ForumGarden

Flip-Flopper Willard Mitt Romney Does Not Understand His Own Position on Birth Control! - YouTube

I don't get this, surely being in favour of banning birth control would be a major vote loser?

Millions of Americans will be voting for this guy. I wretch at the thought but there it is. Despite all the hoo-ha (especially from me!) concerning the topic of birth control, etc. I've read over & over that to Americans, economy is considered the biggest issue when voting for the presidency. i.e. certain polls have Romney favored (slightly) on the issue of 'who will be better for the economy'. That doesn't mean the issue is understood.

why can't I delete posts???????

Accountable;1391824 wrote: why can't I delete posts???????
Were you cursing & changed your mind?

AnneBoleyn;1391817 wrote: Millions of Americans will be voting for this guy. I wretch at the thought but there it is. Despite all the hoo-ha (especially from me!) concerning the topic of birth control, etc. I've read over & over that to Americans, economy is considered the biggest issue when voting for the presidency. i.e. certain polls have Romney favored (slightly) on the issue of 'who will be better for the economy'. That doesn't mean the issue is understood.


Trying to dictate women's reproductive rights is a lot easier than figuring out how to fix the economy. I'm not really sure WHY the right is so intent on female reproduction and how only men have the right to control it but there it is.

AnneBoleyn;1391836 wrote: Were you cursing & changed your mind?
It was after I changed my mind that I started cursing.

Abortion is a bogus issue in presidential politics. Regardless which one wins the election we're going to get a fourth Bush term. Other than the fact that Obama is a more sophisticated orator, there's not a speck of difference between them on any issue. In fact Romney just might prove to be slightly more progressive than Obama. They're both lying sacks of sh!t.

The major vote loser for me would be the fact of him tying his dog

(crate or not) to the top of the car for a 12 hour trip... minus the stop

to hose the dog down after a diarrhea incident.

Some people say it's not important, but to me it's every bit as... it

goes to poor decision making at the very least, who wants THAT for president?

We already have a poor decision maker in the White House.

Ahso!;1391852 wrote: Abortion is a bogus issue in presidential politics. Regardless which one wins the election we're going to get a fourth Bush term. Other than the fact that Obama is a more sophisticated orator, there's not a speck of difference between them on any issue. In fact Romney just might prove to be slightly more progressive than Obama. They're both lying sacks of sh!t.


"Politician"

I think Obama can "Think faster on his feet" that Mitt, and now he has more experience dealing with other government leaders.

Romney seems to have that "Deer in the headlights" look, whenever someone goes off script.

Either way, we're F^*ked.

At this point, I think a vote for experience is called for.

SnoozeAgain;1391850 wrote: Trying to dictate women's reproductive rights is a lot easier than figuring out how to fix the economy. I'm not really sure WHY the right is so intent on female reproduction and how only men have the right to control it but there it is.


It's religion - original sin and all that plus the simple notion that a woman is not able to make decisions for herself about when to become pregnant that right belongs to a man and should be within marriage, being an unmarried woman with a child puts you outside society. That people should be able to live their lives as they wish - so long as it doesn't harm others - is not a position any monotheistic religion can tolerate for very long before trying to force conformity. As monotheistic religions took over women gradually lost their status and rights. It's not that long ago that women could not be financially independent they were either wives or whores some still think like that - just look at the kind of criticism heaped on successful women or on successful music artists or actresses. We have similar issues here but generally we tell the religious right to mind their own business.

You could really do with a left wing party all you seem to have is right wing and more right wing. Mind you we could do with a left wing party as well. Re-nationalise the gas and electricity and maybe the railways as well, cut MP's salaries to the national average wage and ban companies contributing to political parties.

Some Americans will vote for Romney in spite of his funny walk because they feel (not think) that they too will become successful investors of he becomes president. Funny thing is that that is how many conservatives operate - they react to emotional stimuli, but I guess many liberals do too. As Accountable knows all too well, libertarians are exempt from being driven emotionally, they live by the constitution.

Wouldn't have thought a secular state was his main worry but rather his fellow, protestant christians - the kind that used to burn catholics at the stake in retaliation for their doing it to them.

The Maddow Blog - This Week in God

He could do with carrying out some research or is it just the catholic church trying to re-write history again. Hitler was a catholic as were most of the nazis and not one word was said against the burning of the synagogues and treatment of the jews by the pope or any senior german churchman. He was after all doing god's work and his christian catholic faith was the origin of his anti-Semitism - the holocaust would be inconceivable without it. Wonder what he has to say about mormons.

Re: would americans vote for this guy? Romney

Uggh, please the boy dont know his ass from his elbow, and EVERYTHING he says today he gets controdicted tomorrow by himself go figure !!

Either way, we're F^*ked.


'Nuf said.

Nothing is going to change, as a matter of fact it may well get worse in the country. People forget that the president is not the one who runs things. This is just stale, moldy bread and bloody circuses.

