So, the factory owners didn't build the factories...

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

DL,, are you claiming that a massive tax increase was the cause and creation of a fiscal surplus during the second Clinton term?

Is that what you are claiming here?, at least, that is what I would assume you are claiming here.

It was not a massive tax increase. The top tax rate only increased from 31.0 percent to 39.6 percent.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

Nevertheless, it contributed to the budget surplus the country experienced at the end of the Clinton administration, and which GW ended by cutting taxes while starting too pointless wars.

[stumbler]

In New Billboard, Romney Campaign Showcases Small Business That Directly Benefited From Obamacare

The Romney campaign is up with a new billboard touting another small business owner upset with President Obama’s out-of-context remark that businesses don’t succeed on their own but rather with help from federal government programs.



But like so many of the small businesses that the Romney campaign has trotted out in recent weeks, Tanya L. Burns & Associates, an insurance brokerage firm in Florida, is yet another beneficiary of federal spending. And not just any spending: Burns’ firm has helped clients reduce their health insurance premiums thanks to the Affordable Care Act, which Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal.


In a 2011 article in the Orlando Business Journal, Burns appears dumbfounded — and pleasantly surprised — at the lower premiums some of her clients received when they renewed their insurance contracts:

Tanya Burns, a local insurance broker and the owner of Tanya L. Burns & Associates Inc., said when she got the renewal for First Baptist Church and another Osceola County church, both with a 1.5 percent decrease from Aetna, she thought something was wrong with her eyes. Then, in November, she had another company renew at a 5 percent decrease. “I called the girls in the office and told them we’re not going to call Aetna and ask any questions, but we’re going to frame this and put it up in our lobby.”

Since the passage of Obamacare in March 2010, millions of individual and business policy holders are now eligible to receive rebate checks from their insurance providers thanks to provisions that require 85 percent of premiums collected go towards medical claims. If that threshold is not reached, customers receive automatic rebates. Florida in particular had an exceptionally high number of customers scheduled to receive a cumulative $149 million in rebate checks this year.


On their website, Tanya L. Burns & Associates has an entire “Health Reform Resource Center” set up, offering information on the key benefits of Obamacare and a Frequently Asked Questions page.



During the Romney campaign’s recent “Built By Us” initiative, more than a dozen of the small businesses that the campaign sought to highlight have been found to contract with government agencies or receive taxpayer-funded small business grants and loans.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...ess-obamacare/

[Old Tool]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

You have nothing to say but noise and nonsense.

This is what a man who has a very flimsy grasp of the facts says to someone who is crushing their false argument - I consider it a compliment to watch you resort to such tactics . . . thank you. And now for your factual drubbing:

Originally Posted by Old Tool

1) Was the Federal Public Debt higher at the end of each fiscal year during the Clinton presidency - yes or no?

you answered:

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

1) No.

You are incorrect (again, as usual) - here are the actual numbers from the Department of the Treasury:

end FY - Total Public Debt
1993 - 4,411,488,883,139.38 (Bush's last budget, shown as a baseline)
1994 - 4,692,749,910,013.32
1995 - 4,973,982,900,709.39
1996 - 5,224,810,939,135.73
1997 - 5,413,146,011,397.34
1998 - 5,526,193,008,897.62
1999 - 5,656,270,901,615.43
2000 - 5,674,178,209,886.86
2001 - 5,807,463,412,200.06

As you can plainly see, the total public debt was higher every single year of Mr. Clinton's presidency. source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm

Originally Posted by Old Tool

2) Do you understand the difference between a budget and actual income/outlays - yes or no?

you answered:

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

2) Yes.

Obviously you do not, otherwise you wouldn't be stuck on a chart from the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO does not report on actual receipts/outlays - that is the job of the Treasury. Anybody can make a budget with a surplus, truly anybody. But so what - those are fantasy numbers . . . what matters is what is actually taken in as income, and what is actually spent as expense. As I have proven, Mr. Clinton submitted a budget with a surplus, but failed to reduce the debt, and in fact increased it (mostly because his budget included several accounting tricks involving FICA)

Originally Posted by Old Tool

3) Why wont you come clean about the whole facts of this matter, instead of parsing out only those incomplete tidbits that seem to make your narrow worldview make sense?

. . . on second thought, never mind #3 - it's quite obvious that your deep ideological bent is not subject to rational scrutiny.

you answered:

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

3) Huh?

