The Next Four Years

[JoeB131]

Coming from the guy who won't vote for him because he's a Mormon; that's rich. Taking your rights for granted is a hubris that many women simply cannot afford but if you are to play the devil's advocate, at the very least mine is a policy matter; your reason not to vote for him is religious. If that floats your boat; fine but you're not electing a spiritual leader, you're electing a President.

I think you still miss my point about my objections to LDS. I could explain them to you again, but you probably still won't get it.

My problem with LDS is not religious. I think all religions are equally bogus and stupid. It's cultural. They are a culture of liars and crazy people who are only out for themselves. They're a cult. And cultists are always scary, not necessarily for what they believe, but because of their fanaticism.

On the subject of rights, I don't think there is a right to an abortion. (I also find the notion of 'rights' to be laughable, but that another discussion. Look up "Japanese Americans-1942") There is a body of law, and frankly, if your whole thing hinges on one unelected justice, it was a bad system of laws.

Supreme court terms are incredibly long which is why you've heard this very real concern for so many years. Those terms are at the outset of ending in the next four years....4 of the justices are over 70 y/o.

He says he wants Roe overturned.
He likely would have the opportunity to do that if he becomes President.

South Dakota? Yeah, so will Texas; 14 million women (give or take) live there....do you think for a moment that Texas would not outlaw abortions? The GOP is trying to outlaw critical thinking--it's in their State Party's platform.

Once again, guy, we've been hearing this shit since Reagan. It was shit in 1980, it's shit now.

I ain't buying it.

And incidently, since 1980, I've gone from being pro-life to pro-choice, not because I think Abortion is a wonderful thing, but because as a practical matter, you can't effectively outlaw it.

I also think Roe was a truly awful decision. Pure "I want to do it this way, so I will." But Republicans have appointed EIGHT- count them - EIGHT justices and two Chief Justices since Roe, and guess what.

Roe still stands, flaws and all.

And frankly, given the way he's flip-flopped on the issue, I'd be less worried about the Weird Mormon Robot appointing an anti-Choice justice than Santorum or McCain or Huckabee.

But it might actually be a good thing if they overturned Roe. Then we could have a national discussion on the issue we should have had back in the 1970's.

 

[Greenbeard]

You do understand, don't you, that under Obama, your last bowel movement is no longer private if you share information about it with your doctor in 2014, right? No subpoena, no warrent... your medical records are in the hands of bureaucrats.

Christ, where do you people get this shit? Learn to evaluate the veracity of the bullshit you're being fed before you regurgitate it.

 

[Vel]

Uh oh... wasn't it George H.W. Bush who hated broccoli? Boooooooooshhh!!!

Yep. I hate broccoli too. It's amazing that those that will spend their time in fear that someone might take their right to terminate their unborn's life away from them can't see the choices that they are robbed of though ObamaTax. All they can see is that someone else will take care of them just as they did when they were children.

I love steamed broccoli.

Certainly, yours is the most (What I hope is) poorly worded of all of the opposing views I've heard recently? No, I'm not asking for anyone to take care of American women; just to preserve their right to make reproductive choices.

As for the "ObamaTax"....so I guess under a Romney Administration there would be no taxes? Or maybe no regulation...Or maybe this plan or that plan or we'll reduce the $14,000,000,000,000.00 debt by 30 Billion instead of 25 Billion when he gets rid of Head Start, WIC, and other "entitlements"...that are targeted to help children?

Fiscally neither side knows what it is doing...after 30 years of seeing the partisan wrangling back and fourth, day in and day out, every single election cycle....we've had presidents of different parties, congresses headed by different parties, new Democrats, TEA party republicans, Super Committees, Budget Summits, etc... The reason nothing works is because Congress is in neutral due to politics. I think we need to re-write the Constitution to rise above it but that is for another thread....

The point is that voting on fiscal matters is a lot like spitting into the wind then deciding to duck left or right shortly thereafter.

