Republican convention

[oldcelt]

Actually, the Romney/Ryan ticket is the pro-life ticket

Interesting statement…despite the numerous, undeniable statements by Mr. Romney.

Relativism has come to this board and the mental gymnastics have begun.

John

 

[jediliz]

I didn’t watch the convention, but i won’t risk another four years of attacking the church by the current admin. i like paul ryan for v.p. and think he would do better than biden. Romney is not perfect…but he would be more likely to sign legislation to limit abortion or take away tax funding for the abortion business that gets $500 MILLION in TAX $$$$. And he never said he wouldn’t want his child “punished with a baby” if they made a mistake.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

With all his flip-flops, Romney has said just about everything, and, if he wanted, might also run on the Democratic ticket. He is the quintessential chameleon, like Woody Allen’s “Zelig.”

I do think he consistently maintained that he was a Mormon

 

[eightandsand]

Actually, the Romney/Ryan ticket is the pro-life ticket - the only one for Catholics who are truly pro-life.

Ishi

I know of no reason to think Mitt Romney is pro-life. His record says otherwise. As to how he might govern in the future, he couldn’t even muster up the conviction to sign the Susan B. Anthony pledge.

 

[meltzerboy]

I do think he consistently maintained that he was a Mormon

That is true. One for The Gipper, or should I say, The Flipper.

 

[eightandsand]

The unborn - who will suffer through another forty years of Roe V Wade as the law of the land. Time to get serious, folks.

Ishi

No, the time to get serious was from 2001 to 2006 when Republicans had almost total power and were pefectly content with the status-quo strategy of tinkering around the edges of the abortion issue. No real change. That would have entailed pain and sacrifice and probably the end of some political careers. There is no reason to think it will change now that the Republican Presidential candidates get more moderate and less conservative with each election. Nothing bold or radical from the status-quo Republcians in close to 40 years. That will be the trend for the next 40 years. Republicans had their chance to put out the fire.

 

[eightandsand]

Don’t end up supporting Obama - who is on record as being pro-abortion - because of what Romney did in the past, or what you think he might do.

Ishi

I won’t be fraternizing either of them with my precious vote. They both have records supporting an intrinsic evil.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

No, the time to get serious was from 2001 to 2006 when Republicans had almost total power and were pefectly content with the status-quo strategy of tinkering around the edges of the abortion issue. No real change.

Had circumstances been different, your premise would be highly valid. However, one might concede that the aftermath of a terrorist attack on the homeland might have become a bit of a consuming distraction at that time.

 

[oldcelt]

Had circumstances been different, your premise would be highly valid. However, one might concede that the aftermath of a terrorist attack on the homeland might have become a bit of a consuming distraction at that time.

Every party, or person has excuses. Governing is tough.

John

 

[meltzerboy]

Had circumstances been different, your premise would be highly valid. However, one might concede that the aftermath of a terrorist attack on the homeland might have become a bit of a consuming distraction at that time.

I think the consuming distraction for George W. Bush was the, arguably, unnecessary Iraq War.

 

[CaptFun]

CaptFun responds in RED And BLUE

---

ProVobis - So given these statistics from 2008, how exactly would the GOP support all life beside empty talk?

---

The Mexico City Policy would still be in effect (or dont non-US children count)?. Romney has promised to put it back in. Obama took the protections OUT on day 3 of his administration. For those “fiscal conservatives” who don’t also count themselves as pro-life, $457 billion left our country to go to “pro-choice” groups per Obama’s “Day 3” directive.

Catholic employers like myself would not be forced to cover abortificants and contraception for their employees(or drop their coverage),Well, unless the new administration decides to just “leave these things be …” in a moderate way. The way this IS - it rather forces Catholics to violate their own consciences and tenets of their faith in colluding with what we consider a “mortal” (deadly) sin. I DO expect this to change with a new administration - but they’ll take heat from the media if/when/they do it.

conscience clauses would still medical professionals to refuse to participate in abortions would still be in effect, Yes, this would be good. And more in line with the Constitution as any layman or woman can read it. For all the prattling we hear about this so-called “wall of separation” between Church and State * - it appears the state can transgress the boundaries like the Viet Cong and raise havoc with impunity - even approval from the mass media. Yet not the other way around - UNLESS it’s popular.

Planned Parenthood funding would be significally reduced (republican attempts to do so were blocked by Democrats and an Obama veto threat).Highly probable in a new administation IMO, yes.

