| From | Message |
|---|
|
 romney the flip flopper
1) At a fundraiser in May, Romney told wealthy donors that nearly half of Americans are government freeloaders who see themselves as “victims,” can’t be convinced to take personal responsibility for their lives and will support President Obama in the election “no matter what.”
“My job is not to worry about those people — I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” Romney said.
2) in september: Mitt Romney, in an interview with Fox News, defended his comments from a fundraiser earlier this year in which he said President Obama's base supporters don't pay federal income tax, "believe they are victims" and will vote for Obama "no matter what." Romney, challenging the notion that he's dismissing those voters, told Fox News he wants to create jobs so that far more Americans are able to pay taxes.
3) yesterday: Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is disavowing his controversial remarks dismissing “the 47 percent” of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes, saying in an interview Thursday night that the comments were “just completely wrong.”
wtf? how can anyone believe this guy? he will obviously say anything to get elected. it appears his principles are transient and poll driven.
|
|
Jeff your first point is a bit disingenuous as I pointed out in the previous thread about it. I believe you conceded this point (but please correct me if I misunderstood). Making poor arguments does your side (which is in part my side), no good it is just easy fodder for the right
|
|
itchy
maybe you misunderstand me... it is all one point - that he said it, then he defended it, and now he disavows it.
what he really believes is anyone's guess.
|
|
I just called
the NYT. Its a politician saying things to get elected. What is this country coming to!!
Jeff did he say his comment was wrong as in, I should not have said it? OR was he saying he did not say it?
|
|
A drunkard wants another drink of wine and a politician wants a vote,
according to the song by Charlie Daniels.
|
|
<<maybe you misunderstand me... it is all one point - that he said it, then he defended it, and now he disavows it.>>
I see, but even so the set up is a little misleading.
|
|
explain this one please
In the midst of their rancorous encounter at Hofstra University, President Obama attacked Mr. Romney for vowing he would end federal support of Planned Parenthood and for criticizing the provision in the health care law that requires employers — except churches and religiously affiliated institutions — to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives.
Clearly agitated, Mr. Romney said in response, “I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.”
Perhaps Mr. Romney forgot that he vetoed a bill as Massachusetts governor in 2005 that would have given women who were raped access to emergency contraception, or that he supported an amendment this year that would have allowed any business to opt out of the contraceptive mandate, or that he has said he would support a state constitutional amendment that would declare that life begins at conception — potentially making some kinds of contraceptives illegal.
|
ace_kyi
17-Oct-12, 19:52
|
Ban contraceptives use for illegal sexual intercourse and that will save money but somebody may say similar to banning illicit drug use may not work either. The alternative is supply cheap condoms and mandatory use of condoms for illicit sex. Public need much sex education for condom use but it is not difficult to learn. In Phillipines there are many unwanted pregnancies. People are poor and they cannot afford to have many children in the family. So a social worker teaches the uneducated poor on how to use the condoms. She is very polite when she gives the sexual education on how to use the condom. Not to embarass the audience, she shows how to put the condom by using her two fingers and slides down the condom over it. After few months, the same audience come back and complain that the condoms do not prevent pregnancy. So, she asks how they us the condoms. The audience say, they put the condoms on two fingers as instructed during sexual intercourse. We need explicit sexual education for birth control. The use of condoms will save money compared to the use of birth control pills.
|
|
ban contraceptives??
are you serious? 9O% or more of men and women use it!! Are you serious or just plain arrogant? And the reason condoms are used is to prevent disease not pregnancy(they don't work well). Giving Women full access to contraceptives(birth control) through universal health care is the answer.
|
ace_kyi
17-Oct-12, 20:44
|
BC, I am not saying to ban all kinds of contraceptives.
As you alredy know, there are different kind of contraceptions. There are advantages and disadvantages for each kind of contraception. Birth control pills for women are expensive. My opinion may be biased but birth control pills for illicit sex is similar to illicit drug use. That is in both situations it is for one own's pleasure. Why should we finance for other people's sex pleasure with our tax money when majority of people are struggling daily life with our limited income? That is my philosophy and take home message.
|
|
ace
what the hell is 'illicit sex?' you mean rape? how wouldnthat work?
'i see you are buying condoms,sir. you are not going to use them for a rape are you?'
|
|
what tax money?
when a person BUYS insurance it covers contraceptives. Just like other health needs.You ain't paying for that!! that's a false bogus argument. I buy insurance and it covers contraceptives. You saying your paying for me!!! BULL!!! AND WHAT the HELL IS 'ILLICIT SEX'?? please tell me that!!! You passing moral judgement on other people?
|
|
I assume ace meant prostitution when he used the term, 'illicit sex'. To be honest I think it's very shortsighted of you ace, surely the cost of all the extra children this policy will produce that the state will have to look after will be many times more than the cost of birth control?
|
|
itchy
if that is what he meant, it is an absolutely horrible idea. the thought of not allowing prostitutes to use protection to stop the spread of sexually transmitted infections, not to mention pregnancy, is ludicrous, cruel, and, as you say, extremely short-sighted.
|
Log in 