Social issues such as abortion are the ones where there is a clear choice.

Obama wants to preserve Roe.
Romney wants Roe overturned.

It is that simple. True, Presidents do not make the decision themselves but they appoint persons who can.

Why risk it for what amounts to a different brand of crazy on the fiscal side?

I'm sorry. Was there something in my post too complicated for you to understand? I'll try to simplify it for you. I don't understand why the same people that scream for "choice"in their reproductive life, don't see that ObamaTax takes "choice" away from them in many other ares. Better? I also think that those that support ObamaTax do so because in doing so, they no longer have to worry about the consequences of their lifestyles, because someone else is responsible for taking care of them.

Now, as to voting your vagina. I personally think that it is asinine to base your decision in a presidential race based on social issues. What you're asking is that people vote Obama, because instead of being concerned with whether a Supreme Court justice will base decisions on the Constitution, he'll pick justices that will base their decisions on their personal bias.

Romney made it clear during his time as governor of Mass. that he felt abortion was a state issue and as such, even though he was personally opposed to abortion, made no attempt to change the laws of the state because he believed that the people of Mass. had made their wishes clear. I trust he would do the same as POTUS.

 

[Papageorgio]

Ah shuddup, ya dumb twat. You're just a slightly more articulate version of Stephanie, the dumbest twat on the board.

Hmmm I thought YOU were biggest twat, and you do it on a daily basis.

So, so, so unfunny.

So, so, so not trying to be. It was all factual.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yep. I hate broccoli too. It's amazing that those that will spend their time in fear that someone might take their right to terminate their unborn's life away from them can't see the choices that they are robbed of though ObamaTax. All they can see is that someone else will take care of them just as they did when they were children.

I love steamed broccoli.

Certainly, yours is the most (What I hope is) poorly worded of all of the opposing views I've heard recently? No, I'm not asking for anyone to take care of American women; just to preserve their right to make reproductive choices.

As for the "ObamaTax"....so I guess under a Romney Administration there would be no taxes? Or maybe no regulation...Or maybe this plan or that plan or we'll reduce the $14,000,000,000,000.00 debt by 30 Billion instead of 25 Billion when he gets rid of Head Start, WIC, and other "entitlements"...that are targeted to help children?

Fiscally neither side knows what it is doing...after 30 years of seeing the partisan wrangling back and fourth, day in and day out, every single election cycle....we've had presidents of different parties, congresses headed by different parties, new Democrats, TEA party republicans, Super Committees, Budget Summits, etc... The reason nothing works is because Congress is in neutral due to politics. I think we need to re-write the Constitution to rise above it but that is for another thread....

The point is that voting on fiscal matters is a lot like spitting into the wind then deciding to duck left or right shortly thereafter.

Social issues such as abortion are the ones where there is a clear choice.

Obama wants to preserve Roe.
Romney wants Roe overturned.

It is that simple. True, Presidents do not make the decision themselves but they appoint persons who can.

Why risk it for what amounts to a different brand of crazy on the fiscal side?

I'm sorry. Was there something in my post too complicated for you to understand? I'll try to simplify it for you. I don't understand why the same people that scream for "choice"in their reproductive life, don't see that ObamaTax takes "choice" away from them in many other ares. Better? I also think that those that support ObamaTax do so because in doing so, they no longer have to worry about the consequences of their lifestyles, because someone else is responsible for taking care of them.

Now, as to voting your vagina. I personally think that it is asinine to base your decision in a presidential race based on social issues. What you're asking is that people vote Obama, because instead of being concerned with whether a Supreme Court justice will base decisions on the Constitution, he'll pick justices that will base their decisions on their personal bias.

Romney made it clear during his time as governor of Mass. that he felt abortion was a state issue and as such, even though he was personally opposed to abortion, made no attempt to change the laws of the state because he believed that the people of Mass. had made their wishes clear. I trust he would do the same as POTUS.

