• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

EPIC FAILURE - Mitt can't distance himself from Ryan/Akin war on women.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
A bit reading challenged are you, EK? :confused:

Romney's faux renunciation is just one more flip flop, just as he has flipped on every other issue he has ever addressed. Both the Telegraph and Faux articles quote Willkie:



That means the one "smearing" Romney with "innuendo" would be... wait for it... MITT ROMNEY! :whiste:
“He told me ‘thank you for your support – we agree on almost everything"

almost does not equal everything.

So try to say so is a smear innuendo.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
638
126
I, as well as others find it pretty hilarious that progressives think feel that the front and center issue with women this election is their vagina. These ladies summed it up pretty well.

Proof That The Obama Campaign Thinks We Are All Idiots

Conservative women are sick of being reduced to nothing more than their vaginas. They know that “women’s issues” reach far further than their nether regions. Conservative women care about things besides contraception and abortion. They care about the economy, jobs, retirement, the country’s standing in the world, and the future of their kids and grandkids. Apparently, Obama-supporting women ONLY CARE about access to abortion and making sure their contraception is paid for by taxpayers.
Here are some other issues women are concerned about. It's from a link within the article I linked to. This was written by a woman.

There are so many other issues in this presidential race to which women should pay attention, but President Obama hopes they don’t.
Here are just a few to mull over:
– 17 million women are living in poverty today — up 800,000 since President Obama took office;

– 7.5 million women are living in “extreme” poverty;

– Women working in President Obama’s White House are paid 18% less than his male employees;

– Women want their family’s health care decisions to be made by their doctors, not unelected bureaucrats;

– Women don’t want $4/gallon gasoline prices;

– Unemployment among women has gone up 15 percent since President Obama was inaugurated;

– Women are gaining jobs at 1/4 the pace of men;

– Women want the nation’s economy to grow more than 1.5% annually;

– Women don’t want to pass on trillions of dollars in debt and deficits to their children;

– Women want to retire someday, hopefully before Social Security goes bankrupt; and

– Women want stability in the housing market, not continuing record numbers of foreclosures and declining home values.
Obama is going to lose because what is driving his campaign is an underlying premise that people are stupid. With no record to run on, it has apparently been decided that the way to win is to assume that the electorate is totally and wholly ignorant and can be easily swayed by talking points fabricated from pure bullshit. The continual hammering by his minions on meaningless and oftentimes fabricated issues that are seen through by virtually everyone is little more that desperation.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
I, as well as others find it pretty hilarious that progressives think feel that the front and center issue with women this election is their vagina. These ladies summed it up pretty well.

Proof That The Obama Campaign Thinks We Are All Idiots



Here are some other issues women are concerned about. It's from a link within the article I linked to. This was written by a woman.



Obama is going to lose because what is driving his campaign is an underlying premise that people are stupid. With no record to run on, it has apparently been decided that the way to win is to assume that the electorate is totally and wholly ignorant and can be easily swayed by talking points fabricated from pure bullshit. The continual hammering by his minions on meaningless and oftentimes fabricated issues that are seen through by virtually everyone is little more that desperation.
Sounds like what I said on page 1

Actually what is funny is how liberals have re branded the "war on abortion" as the "war on women". Kinda implies all women are about is aborting as many unborn babies as possible.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
(3) "pershonhood" bills only would affect in vitro fertilization in liberal fantasies. Find me one conservative source that says they would ban in vitro fertilization.
I always found the idea of a 'personhood' bill interesting. Let's say it goes through. I don't think this automatically disqualifies abortion, but let's assume that it does (or something else goes through which also bans abortion).

That means that a mother is obligated to use her body/organ to keep her child alive, bringing upon herself some obvious health risks. But would this end at birth?

For example, let's say the the child needs an organ transplant to survive. Are both parents (if they are a match) legally obligated to give up that organ? I would think the heart would be no, as it's guaranteed to kill the parent (and this would not be inconsistent with an abortion ban as childbirth is not a guaranteed death sentence), but that other organs would fall under this.