Most importantly we would not be led by a man who believes killing children is a right. Supporting abortion does not happen in a vacuum-it permeates everything one does. A person who supports unrestricted abortion on demand is morally unfit to hold any position of leadership.A little bit of strychnine tends to ruin the health benefits of the vitamin drink. It would be vain to add more vitamins - or to statistically enumerate the percentage of vitamins in the drink, their individual value to the body etc. It is not a health drink anymore. It IS poison. As you say it permeates everything one does.

Matt 12:33 "Either declare the tree good and its fruit is good, or declare the tree rotten and its fruit is rotten, for a tree is known by its fruit.

Now given the rate of unemployment and the poverty rate please tell us exactly how the Democrat party is going to help the poor besides empty talk?

Their Party Platform enshrines a mortal sin and feverishly propogates it. Their promises are breathtaking and sublime; planetary; epic (though cloaked in the vaguery of “Hope”). I’m really not looking for a nanny or a hammock from the state (if I were the Democrats are the party that promise these things best!).

I don’t want to cop out with a blame game and whine about the Democrats. But I will try to answer estesbob’s parting question.

I don’t know. I not only don’t know HOW. I don’t EVEN know IF they really wanna. I’m unemployed - and they’re anti-business. This doesn’t help. I’m losing the condo I bought soon if things don’t change - during the bad old Bush years I had equity and plans for retirement (now I’m underwater thanks partly to government overbuilding multilevel projects and ruining the supply and demand part of my investment). I would keep my contracts if I could. I don’t want to MOVE or SELL or be FORECLOSED. I suspect many of the jobs I apply for don’t REALLY exist (yet) but depend upon a more business friendly or neutral government at the state and/or national level.

If I remain or become POOR will I look to the “party of the poor”? And vote for them as my only hope - hoping that it’s NOT just empty talk I’m being offered?

**I will disagree with you here e-bob **(maybe - I don’t know you) - their TALK is not always empty. Sometimes they DO things. And some of the things they DO or actively DON’T DO makes me wish they would just go “empty talk”.

I live in California. Hard to blame the Republicans when they are nowhere in charge. But the Democrats that are everywhere IN charge aren’t “helping me.” And may be (actively or passively) hurting me.

I worked for the last 20 years in the public sector. I do NOT believe in class warfare. The private sector is our strength and builds our economy. THEN the public sector is even stronger. I see this crazy train persecution of business until they are driven from our state in the name of “fairness” or “redistribution of the wealth” as being VERY counter-productive. Even given THEIR fanciful world view - can’t they run the numbers?

A business leaves for Nevada. With it go the jobs. And the taxes that would have been paid. And the business didn’t WANT to leave. It is often driven there because those that consider every corporation
an “evil corporation” < (pause here for your Pavlovian anger moment) chase it away with way-too-far environmental laws, meddling legislation, tax penalties for success and profits and the appointment of judges that WILL not dismiss frivolous lawsuits and even uphold them if the “outcome” is some contrived conduit for “social justice”. Or have I imagined this?

And hey. On that score, here in Wonderland we see Churches and School Districts and Police and Fire Departments sued on the thinnest of grounds - with the worst possible results. So even the PUBLIC sector doesn’t get protected - but personal injury law practices are a business I guess.

I was a teacher with 20 years in Adult Ed. We served the elderly mainly. Public Sector. Our programs were in the black and supported by attendance. Due to the monumental mismanagement of a state you ALMOST could not screw up … the state ran up a deficit.

CUTBACKS! But by the “good guys” you see - not draconian mean-spirited Republican cuts. They felt our pain.

The Teachers’ Unions had cover, we part time educators had our programs ended and the “wealth redistributed”. I was full time in that I worked in two districts and subbed night classes as well - but no benefits, no Social Security contributions, and “irregular pay” that the state would bust a private firm for trying.

My classes served many disabled, elderly and Alzheimer’s afflicted people. While the programs MIGHT have been better administered by other than local school districts - their departure left many seniors without.

These were the people who built whole districts in their taxpaying years. The classes were brought to them. They had no money. I was proud to serve them. Doctors told me my music appreciation classes helped the Alzheimer’s folks be more lucid and healthy.

On a spiritual note, I lost elderly students from time to time (death) but it inspired me to do my best. I tried to work in some spiritual songs and patriotic songs in my programs since my music might be one of the last happy things some of them would hear on Earth. To my delight, I never heard from the “thought police” (much).

