I would also add that your graphic cites as its source the Alan Guttmacher Institute which is named after the former president of planned parenthood. I wonder what their policy position is?
I would also add that your graphic cites as its source the Alan Guttmacher Institute which is named after the former president of planned parenthood. I wonder what their policy position is?
Freedom?
Really? Not when it comes to chosing license plates apparently.
The reason most people/businesses/governments prioritize things is so something can actually get accomplished.
If Abortion rights is a top priority in your mind for getting this country on the right track your priorities are screwed up.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
TheKindCromang said:
HarveyCanal said:
You 2-party dinosaurs acting so ridiculously incredulous all around him.
Did I miss something? Last time I checked Ron Paul is and has been running as a candidate for the Republican party nomination. Unless you know something I don't, the prediction that he will break off and run as an independent is just conjecture.
b/w
Dude's been running for President since 1988, no wins yet.
He's been in Congress as a Republican for decades now. Each time he runs for president, it's as a Republican. In past attempts after being foiled in the Republican primaries, he would have to have given up his Congressional seat to break off and continue running for president as an indie. That's why his campaigns have always stopped at the primaries. But this time, he's going for broke. It's not conjecture. The man has said so himself. Once The Republicans do their best to bend over backwards in attempt to ignore him...and his supporters (i.e. all just Southern dumbfucks waiting to be schooled by wannabe elitist, East Coast assholes), Paul is going to declare himself independent and continue running for prez that way. I'm not sure he can win, although Gallup says he's only 2 percentage points behind Obama as of like 3 days ago, but I do think he will at least top Ross Perot's impressive 20% of the popular vote circa '92. It would be smart of this country to go ahead and elect him as he's our ONLY hope for ACTUAL change anywhere in site. But if y'all (not talking to you here, Kid) want to keep pretending you are cast members of American Psycho or Dangerous Minds (take your pick...either way, it's a sham...y'all don't actually give a fuck about anyone beyond your own stubborn arguing points)...then go right ahead and continue voting for known criminals and liars. We who are sick of that shit will be elsewhere, trying to remove you and your like from our lives completely.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
FrankieMeltzer said:
Rockadelic said:
Not every issue can be top priority.
The reason most people/businesses/governments prioritize things is so something can actually get accomplished.
If Abortion rights is a top priority in your mind for getting this country on the right track your priorities are screwed up.
Just exposing the fake "libertarian" for what he is, and questioning his supporters on what shit they're willing to eat in order to win some supposed victories.
Harvey derides Obama supporters because they (obviously) don't get anywhere near to 100% of what they want after voting for him. It's worth a minute to point out the warts on Ron Paul's unelectable ass.
It's not like it's just abortion. He'd gut all environmental protections if he could. All of them. The guy actually believes that THE COURTS are the proper vehicle for environmental protection - that being able to sue under property laws gives us sufficient protection against polluters. A company destroys your drinking water and raises the cancer rates 500% in your town? Don't worry! You can sue them!*
That's Ron Paul.
*Of course there's also another option. If you don't like drinking polluted water and getting cancer you can just go to another state and drink water there.
Dude, how are all of those regulations working out for us? You ever been to a Port Arthur or Freeport or Texas City...yeah, there's no pollution in site. The current regulations standard is so corrupted, it might as well not even exist. But go ahead and keep pretending like you actually care.
The reason most people/businesses/governments prioritize things is so something can actually get accomplished.
If Abortion rights is a top priority in your mind for getting this country on the right track your priorities are screwed up.
Just exposing the fake "libertarian" for what he is, and questioning his supporters on what shit they're willing to eat in order to win some supposed victories.
Harvey derides Obama supporters because they (obviously) don't get anywhere near to 100% of what they want after voting for him. It's worth a minute to point out the warts on Ron Paul's unelectable ass.
It's not like it's just abortion. He'd gut all environmental protections if he could. All of them. The guy actually believes that THE COURTS are the proper vehicle for environmental protection - that being able to sue under property laws gives us sufficient protection against polluters. A company destroys your drinking water and raises the cancer rates 500% in your town? Don't worry! You can sue them!*
That's Ron Paul.
