The real malarkey: Joe Biden’s abortion stance
When Joe Biden was asked about abortion in the vice-presidential debate last Thursday, he replied with what, in part, has become boilerplate. “I accept my church’s position on abortion…” he said. “Life begins at conception; that’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life; I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman [Paul Ryan].”…
[T]he fallacy of the PONVI (personally-opposed, no-values-imposed) position is revealed when we apply it to other things. “Personally, I’m opposed to rape, but I understand the world is shades of gray; “Personally, I’m opposed to slavery; I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here….”
Some will now say that rape and slavery are very different from abortion, in that they directly hurt another person. To thus contend, however, is to depart from the PONVI argument and delve into the nature of the act in question. It then follows that if abortion also directly hurts another person, it may warrant prohibition as well.
And this is the problem with PONVI: it is a dodge… [which] doesn’t actually tackle the nature of what’s being discussed. Instead, its only moral component is the implication that it’s noble to not impose values on others. Yet we do this all the time: a law, by definition, is the imposition of a value….
Any law is the imposition of a “value,” but a just law is more specific: it imposes morality….
[B]ut what is morality? Who determines it? There are only two possibilities: man or something outside of man does….
[H]ow can we rightly claim that murder, rape, or slavery is “immoral” if the only reason we’re doing so is that the vast majority of us don’t happen to like it? If the only argument we can hang our hat on is consensus preference, then it falls into the same category as flavors: taste.
Some will now point out that the aforementioned acts hurt others, but who is to say that’s wrong?…
This is why the Founding Fathers took pains to emphasize that our rights are endowed by our Creator. They knew that for a principle to have credibility, it has to reflect more than merely consensus preference. It has to reflect morality, which, incidentally, is never “personal,” but universal and eternal.
~ Selwyn Duke, “Biden’s Abortion Blarney,” American Thinker, October 15
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Yeah Joe, keep looking up for that bolt of lightning. ;)
Bravo, Selwyn Duke! Very well said. I’d add only that Biden is a lousy Catholic because the Church also teaches that our faith cannot remain private. There’s no “private life” and “public life”. We have one life, and our faith must inform and direct all of it. There’s no private morality versus public morality. Joe and millions of “Catholics” like him can’t have it both ways.
My favorite quote of the debate was when Martha Raddatz said to Joe:
“What does that mean, ‘a bunch of stuff?'”
SELL. OUT.
(see Jesse Jackson)
I love these politician who say they will forsake their consciences for their public duty, but somehow we should believe that they would not forsake their public duty! How dumb do they think we are? How dumb are they?
“Some will now point out that the aforementioned acts hurt others, but who is to say that’s wrong?”
Whenever I’ve reached that point in a discussion with a pro-abort, they’ve generally gotten annoyed at me, wondering how I could not see that it’s wrong and claiming that it should be self-evident.
The self-contradictory nature of their mindset never seems to dawn on them while I’m standing there, but I still hold out hope that I will one day witness first-hand such an epiphany.
“[T]hese politician who say they will forsake their consciences for their public duty” are spineless and entirely untrustworthy as public servants. Granted, we may be fortunate and they may do good things while in power, but this is because those things are popular at that time, not because they’re good.
In an environment of widespread death-dealing, entitlement-based public opinion like the one in which he has been operating, Biden is about as useful in righting societal wrongs as an 8.5×11″ piece of parchment is at putting out a brush-fire.
I vote for a pillar of integrity, not a sail of popularity. Biden (and Obama), step aside and let the real men and women do what needs to be done.
Pregnancy is special. A girl or woman who doesn’t want to complete a pregnancy wants to do the exact opposite of what Dred Scott’s owner wanted to do. Scott’s owner demanded that the man be returned so the owner could continue to enjoy the fruits of the slave’s labor. The girl or woman getting an abortion EXPELS the unborn. This expulsion occurs even though the embryo or fetus needs the physical resources and labor (figurative and literal) of the pregnant woman in order to survive.
People who are “personally opposed to abortion” need to do things to make it less common. There are variety of measures that would make it less common beginning with those that would discourage premature and destructive sexual relationships, supporting research on improved contraceptive methods, popularizing types of sex that can’t lead to pregnancy, etc. They need to back their personal opposition with measures that will actual diminish the state of pregnancy rejection that leads to this practice.
There are variety of measures that would make it less common beginning with those that would discourage premature and destructive sexual relationships,
Yup. With you on that one.
…supporting research on improved contraceptive methods…
Huh? Don’t you know that contraception doesn’t decrease unplanned pregnancies or abortions?
http://www.1flesh.org/argument_page/artificial-contraception-reduce-unplanned-pregnancies/
http://www.1flesh.org/argument_page/abortion-rate/
That’s precisely why Planned Parenthood has pushed for the HHS contraception mandate. Contraceptives also provide a false sense of security that encourages those premature and destructive sexual relationships.
…popularizing types of sex that can’t lead to pregnancy, etc.
