You can think for yourself?yeah, ain’t the good ol USA great! I get to vote and I’m a womango figure! I am proud to be a moderate/independent. ** I can think for myself. **Seems Ryan has a opinion, that is about it, but wow!..that made some “extreme” "rightys’ a bit nervous. Karma…it never fails.
FWIW, yeah, Ryan is a good guy…loves his job, his family, is good at math. But ya know…when push comes to shove…he is a politician. I haven’t seen one in the last 37 yrs that was perfect, or didn’t change their minds on issues.
Great insight, comparison and memory meltzerboy.
That position regarding the fetus may be derived from Rand’s Jewish ancestry.
Immoral, unnatural, deprives a child of their natural rights.
If he does waffle, he better bring syrup…or at least strawberries and whip cream.
no, you are reaching. Common sense applies here.
He said that there was a specific bill that he had voted on in the past related to gay adoption that he would vote otherwise today. That type of statement is not an offhand … Did I say that, I didn’t really mean that. What specific aspect of that specific bill is worthy of reversal, given that he gave it some thought over the past couple of years. Otherwise, this is not a “gotcha” moment. It is what it is.
Actually, common English applies here. Posting "I am proud to be a moderate/independent. I can think for myself" implies that those who are not moderate/independent can’t think for themselves. Otherwise, your comment that you can think for yourself wouldn’t make any sense…common or otherwise.
so you say… :shrug:take what you will from it.
I don’t see that implication in what was said.
Of course you don’t.
Aren’t we lucky to have people tell us what we really meant? Guess we don’t have to think for ourselves anymore.so you say… :shrug:take what you will from it.
My apologies. I guess you felt the need to say “I can think for myself,” because your posts don’t make that ability apparent.so you say… :shrug:take what you will from it.
Idaknow… maybe I’m a hard nut to crack.Aren’t we lucky to have people tell us what we really meant? Guess we don’t have to think for ourselves anymore.
It doesn’t just “appear” that republicans are looking to distance themselves from women’s issues regarding abortion, rape, birth control, but there has been outspoken call from a variety of leaders literally begging their cohorts to drop all social issues, most particularly anything “woman related” (talk about abortion, rape, contraception) as well as immigration, anything to do with Hispanics, and gay rights. There is no secret that some Republican leadership is actively trying to move the party out of the entire realm of social issues and appeasing the religious right and back into a strictly financial conservative party. Sounds like Ryan is just joining Jindal, Gingrich and others in this push for electability.I remember a discussion, not so long ago, where all democrats were lumped together through demonizing partisanship speak, in an effort to deny such a thing as pro-life democrats existed, because of their party affiliation. The effort seemed to try and portray republican politicians as above the ‘fray’ on all issues. Some posters showed being offended at certain politicians being doubted because of timely political appearing ‘flip flops.’
What will be the consensus if Ryan changes his view again, in time for the next major elections?
What is sad, is that it appears republicans are looking how to ‘soften’ on issues to attract larger voting blocs. The irony lays in which issues they are willing to make concessions on.
Primarily, because most of us are Catholics.