*Of course there's also another option. If you don't like drinking polluted water and getting cancer you can just go to another state and drink water there.
Dude, how are all of those regulations working out for us? You ever been to a Port Arthur or Freeport or Texas City...yeah, there's no pollution in site. The current regulations standard is so corrupted, it might as well not even exist. But go ahead and keep pretending like you actually care.
So, you want to throw the baby out with the bath water?
If it were overturned, a handful of states at most would outlaw abortion, and women in those states could just go to another state.
Yeah. Just go to another state.
Spoken like someone who has been financially comfortable since birth.
"Abortion illegal in Texas? Heck, just fly to LA and make a weekend of it! Take in a Lakers game afterwards!"
Yeah, because going to another state is something only millionaires can do.
Spoken like someone who doesn't have a point, but just can't stop talking.
Spoken like someone who does not give a single ripe damn about the people who would be unable to "just go to another state" as easily as he's been doing his entire life.
I realize that if you were in the middle of East Boomfuck, Texas, and you were 800 miles away from the nearest facility that could provide you with a needed procedure you could just whip out your gold card and get it done. But hey, if they didn't want to be in that position they shouldn't have spread their damn legs in the first place.
Crap, why don't these whiny dames just go to their private physicians and get it taken care of without all that fuss?
This is your point? That interstate travel is only available to the ultra-privileged? My friend who took the bus to visit me recently spent $15 and went through three states. Good thing she was born into royalty or she would have had to walk.
But you're right, the very idea that somebody would have to travel at all to get a medical procedure is un-American.
Of course your 'dire' scenario would probably affect about .01% of the population, but let's make that the deciding issue in 2012.
(BTW, there isn't anywhere in Texas that's even remotely 800 miles from the next state, 350 is pretty much the max)
Sounds like a lot dudes talking about other people's bodies up in here. You guys ought to speak to women like my mother, who worked in the old underground abortion system. Loosing access in any state will be a major issue for men, women and families in this country. Is it more important then the economy? IMO, no. Is it a huge deal, yes?
Abortion is hardly the most scary thing about a guy like Ron Paul, who while reasonable on some issues (drugs, military intervention), is out in lala land when it comes to civil rights, economics, the social safety net, health care reform and the list goes on.
This reminds me of some of my liberal friends talking positively about McCain in 2000. They liked a few of his stances (on campaign finance reform, etc) and thought he might be a fellow traveler on lots of other issues. All you need to do is look at Paul's voting record to see what kind of extremist (i.e the new normal Republican) he is and would be as President.
I appreciate that Harvey doesn't trust the bankers but Paul's ideas about how to reform the system are looney at best.
If it were overturned, a handful of states at most would outlaw abortion, and women in those states could just go to another state.
Yeah. Just go to another state.
Spoken like someone who has been financially comfortable since birth.
"Abortion illegal in Texas? Heck, just fly to LA and make a weekend of it! Take in a Lakers game afterwards!"
Yeah, because going to another state is something only millionaires can do.
Spoken like someone who doesn't have a point, but just can't stop talking.
Spoken like someone who does not give a single ripe damn about the people who would be unable to "just go to another state" as easily as he's been doing his entire life.
I realize that if you were in the middle of East Boomfuck, Texas, and you were 800 miles away from the nearest facility that could provide you with a needed procedure you could just whip out your gold card and get it done. But hey, if they didn't want to be in that position they shouldn't have spread their damn legs in the first place.
Crap, why don't these whiny dames just go to their private physicians and get it taken care of without all that fuss?
This is your point? That interstate travel is only available to the ultra-privileged? My friend who took the bus to visit me recently spent $15 and went through three states. Good thing she was born into royalty or she would have had to walk.
But you're right, the very idea that somebody would have to travel at all to get a medical procedure is un-American.
Of course your 'dire' scenario would probably affect about .01% of the population, but let's make that the deciding issue in 2012.
(BTW, there isn't anywhere in Texas that's even remotely 800 miles from the next state, 350 is pretty much the max)
What's "un-American" is that tin pot religious dictators get to deprive people of legal medical procedures on a state by state basis.