And the Democrats (more than the Republicans) had done it to me before. I was in Corporate Communications in the 1980’s and 90’s in “Aerospace/Defense.”

With the stunning end of the long “cold war” the Democrats nearly wet themselves with the tears of joy they shed pondering the US’s new “Peace Dividend!” BILLIONS of dollars that had gone to fight the USSR perpetually - would now be freed to build an unimaginable new utopia to hear them speculate. What we GOT … was layofffs.

America’s best and brightest engineers were sent packing. The aerospace part of things was not ramped up to keep the US on the cutting edge of Science (as in the the KENNEDY/JOHNSON years). No. AND because the ‘private companies’ had to cater to their government clients to the neglect of any backup plans - our dividend was “goodbye”.

I was an award-winning speaker, published the company newsletter, edited technical publications with complicated military specs and nomenclature. I had a knack of helping brilliant engineers explain their work in layman’s terms rather than with shop-talk and a barrage of undeciphered acronyms so that other engineers could network with them on strategies, technological breakthroughs or sharing assets to the benefit of the company.

I chaired committees for the company president and staff and thought of myself as an asset. But now much of my dazzling resume did not apply to the jobs I was applying for.

In Southern California it seemed the defense plants were being “purged.” Property values plummeted as people sold off their homes (like NOW). Laid off defense workers, even talented ones, were at a competitive disadvantage in switching “fields”. State jobs, then and still, are heavily piled up in the north, Sacramento and the Bay Area. Want to move? :nope:
Empty talk may be bad estesbob - what worries ME is what they might be FULL of. :whacky::takeoff:

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Every party, or person has excuses. Governing is tough.

This is true, and it must be conceded that abortion rights liekly would not have been significantly restricted under a Republican majority, as history has shown. Yet, the other challenges of those specific years must be acknowledged.

 

[oldcelt]

Yet, the other challenges of those specific years must be acknowledged.

Without question…but then we must look at how people lose their support.

John

 

[estesbob]

Yhttps://fbcdn-photos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/c0.0.460.314/582700_408476945880312_1844065222_n.jpg

 

[oldcelt]

Bob,

I have to be honest…I’m missing your point.

John

 

[ishii]

No, the time to get serious was from 2001 to 2006 when Republicans had almost total power and were pefectly content with the status-quo strategy of tinkering around the edges of the abortion issue. No real change. That would have entailed pain and sacrifice and probably the end of some political careers. There is no reason to think it will change now that the Republican Presidential candidates get more moderate and less conservative with each election. Nothing bold or radical from the status-quo Republcians in close to 40 years. That will be the trend for the next 40 years. Republicans had their chance to put out the fire.

You display a profound lack of understanding of the issue of legal abortion. There was this decision made in 1973 - Roe V Wade - and unless it is overturned then all the Republicans can do is “tinker around the edges.” You act as if there hasn’t been a pro-abortion Democrat presence dedicated to thwarting the pro-life efforts of pro-life Republicans. Remember the Bork nomination? Remember the Clarence Thomas nomination? Don’t let your frustration with the Republicans’ imperfection on this issue cloud your judgement and abandon the unborn.

I won’t be fraternizing either of them with my precious vote. They both have records supporting an intrinsic evil.

So did Reagan - he was pro-abortion in the 60’s and had a “record of supporting intrinsic evil” but he changed. It seems that you don’t allow for the possibility of politicians to have a change of heart on the issue. Do you think anyone can have a change of heart? Or would you rather elect the proven pro-abortion Obama because Romney hasn’t proven to you that he is sincerely pro-life? How sad.

Romney has made some key pro-life decisions recently:

1. Choosing Pro-life Catholic Paul Ryan for vice president.
2. Choosing Robert Bork (!) as his advisor for judicial appointments (remember that it is the Roe V Wade decision that prevents real progress in reforming our abortion laws).

Not bad really. Romney is acting in a pro-life manner. Catholics who want to promote the sanctity of life should vote accordingly.

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

And accusing Romney of “not caring” about a woman dying of cancer? If that represents “liberalism” of the kind you espouse, Cmatt, then I am glad that I am not a liberal.

Ishii

Hi Ishii. I’ve only gotten to this post of yours thus far on this thread as it has grown by about 20 pgs since I was last here. But I see you have brought this up to me twice to this point so I’m just going to give you my take now.