Romney seems to be sensitive to the people's wishes whether he agrees with them or not, I don't see him trying to cram unpopular laws down the throats of the people. I'd be more worried if Obama did so, he has done it his last term.

 

[Rinata]

I am more concerned with the economy of our nation and our deficit, getting people back to work. We have a president who promised to take care of these things in the first three years of his administration and it has not happened. Instead we have seen cronyism, class warfare and scandals abound.

It's time for someone with the qualifications for leadership. Let's put the priorities straight.

If you really cared about these things you would not approve of the right wing lunatics in Washington wasting their time trying to repeal the healthcare act yet again. Or your candidate never revealing what in the hell he is going to do as president. And maybe taking to task your turtle face senator that said all of their time should be spent defeating President Obama. The GOP has done NOTHING for this country but get in the way.

You people need to put YOUR priorities straight.

Better check to make sure O-care will cover your liposuction.

It figures you would post a stupid response like that. That's what people do when they have no defense.

 

[Si modo]

If you really cared about these things you would not approve of the right wing lunatics in Washington wasting their time trying to repeal the healthcare act yet again. Or your candidate never revealing what in the hell he is going to do as president. And maybe taking to task your turtle face senator that said all of their time should be spent defeating President Obama. The GOP has done NOTHING for this country but get in the way.

You people need to put YOUR priorities straight.

Better check to make sure O-care will cover your liposuction.

It figures you would post a stupid response like that. That's what people do when they have no defense.

Rather, it's what I choose to do when responding to inanity, especially yours.

 

[Rinata]

I am more concerned with the economy of our nation and our deficit, getting people back to work. We have a president who promised to take care of these things in the first three years of his administration and it has not happened. Instead we have seen cronyism, class warfare and scandals abound.

It's time for someone with the qualifications for leadership. Let's put the priorities straight.

If you really cared about these things you would not approve of the right wing lunatics in Washington wasting their time trying to repeal the healthcare act yet again. Or your candidate never revealing what in the hell he is going to do as president. And maybe taking to task your turtle face senator that said all of their time should be spent defeating President Obama. The GOP has done NOTHING for this country but get in the way.

You people need to put YOUR priorities straight.

Romney has clearly stated what he intends to do as president. If you don't know his intentions, it's because you don't bother to pay attention.

No, he hasn't. And saying that he has does not make it so. Maybe you're the one not paying attention.

Mitt Romney gets a free pass | Daytona Times

Mitt Romney's no-specifics immigration plan: Can he get away with it? - The Week

U.S. Presidential Race: Why Romney Is Avoiding the Details | TIME Ideas | TIME.com

 

[Papageorgio]

If you really cared about these things you would not approve of the right wing lunatics in Washington wasting their time trying to repeal the healthcare act yet again. Or your candidate never revealing what in the hell he is going to do as president. And maybe taking to task your turtle face senator that said all of their time should be spent defeating President Obama. The GOP has done NOTHING for this country but get in the way.

You people need to put YOUR priorities straight.

Romney has clearly stated what he intends to do as president. If you don't know his intentions, it's because you don't bother to pay attention.

No, he hasn't. And saying that he has does not make it so. Maybe you're the one not paying attention.

Mitt Romney gets a free pass | Daytona Times

Mitt Romney's no-specifics immigration plan: Can he get away with it? - The Week

U.S. Presidential Race: Why Romney Is Avoiding the Details | TIME Ideas | TIME.com

I found this off the Romney website:

America is a nation of immigrants. We are not a nation bound by ethnicity, but one bound by the idea that all people are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That idea brought many of our forefathers to America and moves so many today to wait in line to come to our country. Welcoming newcomers who share our ideals and work hard to secure a better life for themselves and their families is part of our heritage. A strong legal immigration system is an integral component of what makes America exceptional.

But today, our immigration system is broken.