What would you say if the procedure in question was dialysis? Would forced travel not be an inconvenience?
Let's not forget that the people that support these restrictions have occasionally decided to tighten them by murdering the only available local providers.
are the dems going to challenge obama in the primaries?
i kindof hope so, though i doubt it
hate to say it, but i probably should have voted for hillary last go around. not sure what that would have changed, but she probably has a bigger sack that the big O.
obama = appeaser in chief. dems had a clear majority to get things done...not to be gentlemen, holding the door open and offer their seats on the bus for rightwingnuts. what a blown opportunity to do something epic. healthcare was epic in a vague way...but what it it ended up being is just a nominal victory that no one really likes.
i see very little hope in the near future unless we can overturn Roberts' corporate rulings in the court and bring some sanity to the gap between rich and poor. i guess those are huge longshots.
my biggest concern is for the environment, where ive pretty much lost the most hope. all i see coming up is shrinking biodiversity, species extinction, mountaintop removal/fracking wastelands and empty fisheries.
i guess i'm resigned to our humans as lemmings impersonation as we careen over the cliff economically, environmentally and politically.
What's the contradiction? Abortion is such a non-issue. Plus, even if Paul was elected as president in a landslide, he still wouldn't have the power to make abortion illegal. Talk about missing the forrest for the tree.
Not to turn this into an abortion thread, but I'm going to disagree that that's a non-issue. Perhaps you've heard of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,"? This was one of the first bills passed by the GOP congress in 2011 when they assumed a majority. It's one of their key missions to defund Planned PArenthood. State legislatures are enaged in the largest roll back of reproductive rights since R v. W. The GOP is doing this under the cover of our economic issues, so it's getting little coverarge on Brian Williams.
Also, if Paul was elected, he would have the power to make abortion illegal,. Presidents have to sign bills into law absent a veto. They have power.
It's not going to be the main issue of the election, but it an issue.
im with frankie and funky16 on that shit. abortion doesnt matter much to me, but im 100% for a womens access and choice. the way the right pushes their religion into politics is one of the scariest things on the planet.
and harvey, i feel your frustration, but Paul isnt that much of a breath of fresh air. i cant fuck with libertarians at all when they start spouting their anti-regulation, pro market will work it out insanity. i need a government that protects people from business. ..which does seem like quite a pipe dream these days
If it were overturned, a handful of states at most would outlaw abortion, and women in those states could just go to another state.
You are disconnected from reality. This is from 2006; since then, the right wing has shifted much farther to the right.
How can it make a difference if the right wing shifts further to the right. I think what you mean is that the general public has become less supportive of abortion, you just don't want to actually have to say it.
Why would someone say that when it's not true? What has occurred is that the right and far right have become louder and more forceful. It's not not they're more plentiful, just more aggressive.
i need a government that protects people from business. ..which does seem like quite a pipe dream these days
Paul is the only candidate that has said corporations should NOT be given the same rights as individuals. How is that not a huge step in the right direction and far more than any other candidate is talking about?
Ron Paul: No FEMA response necessary
AP
GILFORD, N.H. -- After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.
This is one of those Paul views that I can't get behind. The Articles of Confederation were rejected almost 250 years ago. It's not every state for itself. That didn't work. How can Paul seem so oblivious to the fact that many, many states are swimming in red ink, and can't fend for themselves when emergencies occur?
Let's stop talking about Paul. For one thing, Rockadelic has assured us he is not running for president*, for another, if we are going to bash Presidential candidates lets bash Romney. The guy Saba supported 4 years ago.
are the dems going to challenge obama in the primaries?
i kindof hope so, though i doubt it
hate to say it, but i probably should have voted for hillary last go around. not sure what that would have changed, but she probably has a bigger sack that the big O.
obama = appeaser in chief. dems had a clear majority to get things done...not to be gentlemen, holding the door open and offer their seats on the bus for rightwingnuts. what a blown opportunity to do something epic. healthcare was epic in a vague way...but what it it ended up being is just a nominal victory that no one really likes.
i see very little hope in the near future unless we can overturn Roberts' corporate rulings in the court and bring some sanity to the gap between rich and poor. i guess those are huge longshots.
my biggest concern is for the environment, where ive pretty much lost the most hope. all i see coming up is shrinking biodiversity, species extinction, mountaintop removal/fracking wastelands and empty fisheries.
i guess i'm resigned to our humans as lemmings impersonation as we careen over the cliff economically, environmentally and politically.