Ok, now you’ve totally lost me. Apparently you didn’t mean that first part about discouraging “destructive sexual relationships?”
Sex isn’t just for pleasure (yes it is for that, but not only that). Divorcing sex from its procreative purpose cannot be anything but destructive. Remember how we got in this mess in the first place? Turns out that free love wasn’t so free after all…
I am somewhat in agreement with you all here. If he actually agreed with the Church, he would support banning abortion. Like most “Catholics,” however, he probably doesn’t agree with Church teaching. Good for him. Hopefully he will find the strength to admit it and walk away from the Church and become free.
Andrew Ensley says:
October 16, 2012 at 5:37 pm
There are variety of measures that would make it less common beginning with those that would discourage premature and destructive sexual relationships,
Yup. With you on that one.
(Denise) Measures that would work to delay or help avoid sexual relationships, IMO, include the revival of chaperoned dating. We also must work so that unsupervised teens don’t impulsively fall into sexual activity. For example, we could encourage the use of cameras in the home so that parents can observe from far away who is going into and out of the home. We could also encourage teens to spend their time at supervised places after school but before a parent comes home.
However, delaying destructive sexual relationships should not be limited to minors. Adult women have many problem pregnancies. We must address why adult women engage in destructive sexual relationships. What can be done to meet their needs and desires in non-sexual ways?
…supporting research on improved contraceptive methods…
Huh? Don’t you know that contraception doesn’t decrease unplanned pregnancies or abortions?
http://www.1flesh.org/argument_page/artificial-contraception-reduce-unplanned-pregnancies/
http://www.1flesh.org/argument_page/abortion-rate/
That’s precisely why Planned Parenthood has pushed for the HHS contraception mandate. Contraceptives also provide a false sense of security that encourages those premature and destructive sexual relationships.>>
(Denise) It isn’t good to rely on ineffective contraceptives. Those that are 99% effective such as Norplant are very important and valuable.
…popularizing types of sex that can’t lead to pregnancy, etc.
Ok, now you’ve totally lost me. Apparently you didn’t mean that first part about discouraging “destructive sexual relationships?”
Sex isn’t just for pleasure (yes it is for that, but not only that). Divorcing sex from its procreative purpose cannot be anything but destructive. Remember how we got in this mess in the first place? Turns out that free love wasn’t so free after all…
(Denise) I put priority on abstinence and celibacy. Minors definitely should be virgins. We must encourage celibacy among everyone that we can. People should be taught to value that which distinguishes us from the animals — our rationality. A premium must be put on rationality rather than passion.
However, we’ve also got to live in the real world. If people are going to engage in partnered sex — and for the present time it seems likely many are — those women unwilling to carry to term yet fertile should limit themselves to types of sex that can’t lead to pregnancy.
This isn’t a contradiction. The priority remains celibacy.
My favorite quote of the debate was when Martha Raddatz said to Joe: “What does that mean, ‘a bunch of stuff?’”
My favorite was when Ryan replied to that: “It means he’s Irish.”
I don’t know if it is a complete cop out argument.
Now, if you say that abortion = murder, then it is pretty hard to use that argument.
But in general, there is a lot of things that are Biblically mandated, things we believe are either good or bad, that we don’t want mandated by law. We could name quite a few in a hurry…
Hal,
Being separated from a church does not necessarily make one free. A non-religious person can still be a slave to evil.
Dear Jesus, please allow the malarkey to be at a minimum tonight.
Ms. Crowley’s editorials are annoying, especially those at the beginning of the debate.
Mr. Romney should ask Mr. Obama why he didn’t answer Kerry’s question on Benghazzi: why didn’t Mr. Obama increase the amount of security before the attack.
Round one to Romney.
Round two to Obama.
Hey Ex did you bother to watch the debate this time, before commenting on it? If so, good for you. A step in the right direction, just like your messiah Obama. Unfortunately the CBS poll showed no clear winner in tonight’s debate. A solid percentage of people thought the debate was a tie, with a small number preferring Obama’s performance overall – yet the vast majority felt that Romney did better on the most important issue, the economy.
Round One and Two to Romney. There is no way you can say Obama won that debate. You can only say that Obama showed up.
Hal: “ Hopefully he will find the strength to admit it and walk away from the Church and become free.”
Why not just abandon Democrat teaching and become free of that?
Interesting question, don’t you think, Hal? I can appreciate that you have a preference — as does anyone. But it’s equally valid to speak of freedom from an institutional agenda in terms of political parties.
Apparently Biden is less free from the Democrat party agenda in terms of abortion, than he is from his church. Which means that from a standpoint of identity — the question of who you are (and one is not free from themselves) — he’s more Democrat than Catholic on this issue. Which means that precisely on this issue he doesn’t speak as a Catholic — merely as a Democrat.
On the economy, the polls are showing Romney well on top in this debate.
Round one gave Romney the debate on style and substance — and by “style” I actually mean that Americans fed “he’s out of touch” by lapdog media learned otherwise with the gatekeepers out of the way.
Round two gives him the debate on the economy.
Progressives can flatter their hopes and indulge the conceit that other things O scored better on matter at least as much. They do so delusionally.
Much of the debate was bogged down on both sides with talking points. I can understand why. Not everyone watches the whole debate. Some tune in late. Some tune out early. It’s not a failing of the candidates that they repeat the same stuff often — it’s strategic (they’re not ultimately concerned about the studio audience). But it’s aggravating to those of us who watch it all and would like to see less combing of the same ground over and over. :-/
Obama claimed he said it was a terrorist attack during his speech in the rose garden the day after the attack happened. I thought he had been saying his best intel told him it wasn’t a terrorist attack. Which is it? OOOPPPS!!! Caught up in a flat out lie on national television. I loved the split screen when Romney was calling him out on that.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-debates/2012/10/16/romney-destroys-obama-benghazi-gate-then-he-flew-las-vegas-fundraiser
I think Obama blinked about one hundred times in 40 seconds. How dare anyone talk to him like that. lol. And earlier in the debate when Romney told Obama to go back to his chair and sit down. How dare he say that to the president…lollllll
And at least three times that Obama said that Romney would defund Planned Parenthood. One of the few things Obama said all night that I agreed with him on. I thought that was an awesome debate. Any time Obama has to go at it without a teleprompter and canned talking points is awesome.
Ex-GOP,
Round one to Romney.
Round two to Obama.
No, sorry. Stylistically it was about a tie, which would count as a win for the challenger. But Obama told a couple of whoppers that will come out in the fact-check wash.
The federal land drilling fib was nothing compared to the Libya lie. Romney was rightly stunned by the assertion that Obama called that fiasco terrorism. Crowley attempted to rescue him by backing him up.
But of course it would make no sense that he and his adminitration would point to the YouTube red herring if Obama had called terrorism from the Rose Garden on September 12th. They already showed the tape. He used the word “terror” in reference to the 9/11 anniversary, and threw in the four murders as an “oh by the way” loss.
Round three is foreign policy. You can bet Romney will be well-prepared to call him out on this. It will be the coup-de-gras.
“Great minds…”, truthseeker.
Hans,
The two minute responses do suit Obama well though. Enough time to cover the talking points. Anything longer than that and he rambles and starts speaking in gibberish. Any idea what is the format for the third debate?
In the rose garden speech, Obama does not explicitly refer to Libya as a terrorist act. He talks about acts of terror, but it’s in the context of 9/11. And as we all know he would later downplay the idea that Libya was an act of terror on The View. The foreign policy debate is going to be fun. I suspect Obama will just keep saying that he killed Osama, over and over again. Also Bob Scheiffer isn’t a disgrace to the journalistic community so the moderation won’t be a total farce.
I see the format will be the same as the first debate which means back and forth and getting deeper into the weeds. It should be fun.
truthseeker,
The most memorable two minutes (actually, they both usually went two and a half) was just before 10 eastern. Romney laid out the case against Obama brilliantly. It’s worth a two minute commercial.
To have less sexual activity, we need to place greater emphasis on rationality and de-emphasize passion.
I think the trend toward working from home may also help decrease sexual temptations.
I watched the whole debate – and the morning reactions match mine:
– CBS News poll – 37 to 30 Obama (33 tie)
– CNN poll – 46 to 39 Obama
– Swing state poll – 53-38 to Obama
Favorite part of the debate was when Obama told Romney that as an investor, he’d never take the bait from a sketchy investor promising a deal (such as Romney’s tax deal) with all promises and no facts.
Obama had much lower expectations after his first debate performance – so tonight was big. Will be interesting to see the polls in another week (interesting for me – most people on this site don’t believe in polls).
Hi Ex, CBS poll was within the margin of error – no clear winner. Same with the CNN poll. Unlike the polls after the first debate which showed Romney winning by 40 points.
My favorite part was when Obama sneered at and mocked his rival, which was during the entire debate. Very presidential.
As for a sketchy deal with no facts, I guess you never heard of “hope” and “change”.
“Believe in polls” — such a weird locution, EG.
They’re certainly interesting. Obama’s 6 points more likable, but Romney had an 18 point win on economic issues (CNN). So if you’re concerned that the next president is a chummy kind of guy, Obama’s your man. So important! If you care about the economy (can’t imagine why), it’s Romney.
Six points could be statistical noise. But 18?
oh, look, here’s Obama’s debate partner-I mean the moderator-saying, “I was wrong when I interrupted Romney to ‘fact check’ him, since he was the one who actually had the facts and I was just carrying water for Obama.”:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/10/17/video-candy-crowley-admits-romney-was-correct-about-libya-attack
Too bad she said this AFTER THE DEBATE WAS ALREADY OVER when no one was watching instead of being corrected during the debate where everyone could see her. That would have been so embarrassing for she and Obama both!
It’s easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission, as the saying goes. Especially when the mea culpa is in front of a small news audience, versus the huge debate audience. Damage done. With Michelle Obama leading the applause, in violation of the debate rules as well.
Cry me a river.
Not sure what significance that has.
I see Hal is getting ready to join the nomenklatura in anticipation of Obama’s second term, by refining his “tough crap, proletariat!” attitude.
Today’s poll has Wisconsin moving from Obama being a 16 point favorite one month ago to a statistical dead heat. YEEHAH!! Obama doesn’t stand a chance without Wisconsin :)
truthseeker said, “Today’s poll has Wisconsin moving from Obama being a 16 point favorite one month ago to a statistical dead heat.”
Courtnay, what are you all doing to turn this around up there in Leinenkugel country?
A politician who believes abortion should be legal but is “personally opposed” to it should be able to state measures he or she supports that he or she also believes are likely to decrease abortion.
x,
What’s doubly delicious is that at the same time Crowley was half-heartedly eating a little crow, MSNBC’s Chris the Tingler and crew were praising her for tag-teaming with Dear Leader.
I enjoy those upset of how the LIbya situation was handled, saying the truth is coming out after the debate and not during it – and those same people are pretty much ignoring the ENTIRE FIRST DEBATE.
We’ll see in about 4 or 5 more days where things stand – takes a while for the various polls to have samples taken entire after the debate. Obama pretty much just needs to keep a hold of Ohio and a couple of more states in the swing category. (and anybody who says Obama doesn’t stand a chance without Wisconsin is completely oblivious to the electoral map)
I don’t really understand your first paragraph. The truth was always there. The Obama Administration couldn’t admit to it being a terrorist attack when their meme was that Al Queda was on the run.
Gallup reflects the vp debate actually boosted R/R a little, especially with the internal stats with women and the undecided. It was thought the 3rd debate on foreign policy would be tough for Romney. Not anymore with Libya looming as a scandal. The GOP team must be having fun prepping for this one.
I bet Obama is looking as morose as in Debate One listening to his team scramble for damage control.
Obamacare has never polled a majority. Not before it was passed and not since. The third debate is Monday and it is in the same format as the first debate was; a series of fifteen minute back and forth sessions. This debate could be the magnitude 8 quake that ushers in a 2012 Nobamacare tsunami.
Hans – what I mean is – there are folks in this thread talking about how the “truth” came out AFTER the debate, not during it.
At the same time, most of the first debate was Romney spouting off with unchecked information. Romney’s really kept fact checkers busy.
I’d love for hard hitting debates with good fact checking DURING the debate – I’m just saying it is convenient for people to mention one and not the other.
The third debate will be a yawner – foreign policy is never as interesting to the average Joe as domestic issues. I’ll be interested to see how Romney handles the Libya story. There’s an opening there – but when Romney tried to hit it, Obama hit him back harder and really won points there (successfully accusing Romney of trying to use the death of people for political gain). After that exchange, Romney lost his edge and wasn’t as good down the stretch. If Romney doesn’t handle this right in the last debate, and then aligns himself too much with Bush sounding policies – it could get interesting.
Eric, all of my family are in Green Bay, but I reside in Tennessee and we ALWAYS deliver. :) My Packer counterparts up there drink a BUNCH of Leinie’s and vote Republican. Strong, salt of the earth dairy farmers with a conscience! But my father inlaw, who also worked at a GB paper mill, was required to join a union and the union thugs always came around at election time to remind him and his coworkers who to vote for.
If WI goes to Romney, there will be much celebration on this little patch of the Cumberland Plateau!
“– it could get interesting.”
Ex-RINO, it already is getting really interesting. The way things are trending.
Romney gets Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin and Ohio and Obama is finished.
This cannot help Obama’s chances in Ohio:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/18/wv-coal-miners-blast-obama-over-digs-at-romney/?intcmp=trending
And even without Ohio Romney is looking to be the likely winner. For instance he could lose Ohio and take Colorado and Iowa instead and he still sails to electoral victory. This is all based upon the RealClear politics electoral map which has Romney currently leading Obama in electoral votes 206 to 201:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Truth – you sure are in a habit of cherry picking polls and dismissing data that you don’t like.
Yes, if either candidate gets Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin and Ohio they win. This isn’t news.
But to declare the race over, three weeks before the vote, and before ANY polls have come out post the last debate – that’s just silly.
I mean, Obama has led in 17 straight major polls released on Wisconsin. To declare that Romney is automatically going to win it is foolish.
There are three weeks left – my advice to you:
1) Don’t get too excited or too distraught over ONE single poll.
2) Do pay attention to multiple data sets – most states will have multiple major polls released a week from here on out. One poll doesn’t tell a story. Many polls do.
3) Look at the poll dates – anything over the next couple days don’t matter much – after a debate, you have to give it a few extra days.
4) Look at the method. If a poll doesn’t include cell phones, I pretty much dismiss it these days (or greatly discount it).
I like your excitement – I like polls – I like the data – but if you cherry pick polls – it’s a bit like getting multiple opinions from doctors, reading the first one, and then throwing the rest away.