I have shown you this data before - twice before, in fact, when you have spouted off the left-wing myth of Mr. Clinton's fiscal miracle. But, here you are again, back with the same empty-headed argument. I can only think of 3 reasons that you would do this - you're forgetting the facts you don't like, you're being intentionally disingenuous, or - and this seems most likely to me - you think if you act like a Master of Facts it will eventually become true, even if you're absolutely incorrect (as you were in this case).

OK, Master of Facts - is that too much "noise and nonsense" to fit into your brain today?

[Old Tool]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

It was not a massive tax increase. The top tax rate only increased from 31.0 percent to 39.6 percent.

Nevertheless, it contributed to the budget surplus the country experienced at the end of the Clinton administration, and which GW ended by cutting taxes while starting too pointless wars.

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

It was not a massive tax increase. The top tax rate only increased from 31.0 percent to 39.6 percent.

That looks like a 25% increase,, that's much more than 1% or even 5% increase, in my eyes,, that is rather massive.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

Oh goodness,, how you love those graphy things.....

Nevertheless, it contributed to the budget surplus the country experienced at the end of the Clinton administration, and which GW ended by cutting taxes while starting too pointless wars.

Horseshit,,time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration. Nothing more than accounting gimmicks from the leftists.

If the truth to be told here,Clinton DID NOT have a deficit. In the late 1990s, the government was running what it -- and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps -- called budget "surpluses." But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the "surpluses''.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:



Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

[clarise]

[QUOTE=ace's n 8's;5266350]

That looks like a 25% increase,, that's much more than 1% or even 5% increase, in my eyes,, that is rather massive.

Oh goodness,, how you love those graphy things.....

Horseshit,,time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration. Nothing more than accounting gimmicks from the leftists.

If the truth to be told here,Clinton DID NOT have a deficit. In the late 1990s, the government was running what it -- and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps -- called budget "surpluses." But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the "surpluses''.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

I debunked the Clinton deficit balancing crap pages ago. DL ignored it. The Cato Institute's crap isn't good enough for him, but FactCheck.org's crap is. Now he'll want me to fly down to Washington D.C. to sift through the Congressional Record, to get notarized copies of all the times Clinton stonewalled Newt Gingrich/GOP budget proposals until they were finally able to drag him kicking and screaming to sign one of them.

It's not worth it, Aces. DL is the only one left fighting on this thread, and he is just about as receptive to rational argument as a squashed grape.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

I debunked the Clinton deficit balancing crap pages ago. DL ignored it. The Cato Institute's crap isn't good enough for him, but FactCheck.org's crap is. Now he'll want me to fly down to Washington D.C. to sift through the Congressional Record, to get notarized copies of all the times Clinton stonewalled Newt Gingrich/GOP budget proposals until they were finally able to drag him kicking and screaming to sign one of them.

It's not worth it, Aces. DL is the only one left fighting on this thread, and he is just about as receptive to rational argument as a squashed grape.

The Cato Institute has an ideological agenda. FactCheck does not.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

The Cato Institute has an ideological agenda. FactCheck does not.

FactCheck is a mouthpiece for the A.P., which assuredly does. Cut it out. FactCheck does news with just about as much journalistic integrity as Huffington and The Boston Globe. Christ, DL. Just think about it. FactCheck is always at the tippety-top of Google search lists. Why? Because it is the darling of leftist bloggers. That is why.

I told you in my Cato post that I don't trust Cato. Of course it has an agenda. That is why I posted it. To prove the point that crap at the top of Google cannot be trusted. But Cato is not a news organization and doesn't pretend to be. FactCheck is no better, yet it pretends to be a news organization. Get it? And you walked right into the ruse, just like your very good friend, spJames.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

FactCheck is a mouthpiece for the A.P., which assuredly does. Cut it out. FactCheck does news with just about as much journalistic integrity as Huffington and The Boston Globe. Christ, DL. Just think about it. FactCheck is always at the tippety-top of Google search lists. Why? Because it is the darling of leftist bloggers. That is why.

FactCheck July 31, 2012

The Obama campaign is out with another ad making the false claim that Mitt Romney “backed a bill that outlaws all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.” Romney’s consistent position through this campaign, and the last, and as far back as 2005, is that he opposes abortion except in cases when the life of the mother is in danger, and in cases of rape and incest.

This latest Obama campaign ad begins with a woman named “Jenni,” who says, “I’ve never felt this way before, but it’s a scary time to be a woman.” A narrator says Romney “backed a bill that outlaws all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.”