And what would happen with multiples? From what I understand it is very common for doctors to recommend terminating one or more of the pregnancies if you are having 3+ babies to ensure the health of the mother and the other babies. If this is the case, then the government would be sanctioning doctors to 'kill' (this is a person remember) one sibling to ensure the survival of another (and the mother). Bringing back the organ transplant scenario, this becomes a lot more interesting. I would think that this would/should not be allowed under any 'personhood' bill to ban abortion.

To go further, I'm not sure there should be any exemption for the health of the mother if you truly believe in 'personhood' at conception, and that the 'personhood' of a baby disqualifies abortion. That would be terminating the life of a 'person' to benefit the health of another. This sets a pretty dangerous precedent.

This is why at the top of my post I said I'm not sure a 'personhood' bill even truly outlaws abortion. My argument in favour of legalizing abortion does not hinge on whether a fetus is a person or not. It hinges on the fact that the government cannot require someone to give up their body to ensure the survival of another. I believe this both prior to, and after, birth.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
19,273
2,095
126
"Almost everything" != everything. Perhaps Romney disagreed with Wilke on just one single point - and that point is the issue of contention right now.

Simply, though, there's too much evidence that Romney will say anything that will get him elected. Huge public outcry toward Akin = Romney denounces Akin. We'll never know if these are Romney's actual feelings or not; thus I don't even think it's worth discussion. What IS worth discussion are all the points where Romney has flipped 180 degrees.
Why does it seem like this post was completely skipped over? I would think it was clear that 'almost everything' does not constitute proof that he agrees with what Todd Akins said about rape. Furthermore I am unable to find out what Romney discussed with Jack Willkie. The 'almost everything' could easily apply to other topics discussed as well
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
9
81
I, as well as others find it pretty hilarious that progressives think feel that the front and center issue with women this election is their vagina. These ladies summed it up pretty well.
yeah but that goes back to issues Obama does not want to talk about.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
"Almost everything" != everything. Perhaps Romney disagreed with Wilke on just one single point - and that point is the issue of contention right now.

Simply, though, there's too much evidence that Romney will say anything that will get him elected. Huge public outcry toward Akin = Romney denounces Akin. We'll never know if these are Romney's actual feelings or not; thus I don't even think it's worth discussion. What IS worth discussion are all the points where Romney has flipped 180 degrees.
Why does it seem like this post was completely skipped over? I would think it was clear that 'almost everything' does not constitute proof that he agrees with what Todd Akins said about rape. Furthermore I am unable to find out what Romney discussed with Jack Willkie. The 'almost everything' could easily apply to other topics discussed as well
Because anyone that challenges Harvey on liberal concepts should be ignored.

The Doc and myself said the same; before and after Harvey's comment.
But fine print is not the strong suit of puppet echoers.:whiste:
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,182
3,867
126
Because anyone that challenges Harvey on liberal concepts should be ignored.

The Doc and myself said the same; before and after Harvey's comment.
But fine print is not the strong suit of puppet echoers.:whiste:
As he echos Doc.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
The hipocricy is off the scale here. Romney met with Dr Willke one time and never even brought up rape in any interview yet we are supposed to assume they agree on what Akin said about how a womans body shuts down after rape.
Mmmm.... NOPE! If you had bothered to read my OP, you'd know that's not what Dr. Willke said. In the quote from the London Telegraph, he said:

However, Dr Willke told The Daily Telegraph that he did meet Mr Romney during a presidential primary campaign stop in the doctor's home city of Cincinnati, Ohio, in October last year. Local news reports at the time noted that the candidate held “private meeting's” during the visit.
If you'd read the rest of my post, you'd know that Willke was a surrogate for the Romney campaign as far back as 2008, and this article from The Los Angeles Times moves the time frame for that back to 2007.