Scrat;1398720 wrote: 'Nuf said.

Nothing is going to change, as a matter of fact it may well get worse in the country. People forget that the president is not the one who runs things. This is just stale, moldy bread and bloody circuses.


The Scratman returneth.

Yeah, I crawled in the back door. Been going to school so that hopefully I can get a better job. I may just start my own business in the end though. I'm not working for peanuts, I'd rather just starve on the street.

Okay, America.

:guitarist You asked for it. You got it. Status Quo :guitarist

Accountable;1409964 wrote: Okay, America.

:guitarist You asked for it. You got it. Status Quo :guitarist


As an uninterested onlooker......... I gave a long sigh of relief.

Bruv;1409968 wrote: As an uninterested onlooker......... I gave a long sigh of relief.
Why? It would still have been status quo under Romney. :yh_wink

I would personally describe Romney as a nutter.

Bruv;1409972 wrote: I would personally describe Romney as a nutter.
?????????????

Not that it matters, but you had to have gotten that from an opinion piece, rather than from his own words, right?

I mean, isolated, sure. Out of touch, doubtless. But nutter??

Case closed.

We keep the guy who at least has experience on his side.

Paul was not even an option in Colorado. We had 9 different fringe candidates, and I ended up voting against Romney.

Accountable;1409975 wrote: ?????????????

Not that it matters, but you had to have gotten that from an opinion piece, rather than from his own words, right?

I mean, isolated, sure. Out of touch, doubtless. But nutter??


Sorry I just felt relief that the one I know a little more about, beat the guy that I have virtually no knowledge at all about.....only that he is further to the right than Obama.

I have sympathy with what Obama has been trying to do concerning Health Care.

I caught the video on here of Romney being "Romney" and I didn't like it.

I am sure he is not actually a nutter, as in being off his head, just that some of his views are looney, in my opinion.

I'm extremely happy :-6 not just with the result, but with the end of the subject. I do not agree with Accountable that it is status quo. It is a severe beating for those with wealth who thought they ought to control our lives, that they were "entitled" to do so; it is a severe beating for the religious right---at least on a national level. The make-up of the country is changing & this election mirrors that.

To anyone who wants to rain on my Parade---f**k off!

:guitarist the times, they might be changin' (finally)

I'm happy enough... now what is this 'fiscal cliff' everyone is talking about today?

I am happy that the millions and millions of dollars in attack ads proved to be a total failure. Trump even called out Karl Rove (the master of sleaze ads) for wasting $300 million of his clients' money and losing every race. Hopefully, the stupid law that calls corporations people and forces citizens to buy free speech will be overturned before the next ugly election.

AnneBoleyn;1409984 wrote: I'm extremely happy :-6 not just with the result, but with the end of the subject. I do not agree with Accountable that it is status quo. Same executive. Same party in control of the House. Same party in control of the Senate.

Status Quo: — n — the existing state of affairs. [literally: the state in which]

Wandrin;1410003 wrote: I am happy that the millions and millions of dollars in attack ads proved to be a total failure. Trump even called out Karl Rove (the master of sleaze ads) for wasting $300 million of his clients' money and losing every race. Only half the attack ads failed (I'll never understand partisan blindness). None of the money was wasted, though. It stimulated lots of jobs. :yh_wink

Wandrin;1410003 wrote: Hopefully, the stupid law that calls corporations people and forces citizens to buy free speech will be overturned before the next ugly election. :yh_pray AMEN!

AnneBoleyn;1409984 wrote: I'm extremely happy :-6 not just with the result, but with the end of the subject. I do not agree with Accountable that it is status quo.


Accountable;1410004 wrote: Same executive. Same party in control of the House. Same party in control of the Senate.

Status Quo: — n — the existing state of affairs. [literally: the state in which]Boehner's been reelected as Speaker of the House. More status quo.

Life would have been real ugly for me if Romney won. Boner means nothing. You see republicans in disarray now, completely befuddled about the state of the "new" electorate. Let's see where it goes, it is worth it to see them so upset. Gay marriage becoming a reality, marijuana being legally enjoyed!! without federal harrassment. Black people & others waiting 6-10 hours to vote because the spirit that moved civil rights in the '60's is not dead & won't allow Jim Crow to show himself. Women & men openly discussing the right to abort, not just leaving the argument to contraceptives---all this, my friend, is not status quo. Government change, institutional change, is always slow to the people's wishes.

AnneBoleyn;1415141 wrote: Life would have been real ugly for me if Romney won.
You really shouldn't gamble more than you can afford. :yh_wink

As for the rest: you have a vivid imagination.

Accountable;1415174 wrote: You really shouldn't gamble more than you can afford. :yh_wink

As for the rest: you have a vivid imagination.
Just trying to be hopeful for a change. A new experience believe me. :-6

AnneBoleyn;1415256 wrote: Just trying to be hopeful for a change. A new experience believe me. :-6


Ooooookay. Keep practicing! :yh_peace