The ad you keep referring to I’m assuming was the one about her husband losing his health insurance and the woman dying from cancer. The ad never specifically said Romney murdered her as you asked me about earlier if I’m not mistaken. But nevertheless yes the ad was misleading if that was the inference and since the woman still had coverage through her own work until she later lost her job and since she had died yrs after her husband lost his.

But this was a Super Pac ad. Not one put out by either the Obama campaign nor the DNC. Of course in any case we should not lose sight of the fact that people will die without adequate health care.

But both sides have misleading ads. Obama is not ending welfare work requirements as Republican ads suggest. States would have to include work requirements in any plans they submit of their own for approval. I’d think all of you would love the idea that states are being given some flexibilty.

Also Romney-Ryan continue going around the country misleading the American people by saying Obama has cut 700 billion dollars from Medicare without explaining the savings are not cuts in benefits but cuts in excessive reimbursements to private insurance companies in the Medicare Advantage program. A program in which 75% of Medicare recipients choose not even to particpate in. Instead they choose traditional Medicare. Also the figure includes cuts to reimbursements to hospitals which the hospitals agreed to because they anticipated more patients once more people had health care coverage under Obamacare. Additionally Ryan himself included the same cuts in his original budget.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/

Anyway none of this IMO equates though to imagining the President of the United States of America is at the RNC saying “shut up” and telling Mitt Romney to do whatever it was Clint Eastwood was suggesting the President of the United States of America was telling Mitt Romney to do to himself.

Had at a DNC a GOP President been accused of saying “shut up” and telling his opponent to do whatever it was to himself, Republicans would have been in full revolt today.

 

[ishii]

That is true. One for The Gipper, or should I say, The Flipper.

I have no problem with a politician who flips - as long as he flips the right way. People can change. I believe Romney has.

Ishii

 

[oldcelt]

People can change. I believe Romney has.

Perhaps, but what you said is a matter of faith

John

 

[ishii]

Hi Ishii. I’ve only gotten to this post of yours thus far on this thread as it has grown by about 20 pgs since I was last here. But I see you have brought this up to me twice to this point so I’m just going to give you my take now.

The ad you keep referring to I’m assuming was the one about her husband losing his health insurance and the woman dying from cancer. The ad never specifically said Romney murdered her as you asked me about earlier if I’m not mistaken. But nevertheless yes the ad was misleading if that was the inference and since the woman still had coverage through her own work until she later lost her job and since she had died yrs after her husband lost his.

But this was a Super Pac ad. Not one put out by either the Obama campaign nor the DNC. Of course in any case we should not lose sight of the fact that people will die without adequate health care.

But both sides have misleading ads. Obama is not ending welfare work requirements as Republican ads suggest. States would have to include work requirements in any plans they submit of their own for approval. I’d think all of you would love the idea that states are be given some flexibilty.

Also Romney-Ryan continue going around the country misleading the American people by saying Obama has cut 700 billion dollars from Medicare without explaining the savings were from cuts in excessive reimbursements to private insurance companies in the Medicare Advantage program. A program in which 75% of Medicare recipients choose not even to particpate in. Instead they choose traditional Medicare. Also the figure includes cuts to reimbursements to hospitals which the hospitals agreed to because they anticipated more patients once more people had health care coverage under Obamacare. Additionally Ryan himself included the same cuts in his original budget.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/

Anyway none of this IMO equates though to imagining the President of the United States of America is at the RNC saying “shut up” and telling Mitt Romney to do whatever it was Clint Eastwood was suggesting the President of the United States of America was telling Mitt Romney to do to himself.

Had at a DNC a GOP President been accused of saying “shut up” and telling his opponent to do whatever it was to himself, Republicans would have been in full revolt today.

The Obama campaign could have condemned that ad, but didn’t. Cmatt - you are reduced to saying “the ad never specifically said Romney murdered anyone.” The fact that you have to make that disclaimer speaks volumes. The ad did say that “Romney doesn’t care that my wife died of cancer.” Romney wasn’t even with Bain Capital when the decision was made that affected this guy!! What about the Mccarthyism of Harry Reid saying " I have sources who say that Romney hasn’t paid taxes in years" But he of course can’t provide the source. Do you support McCarthyism when it helps your side Cmatt? So Romney is also a felon? Cmatt, you have no leg to stand on here. The Democrat attacks on Romney are false, unfair and… they’re backfiring. Let the Democrats continue to spend millions on ineffective ads that attack Romney while Romney explains to Americans how he will turn the economy around and spur job growth. Then we’ll not be surprised when Americans choose Romney.

Ishii