Doctor behind Todd Akin's rape theory was a Romney surrogate in 2007
August 21, 2012|By Kim Geiger


WASHINGTON -- After saying he “can’t defend” Rep. Todd Akin’s suggestion that women don’t get pregnant from rape, Mitt Romney stepped up his rebuke on Tuesday when he called on Akin to drop out of the Missouri Senate race. But archives from Romney’s previous presidential bid show that the Massachusetts Republican has historically supported the person who is the source of Akin’s theory, Dr. Jack C. Willke, the father of the antiabortion movement.

A physician and former president of the National Right to Life Committee, Willke was an “important surrogate” for Romney’s 2008 presidential bid. Willke is the oft-cited source of the theory that rape-related pregnancies are “rare.” The theory is sometimes used by antiabortion advocates to argue that abortion laws should not contain exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or incest.

“Dr. Willke is a leading voice within the pro-life community and will be an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda,” the Romney campaign said in an October 2007 statement.

“I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country,” Romney said in the statement. “He knows how important it is to have someone in Washington who will actively promote pro-life policies. Policies that include more than appointing judges who will follow the law but also opposing taxpayer-funded abortion and partial-birth abortion.”

At the time, Willke called Romney “the only candidate who can lead our pro-life and pro-family conservative movement to victory.”
.
.
(continues)
I am sure during the one interview they discussed every opinion Dr Willke had.
I'm sure you don't know WTF you're talking about, and I'm damned sure you have no way of knowing how many meetings they did have or what they did or didn't discuss in every one of those meeting they had between 2007 and 2012. Romney's own words are a better indication of what he knows of Dr. Willke's views than any of your unfounded denials. :rolleyes:

Obama on the other went to the Church of Rev Wright for decades who also officiated at their wedding ceremony, launched his political career in the livingroom of a known terrorist Bill Ayers, but doesn't share any of the same views as them.
That's old news, but if you think it's relevant, then don't vote for Obama. That said, it has nothing to do with whether Romney agrees with Ryan, Akin and Willke's draconian views regarding women's rights.

You have a bad memory or are suffering from Alzheimers. Not only did I agree with your "criminal cabal" statements back then but I still do and also think Romney is no better than Obama. Where does that leave your partisan hackery nutjob wackadoo bullshit now? Are you calling Obama out on the same shit Bush did? No? I rest my case.
I'm glad we still agree on those previous views, and, if you had bothered to check, you'd know that I posted, long ago, that I don't agree with Obama's actions continuing some of the same egregious behavior, particularly with respect to domestic spying and Gitmo. Thanks, and you're welcome. :cool:

That said, like Matt1970 rant, it has nothing to do with whether Romney agrees with Ryan, Akin and Willke's outrageous views regarding women's rights.

Apparently I had fonder memories of you back when but shit, it is a forum, and you are nothing but a left wing blowhard only concerned about which team wins. Highschool girl with pom poms. lol
Awww... If the best you can manage is foaming at the mouth and fact free name calling,
GO HOME AND PRACTICE...

LITTLE BOY!
:biggrin:
 

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
I, as well as others find it pretty hilarious that progressives think feel that the front and center issue with women this election is their vagina. These ladies summed it up pretty well.

Proof That The Obama Campaign Thinks We Are All Idiots



Here are some other issues women are concerned about. It's from a link within the article I linked to. This was written by a woman.



Obama is going to lose because what is driving his campaign is an underlying premise that people are stupid. With no record to run on, it has apparently been decided that the way to win is to assume that the electorate is totally and wholly ignorant and can be easily swayed by talking points fabricated from pure bullshit. The continual hammering by his minions on meaningless and oftentimes fabricated issues that are seen through by virtually everyone is little more that desperation.
Proof? Hardly.

I dunno, the abortion issue is a pretty big issue. Romney has extreme views about it, and it seems those around him are similar. From the sounds of all the talk lately, Romney is going to do whatever he can to make something happen with regard to this issue.

I was generally more conservative in the past, but good conversation with my wife has me taking off the tinted (biased) glasses and seeing things more openly. It has lead me to one realization that I think is paramount when I think of a guy like Romney being in office:

Religion has absolutely no place in politics.