Courtnay -
Very different on my side of the state – heavy Dem territory – one of the few places that flipped an official in a recall election.
I liked your union thug quote – did you see the Koch brothers letter to their employees saying they’d possibly be losing jobs if Obama was elected? Yup – it goes both ways – thugs at the top trying to take away people’s free right to vote for whomever they choose. Just don’t get mad about one side and not the other.
This is for Ex-RINO:
http://cheezburger.com/6305550080
Courtnay,
As a new, rather recent transplant to the great state of Wisconsin, there will be MUCH rejoicing here when Romney wins, too. Another recent transplant-a good friend of mine I met at my last job who used to be a Tea Party organizer in Ohio-will be living it up with me. ;)
Not really cherry picking Ex-RINO. RealClear politics uses an average of multiple polls and it has Romney in the electoral lead today. As far as my selection of states goes… I chose Florida, and Virginia in my scenario because they already polling in Romney’s favor. I used Wisconsin in my analogy to show you how devastating losing Wisconsin is to Obama’s chances. A month ago (when they lead by 16%) Obama’s campaign had already figured Wisconsin in the win column. I think you are underestimating the effect a GOP win in Wisconsin has on the election. Out of the 131 toss-up electoral votes on the map; giving Romney Florida and Virginia and Wisconsin would mean to win the election Romney only needs 12 of the remaining 79 toss-up electoral votes;and there are a lot of ways he could get those 12. I see Wisconsin as being THE swing state in this election because it shows a 16% point change (in the last month) in a SWING state and would show a trend that could be signs of a GOP wave. It doesn’t mean that you or somebody else couldn’t see it differently.
K truth – yeah, I’d reread my post.
I do agree with you though – if somebody arbitrarily chose three big states (double digit electoral votes) out of a toss up column and gave them all to one party, it would look pretty good for them.
Unfortunately, based on the polling in those three states – it would be massively premature to put them into any sort of final category. The fundamentals are still very good for Obama in Wisconsin – good for Romney in Florida – a toss up in Virginia, and good for Obama in Ohio.
On real clear’s site, Obama has 201 – Pennsylvania is a very soft toss-up – 538 has it to Obama at this point, which puts 221. Throw in Ohio and Wisconsin and it’s pushing 260.
It’s the nature of the game at this point in the year – it’s easy to get overly excited or pessimistic based on a couple of polls. Wait a few more days and the picture will be a bit clearer (to see if there’s any push from this latest debate).
xalisae – that’s pretty cool. Yeah, I came from Minnesota – funny, when I was there, it was the most politically dysfunctional state in the country – then I move here, and Wisconsin now holds the title. I’m starting to get a complex…
Go back. Please.
It’s okay, x. I do believe Wisconsin is going to do fine without Ex’s vote. You Badgers and we Keystoners are going to make this a landslide year.
New NBC/WSJ/Marist – Iowa and Wisconsin – took place over 3 days – so partially before and after the debate. 1000 plus people in both polls, so solid number.
Obama up 6 in Wisconsin and 8 in Iowa. Gender gap was pretty large.
Just one poll for each state – noteworthy that the numbers pre and post debate were pretty close to identical – most people said they’ve made up their mind at this point.
Wisconsin senate – Baldwin over Thompson by 4.
RCP.
Ex-GOP,
Bottom line is, you ought to be worried about any Democrat incumbent who isn’t up to 50% right now. Because the late break of undecideds is sure to be at least 2/3s to the GOP.
Gallup has been great for Romney since switching to likely voters like Rasmussen, as they do near the end. And the gap has been ticking up a point each of the last 3 or 4 days, with the post-2nd debate results rolling into the figure.
I’m about to bookmark my post-election YouTube link. I can feel it in the air.
And I see a bright golden haze. ;)
Hans, that’s simply not true.
Gallup has Obama up by McCain by 11 the night before the last election (a 4 point miss)
in 2010 – the national congressional ballot – Gallup had the GOP at +15 – the GOP was a plus 7, so that was an 8 point miss.
Again, if you’d like actual data – if you’d like to read without GOP colored glasses, I could give you a great (long) article on Gallup – just published – very relevant to this conversation.
But this is EXACTLY what I”m talking about. There are SIX national polls that publish almost daily – GAllup, Rasmussen, Ispos, RAND, Investor’s Business Daily, and UP International.
To cherry pick ONE when the other polls have things (at a national level) as very tight, is simply a bad way to look at it. It is ignoring much of the data.
Now Hans, if you’d like polls to make you feel good, what you are doing is perfect – go look through, find a poll or two that you want, and run with that.
Just know that you are ignoring a large chunk of data.
New data point – Colorado – PPP – Obama up 49-44 (4 for Johnson, 3 undecided)
RCP.
Whatever the letter that small business owners wrote their employees, please tell me where anything they’ve said is illegal or untrue. Breaking the back of small businesses is no small matter. As we’ve seen.
I have not read the Koch brothers but I have read the other one businessman (forget his name) who sent one, and I have heard Steve Wynn give his interview. My reaction is: LISTEN to these men. Finally someone is articulating this message in a straight up way that Romey can’t. It’s about freaking time. American capitalism isn'[t a social experiment, for gosh’s sake.
How bad does this President have to get to where you and your brain dead minions stop defending him??? He is horrible!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You don’t even have to take that personally.
Oh yeah, but he will make sure you can kill all the kids you want and market that as freedom and liberation.
You and Eva.
Courtnay – that was a very, very weird post.
The letter from Koch industries went to employees of Georgia Pacific. They have 45,000 employees. I don’t believe that qualifies as a small business.
My two points are this:
– Don’t go on a big rant about unions putting pressures on their people to vote a certain way when you see that same thing with big business.
– The rest of your post is completely bizarre. Yes, I agree that capitalism isn’t an experiment. Who is arguing anything other than that?
Since you folks all love talking polls now – some new ones – 13 swing state polls released Thursday:
11 of 13 had Obama up (2 in CO, 1 in IA, 2 in MI, 2 in NV, 2 in OH, 1 in VA, and 1 in WI). 2 had Romney up (PA and NC).
Weird is in the eye of the beholder, Ex. Numbers (gas price, job losses, amount of regulations, how much we spend on welfare, etc.) are not. The man you come here day after day after day is HORRIBLE. And that’s just the economics. Your faux -pro life views ought to tell you that this man is wedded to Big Abortion. They OWN him. And he owns you.
You must be so very, very tired. What’s bizarre is you, buddy. The writing is on the wall. I know you know how to read.
Courtnay -
Gas Prices – very comparable to mid 2008, the summer before Obama took office
Job losses – 31 straight months of job growth
Welfare – spending should go up during lean years and go down afterwards. Tax cuts for the rich certainly aren’t going to help…
Look, it’s a difference in economic philosophy. You support the economic structure that almost led us into a second great depression. I support an economic structure that has led us out of it.
I don’t like that Obama is wedded to the abortion industry, and that Romney seems to be doing his best to ignore the issue. It does make for a tough situation.
I don’t like that Obama is wedded to the abortion industry.
You don’t LIKE it? Ex, I don’t like eggplant or cats. Abortion and infanticide, I LOATHE with every human atom that is in me. I LOATHE the mutilating and killing of women and babies. That is my line in the sand, my dealbreaker, my first litmus test. You tell me whether you think babies should be able to be slaughtered based on how wanted they are, and you tell me what kind of man or woman you really are. You betcha.
Tax cuts for the rich certainly aren’t going to help…
Let me tell you what I know. My husband works, and we live at, a boarding school whose tuition is prohibitively expensive, about 40k a year. Not all students pay that, because we are an Episcopal mission and we give many grants and scholarships to needy kids. We do a great job, and we rely on various “millionaires” and small businesses who have only been hurt by this bufoon you helped elect PRECISELY because he himself saw American business as a social experiment to even stuff out. If businesses and their owners get taxed and regulated and unionized to death, then we can’t offer as many grants to this most excellent school we have. Fewer wealthy students can afford tuition. This has happened. In addition, we have had to let teachers go because our enrollment is down. Now, we have been there 16 years, but my husband could be next. And if that happens, we will forclose on the farm we’ve bought, where we hope to retire. See the trickling??? I, and all the good teachers at SAS and our kids, rely on a healthy marketplace. Right now that marketplace is sick. As a dog. Becuase no one with the ability to hire people wants to hire people. Your amateur with all his claims to social justice, doesn’t have a CLUE how to do this. Give me a man who runs businesses, who solves problems, who knows what its like to being people together. EVERY TIME.
Make government have to live within their means. Stop borrowing money, even when it seems like a great idea. It’s not. Lower taxes for everyone. Stop with the solar panels already!!!!!!!!!!!!! And stop making every freaking problem into another opportunity for another social program. And we can start with Planned Parenthood.
Courtnay
– First paragraph – and yet, George Bush, who you probably massively loved, will have roughly the same amount of abortions under his watch than Obam, who you hate. Interesting.
– Second paragraph – what policies have been put in place that have hurt these millionaires? What tax increases? And when were these folks best off? Reagan and Clinton years, when we had higher tax rates? The language doesn’t match the record. The wealthy haven’t seen higher taxes – they’ve continued to see the lowest tax rates they’ve ever seen. What policies have hurt these people that are hurting your school? What bill that was passed? Please, line up the policies – I’m very much interested to see them.
Please read the link, Ex. I went out of my way to find one of your papers to quote from. He says it a lot better than I am able. This is your boy’s vision. It scares the heck out of small businesses. They are not expanding or hiring because of what this man threatens as his agenda. He didn’t need to pass any laws. per se; all he really had to do is spook the spenders.
Now, what he has already done is ram that monstrous health plan down our throats. If you were a small business man, what would you do? No wait, don’t answer, because I don’t really care.
Still haven’t told me why his love of PP and all things abortion isn’t enough for you to break up with him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-hurn/why-does-obama-dislike-sm_b_1737570.html
“Job losses – 31 straight months of job growth.”
And fewer people employed at the end of those 31 months. Oh yeah…you aren’t counting the millions whose unemployment ran out and dropped off the unemployment rolls. Save your bs for the unintelligent. Obama voters are scary. 50% of them have never even heard of BenGhazi or Ambassador Stevens.
Ex-RINO, Where do you pull you polls from and how did you miss the Rasmussen poll that was done yesterday in Wisconsin and had Romney leading by 2? Also, Rasmussen had Romney widening his lead in Virginia and in Florida (now up to 5 points in Florida).
Ex-RINO, I take that back about Wisconsin. Rasmussen had Obama leading by two. That is still down from Obama by 16 a month ago though. And if Romney can poll ahead of Obama in any Pennsylvania poll then Obama is in deep doodoo.
Ex-GOP,
I’ve also cherry-picked this datum: No one has lost when leading with 50%+ in the Gallup in mid-October.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/17/rove_no_candidate_who_has_led_with_50_of_more_in_likely_voter_poll_in_mid-october_has_lost.html
This can’t help Obama in Ohio. Yesterday the coal miners rallied against Obama and today it is the doctors.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1913034880001/
EG: “I don’t like that Obama is wedded to the abortion industry, and that Romney seems to be doing his best to ignore the issue. It does make for a tough situation.”
That’s the kind of weird remark that leads me to believe you’re a false flag, EG — no friend of life at all. It has the ring of a manufactured — not genuine — remark. It’s impossible to infer back to a coherent view that could spawn such a comment.
At any rate — RCP. I keep saying it while you weirdos ;-) bicker down in the weeds. And there’s a big change tonight; click No Toss Ups. Closer by a couple states than just last night. Any two small or one large swing would put Romney over, at this point.
That’s a preference cascade on a roll. IF that’s what it is, THEN it’s over for Barry. If that’s not what it is, who knows?
Truth -
I get my poll information from 538.
Those two Rasmussen polls were released later then those others – which is why it wasn’t in the polls added Thursday to the models there.
Florida actually had three new ones just added – the plus five, a plus 3, and a plus 1.
Virginia has been one of the weirdest polling states this cycle – Obama had the lead on polls on the 16th, 11th, 9th, and 7th. Romney had leads the 18th, 14th, 11th, 9th, and 4th. It’s like a back and forth football game.
Hans -
I think you’re a bright guy here, so let’s look at some numbers.
The Gallup Daily tracking has been going since 1996 – so the sample size is 4 elections – 96, 00, 04, and 08. So first off, you’re saying something has happened every time in 4 times. That’s not a very significant pool size to begin with.
And let’s look at those four elections:
96 – A landslide victory by Clinton
00- Close victory by Bush
04 – Comfortable victory by Bush
08 – landslide victory by Obama
So we’ve had two close elections in that timeframe. So what you’re essentially saying is that Gallup was right in two elections at this point. (which, the random odds of picking one of the two winners is 75%).
Look at the surrounding data though and make an educated guess. Here are your five pieces of data for one day – all national polls – all daily tracking – so what do you think the lead is, and who has it? And is their any data that makes you skeptical?
You have these numbers to look at:
Romney up by 6 (Gallup)
Romney and Obama tied (Rasmussen)
Romney up by .7 (ISPOS)
Obama up 3.1 (RAND)
Obama up 1.5 (Investors Business Daily)
Rasqual -
I think Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa all look pretty good for Obama at this point (and RCP gives all three to Obama at this point). Those three right there, along with everything else that isn’t considered a toss-up, give him 271. Nevada’s strong as well – so let’s give 277. If you take out a Wisconsin for instance and give it to Romney, Obama’s back at 267, and has to win New Hampshire or Colorado (but not both).
Romney has a shot – his path though is that he has to win Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina – and really needs Ohio as well. If he doesn’t get Ohio, he pretty much needs everything else. Giving Romney Ohio (along with those other three) – then he just needs Wisconsin, Colorado, or New Hampshire (at this point, I’m giving Iowa and Nevada to Obama – just because those two look the safest.
On my first statement – I’m just saying that when Romney isn’t in front of a die hard Republican crowd, he’s pretty quick to say things that put him very in the middle of the road – no abortion legislation that he can think of…everybody should have access to contraception. Get him in front of GOPers and he talks the talk. In front of others, and he’s quick to shift his language.
He’s a shifty little pretty boy!
Ex-RINO, I would just point out these two things for you. Virtually ALL of the toss-up states you mentioned (and then some) are trending Romney. Obama is losing by double-digit numbers on most issues (most of all the economy) in every poll.
Ex-RINO, do you think Obama knew it was a terrorist attack in BenGhazi when he declared it was a terrorist attack the day after it happened? And if not, then why during the debate the other night did he insist that he did?
Ex, still waiting to hear how you stomach the body count of all those babies.
He’s a shifty little pretty boy!
That’s what you got?
Don’t be too hard on him. He’s got Obamanesia (credit to the Obama campaign’s “Kids in Thrall”).
truth – what do you mean “trending” Romney? Certainly, two years ago, Romney registered as a zero, and now he’s in the 40’s in these states. You need to define “trending” if you are going to use these terms. According to 538. in the last 7 days, Obama has the trend up. Rasmussen national poll would be as wel – because a week ago, Romney was up by a few points.
On your second post on BenGhazi – I have no idea. I have three kids and live in Wisconsin – I’m not working in the White House or anything, nor do I own a crystal ball.
Courtnay –
As I play with my two year old this morning, I can’t fathom how people have abortions. I think it’s a sad state of the world where people see the option of having a baby or killing a baby, and believe that killing the baby is the better option for them in their life. It’s terrible.
Ex-RINO, my point was that 50% of the people who vote for Obama don’t even know who Ambassador Stevens is or that the Obama administration denied them the extra security they requested. They also don’t know that the Obama administration lead a coordinated cover up of their incompetence by fabricating stories about protests outside the BenGhazi consulate etc etc. My sister is a great example. She is a die-hard Obama voter and last weekend I brought up BenGhazi and she didn’t have a clue about it. An uninformed electorate leads to poorer choices for elected officials and make it possible for terrible candidates to win elections.
Ex-RINO, go ahead and deny that the election is trending Romney. No need for anyone in the Obama camp to change what they are doing. lol Seriously?
Truth -
And 50% of people who vote Romney don’t know a thing about his tax plan and closing loopholes.
Is this new to you, that we have an American populace that doesn’t understand the details of events that have happened and plan specifics? Did you honestly believe that everyone follows news stories all day long? Is this just dawning on you?
On your last comment, I couldn’t disagree more. You haven’t specified a TIMEFRAME. 538, again, has a 7 day trend UP for Obama. But if you said the last 30 or 45 days, I’d agree with you.
Ex-RINO, I guess we can just wait and see who gets the last bounce from the debate tomorrow night. Most people, including liberal pundits, see it as either Obama holding on and squeaking out a victory or the current trend continuing into a Romney landslide. It should be interesting….
And I don’t expect the electorate to know details about every candidates plans. I do expect them to know when terrorist launch attacks on US citizens and the our government downplays it and calls it a bump in the road and misleads us about the actual events…all because they are afraid it hurts them politically.
Anybody who is predicting a landslide either doesn’t know the definition of a landslide, or is expecting some HUGE turning point (a candidate punching a baby, splitting on an old lady, etc…)
Both candidates have 200 plus electoral votes that are pretty safe. There’a chance that the last 100+ electoral votes ALL break in the same direction, but that seems unlikely. It seems more likely, for instance, that Florida and Virginia break one way and that Ohio, Wisconsin, and Colorado break another way.
I think it is still too early to say with much confidence what is going to happen. Statistically, I think it looks a bit better for Obama just because of the states left that are in play – but a lot can change in a hurry.
A lot of armchair quater backing going on with Libya. This election isn’t going to come down to Foreign Policy – it simply isn’t. There are about 50 issues that people are going to take into account first. Some parent with a kid with a pre-existing conditions or some business owner afraid his taxes are going to go up – those folks aren’t going to be focusing on Libya. I bet you 80% of American’s couldn’t even find Libya on a map.
Don’t take this the wrong way but once again your logic seems incoherent to me. What is your point? How is people being able to find Libya on a map relevant to knowing that Americans are being killed in terrorist attacks there? Do you have anything relevant to say about the fact that most Obama supporters are oblivious to the terrorist attacks and the incompetence of the Obama administration leading up to them, during them, and after the attacks?
My point is, Libya, no matter what happened there, isn’t relevant enough in people’s lives to be a tipping point of why they are voting. Both parties have a lot of things to not be proud about – this sort of stuff happens. At the end of the day though, the vote is about who people think is going to be the best person for the job going forward.
As far as foreign policy having an effect on peoples votes; the details may not have much of an effect but there is a striking difference between the two and I think it could swing as much as a few more percentage points of people to the Romney camp. And those few percentage points could make the difference between the GOP getting control of the senate too (riding on the shirt-tails of Romney so-to-speak). The difference; Romney presents himself like a leader and a take charge guy. Quite the opposite of Obama and his lead from behind approach. That leadership ‘characteristic’ is what has lead Romney to dominate in the first debate and I believe it will also be a large part of why Romney gets a second surge from this last debate. The difference between their ability ‘to lead’ is really quite striking.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point.
Here is Juan Williams (generally considered to be liberal pundit) speaking to Mitt Romney’s strength at projecting his ‘commanding presence’ and readiness to lead. Check it out if you want at about 6:25 in the link below:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/
I guess you will just have to agree to disagree with just about everybody on this point?
Sorry, The link above was a generic link to the Chris Wallace show. Here is the link to the panel plus discussion with Juan Williamstalking about Romney’s strength as a leader:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/blog/2012/10/21/panel-plus-october-21-2012