A lot of that is not really Obama's fault and certainly is not the R's fault.
The reason that the Stimulus bill and the Health Care Bill are so weak is that Congressional Ds did not want those bills.
Anything the Ds wanted done they could have done in the first 2 years, but they didn't want change.
On the abortion map, Kansas is listed as a 50/50 state.
Yet they recently passed the strictest anti-abortion laws in the nation.
My state, which is listed as a pro-abortion rights state has come close to restricting abortions many times in recent years.
If abortion rights are no big deal, then no other right is a big deal. Just move to a state that has the rights you want. It will be like a shopping list.
Let's stop talking about Paul. For one thing, Rockadelic has assured us he is not running for president, for another, if we are going to bash Presidential candidates lets bash Romney. The guy Saba supported 4 years ago.
Let's stop talking about Paul. For one thing, Rockadelic has assured us he is not running for president, for another, if we are going to bash Presidential candidates lets bash Romney. The guy Saba supported 4 years ago.
It's so hard to keep from calling you an idiot.
I did say he would not be the Republican candidate.....care to bet on that?
Anything the Ds wanted done they could have done in the first 2 years, but they didn't want change.
This ignores the veto threat in the Senate, of course. And it pretends the Dems are as monolithic as the Republicans, and that isn't the case.
The Dems had 56 members in the Senate. That's not filibuster proof. It's no secret the Rs used the threat of filibuster, or DID, in fact, filibuster, most Dem legislation in the Senate. Nothing got done!
Let's stop talking about Paul. For one thing, Rockadelic has assured us he is not running for president, for another, if we are going to bash Presidential candidates lets bash Romney. The guy Saba supported 4 years ago.
It's so hard to keep from calling you an idiot.
I did say he would not be the Republican candidate.....care to bet on that?
This is some kind some semantics game that I just am not getting.
Best I can tell he is currently a Republican candidate running for the presidential nomination.
If what you are saying is he can't win the nomination, that would apply to all but one of the candidates.
I think you first started talking about this when I posted a list from the NYT about Republican presidential hopefuls and you didn't think Paul should be on the list. I had no idea what you were talking about then or now.
Let's stop talking about Paul. For one thing, Rockadelic has assured us he is not running for president, for another, if we are going to bash Presidential candidates lets bash Romney. The guy Saba supported 4 years ago.
The ones I think can win the nomination are Pawlenty, Daniels, Santorim, and Romney.
Except I don't think Daniels will run.
I would say 5 of them are jokesters or a joke.
The other 3 are delusional if they are serious.
The NYT thinks Ron Paul could run as a Republican?
Marco Rubio is a dark horse who wasn't even on their list.
You seem to be saying that Ron Paul can't run as a Republican ("The NYT thinks Ron Paul could run as a Republican?"). He is running as a Republican. Right now. Even as we type. If you want to say that you meant he couldn't win the nomination, that is fine, I believe you. I don't think it makes you an idiot or a liar.
Let's stop talking about Paul. For one thing, Rockadelic has assured us he is not running for president, for another, if we are going to bash Presidential candidates lets bash Romney. The guy Saba supported 4 years ago.
Haha! I'm down.
Never happened. Please amend.
You didn't support Romney last time around? I apologize. You rarely state what you believe.
Who did you support last time and who do you support this time?
I will amend to reflect your true beliefs.
The ones I think can win the nomination are Pawlenty, Daniels, Santorim, and Romney.
Except I don't think Daniels will run.
I would say 5 of them are jokesters or a joke.
The other 3 are delusional if they are serious.
The NYT thinks Ron Paul could run as a Republican?
Marco Rubio is a dark horse who wasn't even on their list.
You seem to be saying that Ron Paul can't run as a Republican ("The NYT thinks Ron Paul could run as a Republican?"). He is running as a Republican. Right now. Even as we type. If you want to say that you meant he couldn't win the nomination, that is fine, I believe you. I don't think it makes you an idiot or a liar.
smh......The more that is explained the less you seem to grasp.
The people reading this thread have already decided if someone here is an idiot or not.
Comments
Freedom?
Really? Not when it comes to chosing license plates apparently.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_CLLP.pdf
The reason most people/businesses/governments prioritize things is so something can actually get accomplished.
If Abortion rights is a top priority in your mind for getting this country on the right track your priorities are screwed up.
He's been in Congress as a Republican for decades now. Each time he runs for president, it's as a Republican. In past attempts after being foiled in the Republican primaries, he would have to have given up his Congressional seat to break off and continue running for president as an indie. That's why his campaigns have always stopped at the primaries. But this time, he's going for broke. It's not conjecture. The man has said so himself. Once The Republicans do their best to bend over backwards in attempt to ignore him...and his supporters (i.e. all just Southern dumbfucks waiting to be schooled by wannabe elitist, East Coast assholes), Paul is going to declare himself independent and continue running for prez that way. I'm not sure he can win, although Gallup says he's only 2 percentage points behind Obama as of like 3 days ago, but I do think he will at least top Ross Perot's impressive 20% of the popular vote circa '92. It would be smart of this country to go ahead and elect him as he's our ONLY hope for ACTUAL change anywhere in site. But if y'all (not talking to you here, Kid) want to keep pretending you are cast members of American Psycho or Dangerous Minds (take your pick...either way, it's a sham...y'all don't actually give a fuck about anyone beyond your own stubborn arguing points)...then go right ahead and continue voting for known criminals and liars. We who are sick of that shit will be elsewhere, trying to remove you and your like from our lives completely.
Dude, how are all of those regulations working out for us? You ever been to a Port Arthur or Freeport or Texas City...yeah, there's no pollution in site. The current regulations standard is so corrupted, it might as well not even exist. But go ahead and keep pretending like you actually care.
So, you want to throw the baby out with the bath water?
This is your point? That interstate travel is only available to the ultra-privileged? My friend who took the bus to visit me recently spent $15 and went through three states. Good thing she was born into royalty or she would have had to walk.
But you're right, the very idea that somebody would have to travel at all to get a medical procedure is un-American.
Of course your 'dire' scenario would probably affect about .01% of the population, but let's make that the deciding issue in 2012.
(BTW, there isn't anywhere in Texas that's even remotely 800 miles from the next state, 350 is pretty much the max)
Abortion is hardly the most scary thing about a guy like Ron Paul, who while reasonable on some issues (drugs, military intervention), is out in lala land when it comes to civil rights, economics, the social safety net, health care reform and the list goes on.
This reminds me of some of my liberal friends talking positively about McCain in 2000. They liked a few of his stances (on campaign finance reform, etc) and thought he might be a fellow traveler on lots of other issues. All you need to do is look at Paul's voting record to see what kind of extremist (i.e the new normal Republican) he is and would be as President.
I appreciate that Harvey doesn't trust the bankers but Paul's ideas about how to reform the system are looney at best.
What's "un-American" is that tin pot religious dictators get to deprive people of legal medical procedures on a state by state basis.
What would you say if the procedure in question was dialysis? Would forced travel not be an inconvenience?
Let's not forget that the people that support these restrictions have occasionally decided to tighten them by murdering the only available local providers.
i kindof hope so, though i doubt it
hate to say it, but i probably should have voted for hillary last go around. not sure what that would have changed, but she probably has a bigger sack that the big O.
obama = appeaser in chief. dems had a clear majority to get things done...not to be gentlemen, holding the door open and offer their seats on the bus for rightwingnuts. what a blown opportunity to do something epic. healthcare was epic in a vague way...but what it it ended up being is just a nominal victory that no one really likes.
i see very little hope in the near future unless we can overturn Roberts' corporate rulings in the court and bring some sanity to the gap between rich and poor. i guess those are huge longshots.
my biggest concern is for the environment, where ive pretty much lost the most hope. all i see coming up is shrinking biodiversity, species extinction, mountaintop removal/fracking wastelands and empty fisheries.
i guess i'm resigned to our humans as lemmings impersonation as we careen over the cliff economically, environmentally and politically.