The Obama campaign is a repeat offender with this distortion of Romney’s position on abortion. Then, as now, the Obama campaign rests its claim, in part, on an answer Romney gave during a 2007 debate, when he was asked if he would sign legislation to ban “all abortion” — assuming, hypothetically, that Roe v. Wade had been overturned. He gave a rambling response that ended by saying he’d be “delighted to sign it,” if there was a national consensus for it. But, he said, “that’s not where America is today.” Neither rape not incest were mentioned in the question, or in Romney’s answer. Meanwhile, Romney made clear — both before and after that debate — that his fuller position was that he opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
http://factcheck.org/2012/07/falsify...-stance-again/

[AZRIEL]

obummer.jpg

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

FactCheck July 31, 2012

The Obama campaign is out with another ad making the false claim that Mitt Romney “backed a bill that outlaws all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.” Romney’s consistent position through this campaign, and the last, and as far back as 2005, is that he opposes abortion except in cases when the life of the mother is in danger, and in cases of rape and incest.

This latest Obama campaign ad begins with a woman named “Jenni,” who says, “I’ve never felt this way before, but it’s a scary time to be a woman.” A narrator says Romney “backed a bill that outlaws all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.”

The Obama campaign is a repeat offender with this distortion of Romney’s position on abortion. Then, as now, the Obama campaign rests its claim, in part, on an answer Romney gave during a 2007 debate, when he was asked if he would sign legislation to ban “all abortion” — assuming, hypothetically, that Roe v. Wade had been overturned. He gave a rambling response that ended by saying he’d be “delighted to sign it,” if there was a national consensus for it. But, he said, “that’s not where America is today.” Neither rape not incest were mentioned in the question, or in Romney’s answer. Meanwhile, Romney made clear — both before and after that debate — that his fuller position was that he opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
http://factcheck.org/2012/07/falsify...-stance-again/

You are as foolish as they come 'master of facts' POOCH, naive as hell I'd say.

Have you ever noticed how ''PERSONAL'' everything is with Obama,,everyone is mentioned by their first name, they could be his son,,, Oh Obama is for the little people of this nation. Everyone has an agenda, everyone has an opinion,,journalism is DEAD, agenda's will never die,,Clarise is absolutely correct,the AP is in the bag for Obama,that's how Obama got elected in the first place,,and they will damn sure defend their investment (OBAMA) until the biting, spitting, scratching, kicking end.

The Cato Institute is a conservative think tank, they as well have an agenda,,promoting conservative ideas, and proving that conservatism is the answer,,I for one happen to agree with conservative ideas,you on the other hand believe in government control and socialism.

You need to do some fact checking on your ''OWN'' and stop believing what your cherished leftist media ''OPINION'',,I have been proven wrong on this forum a few times,,but by no means as much as you have. I feel for you.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

You are as foolish as they come 'master of facts' POOCH, naive as hell I'd say.

Have you ever noticed how ''PERSONAL'' everything is with Obama,,everyone is mentioned by their first name, they could be his son,,, Oh Obama is for the little people of this nation. Everyone has an agenda, everyone has an opinion,,journalism is DEAD, agenda's will never die,,Clarise is absolutely correct,the AP is in the bag for Obama,that's how Obama got elected in the first place,,and they will damn sure defend their investment (OBAMA) until the biting, spitting, scratching, kicking end.

The Cato Institute is a conservative think tank, they as well have an agenda,,promoting conservative ideas, and proving that conservatism is the answer,,I for one happen to agree with conservative ideas,you on the other hand believe in government control and socialism.

You need to do some fact checking on your ''OWN'' and stop believing what your cherished leftist media ''OPINION'',,I have been proven wrong on this forum a few times,,but by no means as much as you have. I feel for you.

You do not seem to understand why I submitted the post from FactCheck on Romney's position on abortion. clarise said FactCheck had a liberal bias. I demonstrated her error by submitting a comment from FactCheck demonstrating that a charge by Obama against Romney is false.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

You do not seem to understand why I submitted the post from FactCheck on Romney's position on abortion. clarise said FactCheck had a liberal bias. I demonstrated her error by submitting a comment from FactCheck demonstrating that a charge by Obama against Romney is false.

YEPPERS,,,I fully understand Obama's lying agenda,I just dont understand why you fall for the leftists agenda,,,consistently,,barring Obama/Romney's position on abortion in this instance.

[Old Tool]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

I have an ideological agenda. FactCheck does too.

~quote fixed for no charge!~

Ah, now we have moved on to step 4 of the Fact Twister's play book - ignore the well-documented rebuttal of his argument, ignore the fact that he has indeed claimed things as factual that are proven to be false, do not admit to an obvious example of his fallacious predispositions being shown as utterly baseless.

Let us review the play book to see where we've been - and where we're going:

Step 1 - make a statement as part of an argument that is questionable (on either a factual or logical basis)

Step 2 - Counter the first couple of challenges to the statement by claiming himself the Master of Facts - counter challenging anyone to show where his data or logic are flawed.

Step 3 - Re-post the original statement, this time bolstered by any data that purports to bolster the original claim, regardless of how flimsy it may be.

Step 4 - After irrefutable proof is offered that he is blatantly wrong, - ignore the argument crushing data, and/or claim that the original statement is not really what was meant, then slide off onto a tangent only marginally related to the subject at hand.

Step 5 - Claim that his self-annointed title remains unscathed - state that those who challenge his argument have nothing intelligent or useful to say.

. . . after a week or so, repeat from Step 1

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

You do not seem to understand why I submitted the post from FactCheck on Romney's position on abortion. clarise said FactCheck had a liberal bias. I demonstrated her error by submitting a comment from FactCheck demonstrating that a charge by Obama against Romney is false.

(sigh)

Even the Associated Press pretends to report news. The New York Times comes out against Democrats a few times a month. Recently the Boston Globe ridiculed Lizzy Warren for her mendacity.

You guys trot out these aberrations and use them to claim that the Times, the Globe, the Washington Post, and now FactCheck are balanced. Give me a break. You know what they say about a broken clock, DL, so cut it with the nonsense.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

(sigh)

Even the Associated Press pretends to report news. The New York Times comes out against Democrats a few times a month. Recently the Boston Globe ridiculed Lizzy Warren for her mendacity.

You guys trot out these aberrations and use them to claim that the Times, the Globe, the Washington Post, and now FactCheck are balanced. Give me a break. You know what they say about a broken clock, DL, so cut it with the nonsense.

You shut up. Just because you dislike factual assertions does not mean that they are not true.

Here is some more substantiation about the Clinton surplus:

Debt as a share of the US economy reached a maximum during Harry Truman's first presidential term. Public debt as a percentage of GDP fell rapidly in the post-World War II period, and reached a low in 1973 under President Richard Nixon. The debt burden has consistently increased since then, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

You shut up. Just because you dislike factual assertions does not mean that they are not true.

Here is some more substantiation about the Clinton surplus:

Debt as a share of the US economy reached a maximum during Harry Truman's first presidential term. Public debt as a percentage of GDP fell rapidly in the post-World War II period, and reached a low in 1973 under President Richard Nixon. The debt burden has consistently increased since then, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

Another common response to the above explanation of the myth of the Clinton surplus is that the budget surpluses are based on the numbers produced by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office . Indeed if you access the CBO's "historic budget data" document , on the fist page you will see that 1998 shows a surplus of $69 billion, 1999 shows $126 billion, 2000 shows $236 billion

However, further analysis of the document should make it very clear that important information is missing from the CBO document--specifically focusing on the last two columns of the table on page 1. If you take the $3,772.3 billion debt held by the public at the end of 1997 and subtract the "total" $69.3 billion surplus stated for 1998, you would expect to see the debt go down by 69.3 billion to $3,703 billion. Instead, the debt indicated for 1998 is $3,721.1 billion--suggesting a surplus of only $51.2 billion. This alone should tell you that the CBO numbers aren't telling the whole story because they don't add up--and the story they aren't telling is intragovernmental holdings.

The reality is that the federal government and politicians use a form of accounting that would get most accountants thrown in jail. As USA Today wrote in 2007 , special rules used by the federal government allowed it to report a $248 billion deficit in 2006 rather than $1.3 trillion if it had used corporate-style accounting.

While the CBO may be non-partisan, that does not mean the CBO is non-political nor that their numbers are honest or transparent.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
FACTS!!!!!!

[Old Tool]

Step 4 (continues) - After irrefutable proof is offered that he is blatantly wrong, - ignore the argument-crushing data, and/or claim that the original statement is not really what was meant, then slide off onto a tangent only marginally related to the subject at hand.

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Here is some more substantiation about the Clinton surplus:

Debt as a share of the US economy reached a maximum during Harry Truman's first presidential term. Public debt as a percentage of GDP fell rapidly in the post-World War II period, and reached a low in 1973 under President Richard Nixon. The debt burden ~note added for clarity - here the writer fails to use the ratio between debt and GDP~ has consistently increased since then, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Now you don't know what the word "substantiation" means? Wow. Your struggle to find anything, anything to square your ideological predisposition is astounding. Now you want to talk about the ratio between GDP and the debt, ignoring the fact that the debt rose every year during Clinton's presidency. What breathtaking denial!

Do you deny that the data provided by the Treasury Department is accurate?

[Old Tool]

Wow - The Twister of Facts went to a different thread to do Step 5:

http://forum.xnxx.com/showpost.php?p...6&postcount=40

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

On a number of occasions I have stood alone against a lynch mob that flamed me because it could not refute my arguments. My arguments are fact based, and debatable. I welcome rational refutation. Insults reinforce my conviction of personal rectitude. I make an effort not to descend to the level of my detractors. I believe I usually succeed.

Your ability to reinforce your own delusions of self are singular, Twister of Facts - I am impressed.

[ladygodiva123]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

FactCheck July 31, 2012

The Obama campaign is out with another ad making the false claim that Mitt Romney “backed a bill that outlaws all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.” Romney’s consistent position through this campaign, and the last, and as far back as 2005, is that he opposes abortion except in cases when the life of the mother is in danger, and in cases of rape and incest.

This latest Obama campaign ad begins with a woman named “Jenni,” who says, “I’ve never felt this way before, but it’s a scary time to be a woman.” A narrator says Romney “backed a bill that outlaws all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.”

The Obama campaign is a repeat offender with this distortion of Romney’s position on abortion. Then, as now, the Obama campaign rests its claim, in part, on an answer Romney gave during a 2007 debate, when he was asked if he would sign legislation to ban “all abortion” — assuming, hypothetically, that Roe v. Wade had been overturned. He gave a rambling response that ended by saying he’d be “delighted to sign it,” if there was a national consensus for it. But, he said, “that’s not where America is today.” Neither rape not incest were mentioned in the question, or in Romney’s answer. Meanwhile, Romney made clear — both before and after that debate — that his fuller position was that he opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
http://factcheck.org/2012/07/falsify...-stance-again/

Straight from his website. Please note, it says absolutely nothing about exceptions in the cases of rape, incest or the life or health of the mother:

Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.


Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.


Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the water’s edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens. The compassionate instincts of this country should not be silent in the face of injustices like China’s One-Child policy. No one will ever hear a President Romney or his vice president tell the Chinese government that "I fully understand" and won’t “second guess” compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.


Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us. As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America’s values of preserving life at home and abroad.


Check for yourself if you don't trust my clips:


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

[spjames]

Originally Posted by ladygodiva123

Straight from his website. Please note, it says absolutely nothing about exceptions in the cases of rape, incest or the life or health of the mother:

Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.


Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.


Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the water’s edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens. The compassionate instincts of this country should not be silent in the face of injustices like China’s One-Child policy. No one will ever hear a President Romney or his vice president tell the Chinese government that "I fully understand" and won’t “second guess” compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.


Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us. As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America’s values of preserving life at home and abroad.


Check for yourself if you don't trust my clips:


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

Yet you probably cheered for the murder of a doctor who provided medical services to women including abortions. And just like all those pro-lifers I'll bet you don't give one rats ass what happens to the children after they are born into a life of poverty and wind up tied to government assistance for their very existence. Not only that but your trying to cut off that very government assistance. So called pro-life people are more than sick they're disgusting. Also pro-life people are more likely to supporting the death penalty as well. Pro-life ha.

[Old Tool]

Originally Posted by spjames

Yet you probably cheered for the murder of a doctor who provided medical services to women including abortions. And just like all those pro-lifers I'll bet you don't give one rats ass what happens to the children after they are born into a life of poverty and wind up tied to the government for their very existence. Not only that but your trying to cut off that very government help. So called pro-life people are more than sick they're disgusting.

Wow - knee jerk much? She was directly quoting Romney's website - the link to which she provided at the bottom of her post. This is not an endorsement or a statement by Lady Godiva herself, silly. Calm down.

If it looked like this, would you feel better:

Originally Posted by Mitt Romney's web site

Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.


Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.


Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the water’s edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens. The compassionate instincts of this country should not be silent in the face of injustices like China’s One-Child policy. No one will ever hear a President Romney or his vice president tell the Chinese government that "I fully understand" and won’t “second guess” compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.


Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us. As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America’s values of preserving life at home and abroad.

[spjames]

Originally Posted by Old Tool

Wow - knee jerk much? She was directly quoting Romney's website - the link to which she provided at the bottom of her post. This is not an endorsement or a statement by Lady Godiva herself, silly. Calm down.

If it looked like this, would you feel better:

Ok so I knee jerked a little. My apologies to ladygodiva123.

My characterization of pro-lifers still stands. They're all for saving the unborn but after they pop out of the oven the person can drop dead for all they care.

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by spjames

Yet you probably cheered for the murder of a doctor who provided medical services to women including abortions. And just like all those pro-lifers I'll bet you don't give one rats ass what happens to the children after they are born into a life of poverty and wind up tied to government assistance for their very existence. Not only that but your trying to cut off that very government assistance. So called pro-life people are more than sick they're disgusting. Also pro-life people are more likely to supporting the death penalty as well. Pro-life ha.

Oh no you didn't!
When I hear claims that "Pro-lifers" cheered for the murder of a doctor it sets me off. Having a belief based on when life begins does not make one heartless or cruel or stupid or mean. And making the sweeping statement that children born rather than aborted will spend a life in poverty and and relying on government for their existence is plain outrageous. How the fuck do you know what those kids could have, or would have, or should have been?

And arguing that pro lifers automatically support cuts in welfare, and support the death penalty? Siddown.

Using your "logical" approach, pro lifers could claim that all those mothers who got pregnant probably considered abortion a form of birth control and cheaper than a condom or a pill.

Really. Siddown.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by ladygodiva123

Straight from his website. Please note, it says absolutely nothing about exceptions in the cases of rape, incest or the life or health of the mother:
.....

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

LG, on the Mitt thread I conceded that I overstepped on Romney's $30 million contribution. Don't know if you saw it, so thanks for calling me on it. I still believe that his family bankrolled most of that temple, because I live in MA and recall stories from the period of its construction. But at this point I can't prove it.

I am not a fan of Romney and I can't imagine voting for him (I am a registered voter in MA, but not a Republican; I am unenrolled and tend to vote Democrat approximately one third of the time ).

Nevertheless, for the most part I support Romney's stand against abortion.

The subject is too polarized for rational debate-- much like guns and global warming. But here is my personal take on it, for better or worse:

Being an atheist, I do not have a religious objection. And I think the far-right pro-lifers go too far. For instance, I think a woman who has been raped, or a woman whose life is endangered by the pregnancy, should be able to abort it.

However, I oppose abortion as a matter of convenience or a form of birth control for pregnant women with buyer's remorse. I know there is no going back, and Rowe v. Wade will never be overturned, but that is where I stand. The pro-choice movement and most feminists do not want to hear this, but the brain is one of the first organs to develop in a fetus. By 21 days (three weeks into term), blood is pumping through working cortex, and every neuron in the FC is firing at approximately 50 spikes per second. The prenatal brain is hard at work, and one would be hard pressed to make a rational case that the little person inside is not thinking something. At the very least, it is enjoying its lot in life. The same people who would deny this claim tend to be the same ones who go into a tizzy about lobsters in a pot, yet adult lobsters have about as much brainpower as a garden spider, and for the life of me I will never comprehend that contradiction.

If I lean toward the pro-life side, another reason might be that the extreme left side of the divide just plain repulses me. The current ruling elite of the Democratic Party supports partial birth abortion, which involves killing and dismantling the baby in the process of being born, when he/she is not only viable, but most certainly feels the agony of his/her death. This is infanticide, plain and simple, and one does not have to be a religious nut to be repulsed by it. Most atheists, I would wager, are repulsed by it, too. I certainly am.

My apologies again for overstepping on the Mormon contributions business.

[shyguyy2]

217916_510510745628943_2067957286_n.jpg

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by shyguyy2

Attachment 1935361

That guy is a real crank. I would not shop there.

[Old Tool]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

That guy is a real crank. I would not shop there.

If I were him, I would not have a problem losing what limited business you might produce . . . still unable to concede that you were rhetorically and factually disemboweled in this thread, eh? The longer you ignore your egregious and extremely partisan error, the better