To me, the abortion issue, from the republican side, is primarily about religious beliefs. "Thou shall not murder." And then, to have a republican get on a public platform and refer to rape as "legitimate rape" as an argument against abortion, it just really makes the whole thing look bad. But it seems that Romney is firmly in the camp against abortion, and the way it sounds, he's making it a big issue that he is going to face if elected.

I dunno, something like that just doesn't sit right with me. Whether it is a health aspect for a mother, or a rape victim, or whatever the case, that seems to me like the right of the women affected by the pregnancy, and not some bureaucrat who has not endured the hardships of someone in that position(especially in the case of a rape victim or someone facing serious health risks due to pregnancy).

As to unemployment and every other thing, I don't know why people expect the economy to bounce back in the course of one man's term. The economy didn't break over night, it sure as hell won't fix itself over night. I don't follow it closely enough, but I just know that people are hell bent to hate a guy (Obama, Bush, whomever) and will blame any statistics that happened during that guys tenure directly on that guy.

Problem is, this isn't football. The QB of last year doesn't affect what happens with the QB of this year. Somewhere, our economy went way off track. Whether Obama did or didn't cause it, or simply didn't affect it enough, remains to be seen. We'll only truly know several years down the road. But it would seem that he will impact the economy no more or less than Romney, which brings some of the discussion back to Romney's key interest.

As it is, Romney has firmly entrenched himself on a viewpoint that is largely counter to the primary interests of a lot of females. That, in and of itself, is likely going to hurt him in this election, IMO.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,492
435
126

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
That's funny, cause the text of the 14th Amendment says nothing about a fetus.

In fact, the first three words of section one are about as far as one needs to read:

All persons born
Not sure how that makes a fetus a citizen of the United States, as they have yet to be born.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life
Perhaps they are referring to the above? In this case, the word 'person' is listed. Problem is, a person is not defined as a fertilized egg. And, unless I'm crazy, a person is yet to be a person until they have been born.

The first sentence of section one practically states that a person must be born somewhere, and if in the United States, they would be a citizen of the United States.

I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death, but if that's their argument, all I can see is flawed logic from which they are imposing their religious beliefs on others. Problem is, this country became what it was because people were being forced to believe in the local government's belief system. Seems to me, Republicans are trying to do the same thing in terms of abortion. Problem is, not everyone agrees with the belief that a person is a person at conception. And the reality is that it is not defined in the constitution.

Therefor, one can only use their beliefs to determine what constitutes life. Granted, there will have to be a consensus on the point where one cannot perform an abortion, but to outlaw it outright, IMO, is simply a matter of holding one person's beliefs above another.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
That's funny, cause the text of the 14th Amendment says nothing about a fetus.

In fact, the first three words of section one are about as far as one needs to read:



Not sure how that makes a fetus a citizen of the United States, as they have yet to be born.



Perhaps they are referring to the above? In this case, the word 'person' is listed. Problem is, a person is not defined as a fertilized egg. And, unless I'm crazy, a person is yet to be a person until they have been born.

The first sentence of section one practically states that a person must be born somewhere, and if in the United States, they would be a citizen of the United States.

I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death, but if that's their argument, all I can see is flawed logic from which they are imposing their religious beliefs on others. Problem is, this country became what it was because people were being forced to believe in the local government's belief system. Seems to me, Republicans are trying to do the same thing in terms of abortion. Problem is, not everyone agrees with the belief that a person is a person at conception. And the reality is that it is not defined in the constitution.

Therefor, one can only use their beliefs to determine what constitutes life. Granted, there will have to be a consensus on the point where one cannot perform an abortion, but to outlaw it outright, IMO, is simply a matter of holding one person's beliefs above another.
Agreed a fetus is not a citizen of the United States. Neither are illegal immigrants. Does that mean that you should be able to shoot an illegal immigrant?