Not to turn this into an abortion thread, but I'm going to disagree that that's a non-issue. Perhaps you've heard of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,"? This was one of the first bills passed by the GOP congress in 2011 when they assumed a majority. It's one of their key missions to defund Planned PArenthood. State legislatures are enaged in the largest roll back of reproductive rights since R v. W. The GOP is doing this under the cover of our economic issues, so it's getting little coverarge on Brian Williams.
Also, if Paul was elected, he would have the power to make abortion illegal,. Presidents have to sign bills into law absent a veto. They have power.
It's not going to be the main issue of the election, but it an issue.
and harvey, i feel your frustration, but Paul isnt that much of a breath of fresh air. i cant fuck with libertarians at all when they start spouting their anti-regulation, pro market will work it out insanity. i need a government that protects people from business. ..which does seem like quite a pipe dream these days
Why would someone say that when it's not true? What has occurred is that the right and far right have become louder and more forceful. It's not not they're more plentiful, just more aggressive.
Paul is the only candidate that has said corporations should NOT be given the same rights as individuals. How is that not a huge step in the right direction and far more than any other candidate is talking about?
world super power = fringe group
Ron Paul: No FEMA response necessary
AP
GILFORD, N.H. -- After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.
This is one of those Paul views that I can't get behind. The Articles of Confederation were rejected almost 250 years ago. It's not every state for itself. That didn't work. How can Paul seem so oblivious to the fact that many, many states are swimming in red ink, and can't fend for themselves when emergencies occur?
This is a bizarre position to take.
Edit *as the Republican nominee.
A lot of that is not really Obama's fault and certainly is not the R's fault.
The reason that the Stimulus bill and the Health Care Bill are so weak is that Congressional Ds did not want those bills.
Anything the Ds wanted done they could have done in the first 2 years, but they didn't want change.
Yet they recently passed the strictest anti-abortion laws in the nation.
My state, which is listed as a pro-abortion rights state has come close to restricting abortions many times in recent years.
If abortion rights are no big deal, then no other right is a big deal. Just move to a state that has the rights you want. It will be like a shopping list.
Haha! I'm down.
It's so hard to keep from calling you an idiot.
I did say he would not be the Republican candidate.....care to bet on that?
The Dems had 56 members in the Senate. That's not filibuster proof. It's no secret the Rs used the threat of filibuster, or DID, in fact, filibuster, most Dem legislation in the Senate. Nothing got done!
This is some kind some semantics game that I just am not getting.
Best I can tell he is currently a Republican candidate running for the presidential nomination.
If what you are saying is he can't win the nomination, that would apply to all but one of the candidates.
I think you first started talking about this when I posted a list from the NYT about Republican presidential hopefuls and you didn't think Paul should be on the list. I had no idea what you were talking about then or now.
Never happened. Please amend.
I'll put it simple......your above comment is a blatant lie....I never said this....period.
I did say he would not be the Republican candidate and I'll put my money where my mouth is to that effect.
But he certainly could run as an Independent which has been mentioned in this thread more than once.
If you're going to put words in my mouth make sure they are accurate.
It was a thread on Donald Trump for president. Here is where it first popped up:
You seem to be saying that Ron Paul can't run as a Republican ("The NYT thinks Ron Paul could run as a Republican?"). He is running as a Republican. Right now. Even as we type. If you want to say that you meant he couldn't win the nomination, that is fine, I believe you. I don't think it makes you an idiot or a liar.
You didn't support Romney last time around? I apologize. You rarely state what you believe.
Who did you support last time and who do you support this time?
I will amend to reflect your true beliefs.
smh......The more that is explained the less you seem to grasp.
The people reading this thread have already decided if someone here is an idiot or not.