Our immigration system is not optimized for today’s economy. The United States is currently excluding too many workers who will start businesses, create jobs, foster innovation, and help grow our economy.

We do not grant enough visas to high-skill job creators and innovators our economy needs to make up for labor shortages and gaps in skills. Plus, the current system sends away the great majority of the over 300,000 foreign students who are earning advanced degrees at U.S. universities. And the system for bringing in temporary, seasonal workers is so cumbersome and time-consuming, that too often an employer finds that harvest or tourist season passes before temporary worker visas are approved.

A porous border allows illegal immigrants to enter the United States, violent cartel members and terrorists possibly among them. And many visitors ignore the terms of their visas and stay in the U.S. illegally.

The current system is keeping nuclear families apart. Currently, legal immigrants in America often have to wait years to be with husbands, wives, and young children.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration Edited. Shortened. Link Every Copy and Paste.

 

[naturegirl]

Romney will not overturn Roe, he has proven he listens to his constituents, implementing programs and legislation the PEOPLE want. He doesn't push his agenda down their throats because HE knows what's best for them.

He completely understands most people don't want or need to be "organized".

 

[Si modo]

Romney has clearly stated what he intends to do as president. If you don't know his intentions, it's because you don't bother to pay attention.

No, he hasn't. And saying that he has does not make it so. Maybe you're the one not paying attention.

Mitt Romney gets a free pass | Daytona Times

Mitt Romney's no-specifics immigration plan: Can he get away with it? - The Week

U.S. Presidential Race: Why Romney Is Avoiding the Details | TIME Ideas | TIME.com

I found this off the Romney website:

America is a nation of immigrants. We are not a nation bound by ethnicity, but one bound by the idea that all people are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That idea brought many of our forefathers to America and moves so many today to wait in line to come to our country. Welcoming newcomers who share our ideals and work hard to secure a better life for themselves and their families is part of our heritage. A strong legal immigration system is an integral component of what makes America exceptional.

But today, our immigration system is broken.

Our immigration system is not optimized for today’s economy. The United States is currently excluding too many workers who will start businesses, create jobs, foster innovation, and help grow our economy.

We do not grant enough visas to high-skill job creators and innovators our economy needs to make up for labor shortages and gaps in skills. Plus, the current system sends away the great majority of the over 300,000 foreign students who are earning advanced degrees at U.S. universities. And the system for bringing in temporary, seasonal workers is so cumbersome and time-consuming, that too often an employer finds that harvest or tourist season passes before temporary worker visas are approved.

A porous border allows illegal immigrants to enter the United States, violent cartel members and terrorists possibly among them. And many visitors ignore the terms of their visas and stay in the U.S. illegally.

The current system is keeping nuclear families apart. Currently, legal immigrants in America often have to wait years to be with husbands, wives, and young children.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration

”

No, no, no. If one is a hack, one CANNOT actually go to the source. What are you, nuts? Hacks let OTHERS tell them the interpretation to have.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Romney will not overturn Roe, he has proven he listens to his constituents, implementing programs and legislation the PEOPLE want. He doesn't push his agenda down their throats because HE knows what's best for them.

He completely understands most people don't want or need to be "organized".

Romney can't overturn Roe, Twatty Arbuckle. But he could appoint a Conservative justice or two and they'd take care of the rest. I love how Si Modo and others are trying to paint CandyCorn as some crazy loon just because she, like MANY on both sides of the aisle, sees that the next President will likely be nominating someone to take a vacated seat on the court. There's a grassroots movement underway right now to drum up support for impeaching Clarence Thomas for not recusing himself from the ACA decision.

Having been raised in the Conservative Faith, I can remember Rush and all the other talking/flapping heads saying that it's important to have Conservatives in the White House to get Conservatives on the Court. This isn't some fucking straw man that Candy brought up; it's a legit consideration for who you put in the Oval Office.