And Liberals are just as happy to force their belief system on others.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,993
1,678
126
Actually what is funny is how liberals have re branded the "war on abortion" as the "war on women". Kinda implies all women are about is aborting as many unborn babies as possible.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/31/cancer-charity-halts-grants-to-planned-parenthood/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1485792519001/rush-limbaugh-under-fire-for-slut-comment

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/20/rep-akin-rape-comment-draws-widespread-gop-criticism-call-to-exit-senate-race/

However you feel about abortion, legalizing the killing of abortion doctors and suggesting that women that got pregnant from their rapes really wanted it is pretty depraved.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
nehalem256

"Does that mean that you should be able to shoot an illegal immigrant?"

No, it means you can deport a fetus.
 

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81
Agreed a fetus is not a citizen of the United States. Neither are illegal immigrants. Does that mean that you should be able to shoot an illegal immigrant?

And Liberals are just as happy to force their belief system on others.
Hmm, that's a strange logical jump.

A fetus is not a person because they have not been born yet. An illegal immigrant is a person that has been born in another country. That's basically all I need to say to counter your point.

As for liberals forcing their beliefs onto others, I'd like an example. In the abortion issue, allowing one to choose for them self does not force a person to do something they do not believe. If someone who is against abortion happens to be raped and that produces a pregnancy, she still has the right to carry the pregnancy to full term and create a person. If someone is pro-choice happens to be raped and that produces a pregnancy, she still has the right to abort the pregnancy and not carry it to term. Nowhere is an individual's rights being compromised here.

My problem with the abortion issue is that you are forcing a decision upon an individual without regard to their own well being. Truth be told, I'd prefer all pregnancies to be carried to full term, but it is not my right to deny someone else the opportunity to end an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of the circumstances from which the person became pregnant.

And nowhere in the constitution is a fetus defined as a person.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Hmm, that's a strange logical jump.

A fetus is not a person because they have not been born yet. An illegal immigrant is a person that has been born in another country. That's basically all I need to say to counter your point.

As for liberals forcing their beliefs onto others, I'd like an example. In the abortion issue, allowing one to choose for them self does not force a person to do something they do not believe. If someone who is against abortion happens to be raped and that produces a pregnancy, she still has the right to carry the pregnancy to full term and create a person. If someone is pro-choice happens to be raped and that produces a pregnancy, she still has the right to abort the pregnancy and not carry it to term. Nowhere is an individual's rights being compromised here.
Forcing me to support single mothers.

EDIT: I will stop trying to tell women what to do with their bodies. When they stop expecting me to pay for it.

My problem with the abortion issue is that you are forcing a decision upon an individual without regard to their own well being. Truth be told, I'd prefer all pregnancies to be carried to full term, but it is not my right to deny someone else the opportunity to end an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of the circumstances from which the person became pregnant.

And nowhere in the constitution is a fetus defined as a person.
That bolded is a ridiculous statement. The only reason to prefer all pregnancies be carried to term is if your think abortion is murder; either abortion is murder or it is no different than killing a tapeworm. So you are saying it is not your right to deny someone else the opportunity to commit murder.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
2
0
I'm sure you don't know WTF you're talking about, and I'm damned sure you have no way of knowing how many meetings they did have or what they did or didn't discuss in every one of those meeting they had between 2007 and 2012. Romney's own words are a better indication of what he knows of Dr. Willke's views than any of your unfounded denials. :rolleyes:
You proved my point. There is no proof of what was said in that meeting (non of the reports suggest multiple meetings) so any specifics are purely speculation.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
And, unless I'm crazy, a person is yet to be a person until they have been born.
Well, you ARE crazy...but you are also correct. As of right now, the legal point at which a human becomes a person is birth...except if a pregnant woman is attacked and the unborn human is killed, then it suddenly becomes a person the moment before it dies so the attacker can be charged with murder.

AFAIK, part of the republican platform is to change this legal definition to be some point before birth, though I do not know when that point is.

EDIT: If personhood is moved back to, say week 12 after conception, then the Fifth Amendment would prevent almost all abortions from that point forward since no person is allowed to be deprived of life without due process. Only if the life of the mother is at stake would a judge be consulted to give the legal power to end the life of the unborn person (since the judge would have to rule on whose right to life wins).
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY