candidates who have been consistent in their beliefs, and have actually made personal efforts to see those beliefs realized, for this is the best measure of sincerity. Past records are very important to the public to consider for one who is running for a position so powerful as that of the US president, and the fact that Romney has little anti-abortion work to his name and yet is now strongly vocalizing his support for overturning Roe vs Wade
precisely at a time when the support of the Christian Right is crucial for his win happens to make me a bit suspicious of the veracity of his conviction.
Provide a link to a site that isn’t an untrustworthy left-wing blog and I just might look at it. Which country is threatening Iran so that it would want a nuclear weapon?
Here you go:
washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html
The other link I provided does seem to be a pretty “leftist” website, but it does show an interview in which Israeli Deputy Prime Minister himself admitted it. YouTube had a video of the interview, which has since been removed, but I’m sure you could find another. .
I don’t know. It is common knowlege, however, that Iran is a state supporter of terrorists. Do you think its a good idea for terrorist supporting countries to have nuclear weapons?
That’s an interesting question. But I’d go too far-off the subject of the thread if I were to discuss terrorism and the right to obtain nuclear weapons. It’s a good topic for another thread, though!
What I mean, is that an Iranian attempt to “wipe Israel off the map” by nuclear weapons would mean another Jewish holocaust. I can understand Jews not wanting to let Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
I think this view is repeated as pre-emptive hysteria which is used to entice the United States into an action which (while certainly benefitting Israel by removing an adversary) will not benefit us in any way. (Please don’t think that I’m calling *you *hysterical – in the first place, you are not the only person who suggests this, and the hysteria I refer to is more along the lines of the Chicken Little “The sky is falling!” belief that disaster is imminent unless we use immediate force. I don’t think that is the case.)
But in any event, I don’t think Romney’s utmost duty or responsibility is to a foreign nation or ethnicity (let’s not forget the country he wants to govern is not in the middle east). So even if the assertation of a supposed holocaust were true (which I doubt), I don’t see why that would require the money and lives of American people. Sometimes it’s OK to remain neutral and allow other nations to resolve conflict on their own.
original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2012/10/08/is-a-nuclear-deal-with-iran-possible/
Before we even think about attacking Iran, let’s try proving that they’re even making the weapons in the first place.
This is Iraq all over again . . .
I thought Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were moved?
You know what though, at least we have a better idea of what Iran is up to - after all, at least
they have signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