And considering some of the absolute Right Wing Teabag Conspiracy shit we see on this board, and from other posters IN THIS FUCKING THREAD, it's really laughable that you'd call one of the most even-tempered and intellectual people on this board a nutter for starting this thread.

Thanks for making me even more proud to be a Progressive, you dumb, dumb twats.

(Twats provided by Freedombecki's Twat-O-Rama: Where a Twat Can Be A Twat)

 

[Si modo]

Romney will not overturn Roe, he has proven he listens to his constituents, implementing programs and legislation the PEOPLE want. He doesn't push his agenda down their throats because HE knows what's best for them.

He completely understands most people don't want or need to be "organized".

Romney can't overturn Roe, Twatty Arbuckle. But he could appoint a Conservative justice or two and they'd take care of the rest. I love how Si Modo and others are trying to paint CandyCorn as some crazy loon just because she, like MANY on both sides of the aisle, sees that the next President will likely be nominating someone to take a vacated seat on the court. There's a grassroots movement underway right now to drum up support for impeaching Clarence Thomas for not recusing himself from the ACA decision.

Having been raised in the Conservative Faith, I can remember Rush and all the other talking/flapping heads saying that it's important to have Conservatives in the White House to get Conservatives on the Court. This isn't some fucking straw man that Candy brought up; it's a legit consideration for who you put in the Oval Office.

And considering some of the absolute Right Wing Teabag Conspiracy shit we see on this board, and from other posters IN THIS FUCKING THREAD, it's really laughable that you'd call one of the most even-tempered and intellectual people on this board a nutter for starting this thread.

Thanks for making me even more proud to be a Progressive, you dumb, dumb twats.

(Twats provided by Freedombecki's Twat-O-Rama: Where a Twat Can Be A Twat)

Well, no one has ever denied that hacks are hysterical, regardless of what team they are on. Oddly enough, I have never seen any hysterical hack issue about SCOTUS justices changing life as we know it, even though I have been hearing hysterical hacks fret and wring their hands about it in all the elections.

Maybe I'm just too zen for hacks. I worry about reality, not boogeymen.

 

[Bloodline]

In the next four years, there will likely be at least 2 or 3 slots on the Supreme Court open up due to the age of the justices. Ruth Ginsberg is in questionable health and three othe justices (Kennedy, Scalia and Breyer) are all in their 70's.

If you're a woman who values the ability to make reproductive choices on your own, you should vote for the President since he is committed to letting you keep your right to make that choice.

It is the truth that the republican nominee has been on both sides of the abortion issue in the past. Where the nominee will end up when selecting a new justice and what litmus test he will apply to that selection is up in the air.

Even a swing of one vote could overturn Roe v. Wade. If given the opportunity, conservatives will take that chance to overturn this landmark ruling.

Just something to consider before you go into the polling place and fill out your ballot this November.

This is Candycorn and I approved this message.

Seriously?? Obama's last SC pick isn't too sure she can't force-feed you your broccoli, and we're supposed to be panic-stricken at the imminent revocation of Roe v. Wade under Romney? That's hilarious! Not even Reagan, Himself, was such a danger to "a woman's right to choose".

You may have notices (I'm guessing you didn't) that in the last 32 years, the federal government has become much more partisan. Reagan, today, would be a moderate if not considered liberal by many.

I thought this election is supposed to be strictly about the economy?

On that note....GOOD news today for Obama!

Weekly Jobless Claims Hit Four-Year Low | Fox Business

And in the interest of fairness here's the story reported on another website.

Jobless claims drop to a four-year low - Economy Watch

It's kinda hard to claim "liberal bias" in the media when two websites....one conservative and one liberal run the same story isn't it?

 

[BDBoop]

In the next four years, there will likely be at least 2 or 3 slots on the Supreme Court open up due to the age of the justices. Ruth Ginsberg is in questionable health and three othe justices (Kennedy, Scalia and Breyer) are all in their 70's.

If you're a woman who values the ability to make reproductive choices on your own, you should vote for the President since he is committed to letting you keep your right to make that choice.

It is the truth that the republican nominee has been on both sides of the abortion issue in the past. Where the nominee will end up when selecting a new justice and what litmus test he will apply to that selection is up in the air.

Even a swing of one vote could overturn Roe v. Wade. If given the opportunity, conservatives will take that chance to overturn this landmark ruling.

Just something to consider before you go into the polling place and fill out your ballot this November.

This is Candycorn and I approved this message.[/SIZE]

Oh, this again?

You know, frankly, we've been hearing this song since Reagan, and it's getting a bit old.

There are a lot of good reasons to vote against Romney. Banning abortion isn't one of them.

If a Republican President was a sure sign of an anti-choice justice, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter would have all been people who voted against upholding Roe. They didn't.

Whta we've seen is that the Roberts court is very sensitive to how the media portrays it...

But let's say, the Supreme Court does overturn Roe v. Wade. so what?

The state legislatures would pass laws in fairly short order to reflect the status quo. A few backwater states like South Dakota might not, but most of them will.

Most of the states have spent the past 18 months trying to make abortions unattainable.

 

[Pho_King]

In the next four years, there will likely be at least 2 or 3 slots on the Supreme Court open up due to the age of the justices. Ruth Ginsberg is in questionable health and three othe justices (Kennedy, Scalia and Breyer) are all in their 70's.

If you're a woman who values the ability to make reproductive choices on your own, you should vote for the President since he is committed to letting you keep your right to make that choice.

It is the truth that the republican nominee has been on both sides of the abortion issue in the past. Where the nominee will end up when selecting a new justice and what litmus test he will apply to that selection is up in the air.

Even a swing of one vote could overturn Roe v. Wade. If given the opportunity, conservatives will take that chance to overturn this landmark ruling.

Just something to consider before you go into the polling place and fill out your ballot this November.

This is Candycorn and I approved this message.

Seriously?? Obama's last SC pick isn't too sure she can't force-feed you your broccoli, and we're supposed to be panic-stricken at the imminent revocation of Roe v. Wade under Romney? That's hilarious! Not even Reagan, Himself, was such a danger to "a woman's right to choose".

You may have notices (I'm guessing you didn't) that in the last 32 years, the federal government has become much more partisan. Reagan, today, would be a moderate if not considered liberal by many.

To many others he would be fascist or nazi. So fucking what, drama queen?

 

[naturegirl]

Romney will not overturn Roe, he has proven he listens to his constituents, implementing programs and legislation the PEOPLE want. He doesn't push his agenda down their throats because HE knows what's best for them.

He completely understands most people don't want or need to be "organized".

Romney can't overturn Roe, Twatty Arbuckle. But he could appoint a Conservative justice or two and they'd take care of the rest. I love how Si Modo and others are trying to paint CandyCorn as some crazy loon just because she, like MANY on both sides of the aisle, sees that the next President will likely be nominating someone to take a vacated seat on the court. There's a grassroots movement underway right now to drum up support for impeaching Clarence Thomas for not recusing himself from the ACA decision.

Having been raised in the Conservative Faith, I can remember Rush and all the other talking/flapping heads saying that it's important to have Conservatives in the White House to get Conservatives on the Court. This isn't some fucking straw man that Candy brought up; it's a legit consideration for who you put in the Oval Office.

And considering some of the absolute Right Wing Teabag Conspiracy shit we see on this board, and from other posters IN THIS FUCKING THREAD, it's really laughable that you'd call one of the most even-tempered and intellectual people on this board a nutter for starting this thread.

Thanks for making me even more proud to be a Progressive, you dumb, dumb twats.

(Twats provided by Freedombecki's Twat-O-Rama: Where a Twat Can Be A Twat)

In case you haven't noticed, we've had a majority of conservative judges for a while now. They haven't overturned Roe yet have they??

This is an absolutely ridiculous thread.

 

[Pho_King]

Again, men have very little true skin in this game due to biology. Si Modo is being an ass and thats fine since he has nothing to risk I suppose but there is a question that is developing about the character of a person who takes these liberties and questions others who see this as an important issue. Cute dog though.

The only skin us men have in the game belongs to the babies we helped create that so many women revel in choosing to destroy.

I've never met a woman who "revels" in wanting an abortion. It's usually a hard decision for most of them.

It's in having the choice to kill a baby that many revel, and many others revile.

And of course it's a hard choice to make- its a goddamn baby being killed. If it really were just a parasitic blob of cells (often with hands, feet, and a heartbeat), it would be a piece of cake.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

In the next four years, there will likely be at least 2 or 3 slots on the Supreme Court open up due to the age of the justices. Ruth Ginsberg is in questionable health and three othe justices (Kennedy, Scalia and Breyer) are all in their 70's.

If you're a woman who values the ability to make reproductive choices on your own, you should vote for the President since he is committed to letting you keep your right to make that choice.

It is the truth that the republican nominee has been on both sides of the abortion issue in the past. Where the nominee will end up when selecting a new justice and what litmus test he will apply to that selection is up in the air.

Even a swing of one vote could overturn Roe v. Wade. If given the opportunity, conservatives will take that chance to overturn this landmark ruling.

Just something to consider before you go into the polling place and fill out your ballot this November.

This is Candycorn and I approved this message.[/SIZE]

Oh, this again?

You know, frankly, we've been hearing this song since Reagan, and it's getting a bit old.

There are a lot of good reasons to vote against Romney. Banning abortion isn't one of them.

If a Republican President was a sure sign of an anti-choice justice, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter would have all been people who voted against upholding Roe. They didn't.

Whta we've seen is that the Roberts court is very sensitive to how the media portrays it...

But let's say, the Supreme Court does overturn Roe v. Wade. so what?

The state legislatures would pass laws in fairly short order to reflect the status quo. A few backwater states like South Dakota might not, but most of them will.

Most of the states have spent the past 18 months trying to make abortions unattainable.

Yeah, I have to say in the face of the hundreds of women's health laws that have been proposed around the country since 2010 that Romney's stance on abortion is a GREAT reason to not vote for him; if you're of the mindset that women should be allowed to with their vaginae (twats for Freedombecki, of course, since she loves that word so very much), that is.

 

[Si modo]

In the next four years, there will likely be at least 2 or 3 slots on the Supreme Court open up due to the age of the justices. Ruth Ginsberg is in questionable health and three othe justices (Kennedy, Scalia and Breyer) are all in their 70's.

If you're a woman who values the ability to make reproductive choices on your own, you should vote for the President since he is committed to letting you keep your right to make that choice.

It is the truth that the republican nominee has been on both sides of the abortion issue in the past. Where the nominee will end up when selecting a new justice and what litmus test he will apply to that selection is up in the air.

Even a swing of one vote could overturn Roe v. Wade. If given the opportunity, conservatives will take that chance to overturn this landmark ruling.

Just something to consider before you go into the polling place and fill out your ballot this November.

This is Candycorn and I approved this message.[/SIZE]

Oh, this again?

You know, frankly, we've been hearing this song since Reagan, and it's getting a bit old.

There are a lot of good reasons to vote against Romney. Banning abortion isn't one of them.

If a Republican President was a sure sign of an anti-choice justice, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter would have all been people who voted against upholding Roe. They didn't.

Whta we've seen is that the Roberts court is very sensitive to how the media portrays it...

But let's say, the Supreme Court does overturn Roe v. Wade. so what?

The state legislatures would pass laws in fairly short order to reflect the status quo. A few backwater states like South Dakota might not, but most of them will.

Most of the states have spent the past 18 months trying to make abortions unattainable.

Unattainable? Utter bullshit and I know you know it to be bullshit. That makes your statement blatantly dishonest.