I have to keep this short, because I am on the iPad.
nossy Send a noteboard - 15/08/2012 05:38:48 AM
Nobodies belittling things you think are important, the right certainly doesn't belittle the abortion issue, I'm talking about the media ironclad third party-documented tendency to pick the most fanatical and fringe members of right wing movements to interview as representative of the movement.
For clarity: I do see that happening, but I don't limit my intake to liberal media, though I obviously don't go to the extent that you do to speak with conservatives. And when I say I feel "belittled," I am really just saying that I don't like the fairly strong trend against some things I hold to be important (gay marriage, women's rights, etc). I am not claiming there are no republicans who take these things seriously, or even feel how I feel.
I sympathize with people not seeming to respect your POV, trust me I know how that feels, and one of the things I love about the GOP, at least my local branch, is that they do hear me out, on ideology and strategy, something noted by a lot of ex-libs who join the dark side and who frankly make up a disproportionate percentage of the party's actual leadership.
But at the same time it would be dishonest for me to say that I respect your position. I respect you and consider you a solid and honest thinker, but I don't believe the framework of your logic is really riveted in steel on this, more glued with emotion. So is mine, just like everyone else I 'know' deep down inside from personal experience that my view is 'right', and I can mock that certainty but its still there and colors my thinking. Most people are so certain on this issue that they tend to use very weak arguments to back it up, like they would be if asked to prove the world was a sphere - most couldn't, and would resort to flawed logic and argument by assertion long before trying to explain it in trigonometry, like some silly remark on ships disappearing over the horizon, which generally speaking isn't actually a doable test without binoculars, a clear day, and a calm sea. Point being that most people don't make very solid arguments of things they consider obviously and clearly true and they leave gaps in their arguments where those spots are to which they react by growing angry when challenged or think it so obvious they consider anyone who doesn't get it to be an absolute fool and it tends to show.
I'm not angry, but I'd like to know exactly what arguments you think I'm making. I do not think people are fools for disagreeing with me, and so far I really only have talked about the emotional angle you pointed out. What facts do you think we are arguing up here?
I'm sure you've had that inflicted on you and rightly feel belittled by it, but odds are you've done it too, I certainly have, I often used to write 'Don't be a condescending jerk' on the inner lid of cigarette packs when I was expecting the day to involve a battle of wits until I carved DBACJ on the side of my zippo, probably still there for all that's its presumably been at the bottom of a river for nearly a decade.
I know I do not always manage to be nice. I spend a lot of time going back over that with people. But even if I don't always understand them, I don't automatically assume the opposition is stark raving.
It's really not best to get most of us started on abortion. I am more relaxed than most, as the absolute victory of the pro-life cause is, to me, a foregone conclusion. If the goal is to decrease the occurrence of abortions, improvements in technology of birth control and raising babies to term in tubes, so to speak, makes it inevitable, so I'm calmer than most. I'd also question your sources on abortion rates in countries where it is illegal.
I am not anti-life; I do not like the idea of killing anything or anyone, but when you take away the legal option, you are not taking away the choice. Most often, you are taking away the most readily available (and affordable) places women go for the information and help you say you want them to have. Imo, the choice and the centers should remain open and available, or you're never getting your hands on those women who most need to be supported (or potentially influenced, iyo).
I'm not anti-choice, and I don't call people anti-life or 'abortionists' either, possibly excluding Canolli, who is by his own definition not a Republican, I've not seen people use such black and white language on this site, the only place I know for certain you're exposed to genuine right wingers. In fact, the only people I've seen use that kind of B&W language are people like Dreaded Anomaly, batting for the other team.
Information is available, this is modern times. Our objection isn't that Planned Parenthood presents all the options but rather that they don't, and we have evidence to back that claim as you well know. Women are encouraged to go see them, and many of them - personally I suspect most of them - present a lopsided view of choices.
I'm not so sure I agree. Have you walked through the door? My sister (one example) used them for all her girly needs, and was quite impressed with the amount of information they had and gave freely. I have quizzed people on this very thing, and another close friend said that she felt like they were trying to stay out of her business, but provided the info she wanted when she asked for it. If we disagree on this, we will, but I prefer not being hounded by someone with an agenda.
When I was recently having this discussion with a friend, I did quite a bit of reading in medical journals, normal media articles, etc. I don't know whether you'll accept something from the Guttmacher Institute, but that is one location that I've found the information laid out quite simply. See link.
No, I don't generally trust info by an organization that is funded by Planned Parenthood, especially not one named after the former VP of the American Eugenics Society. I would consider them biased, especially after some of their big 'oops' moments when they 'erred' about things like diabetes rates by race and contraceptive use by catholics.
I kinda figured that. It wasn't the only info I saw, just the easiest to link, and I'm not looking up more on this infernal contraption. It'll have to wait. Or you can do it. I don't feel like guessing what you'll take seriously. Besides, I know there are MANY different facets to the issue, so I cannot claim I'm comfortable taking any study as The Word.
I don't agree, I refuse on principle not to consider an abortion a life or death situation, it is my opinion that only where urgency is required, as in self-defense, battle, or triage is it acceptable to make such decisions quickly. Even if I did not consider it life or death, I would consider it a major, massive decision with permanent life altering effect, I've known to many people who had them and regret it, or at least are very saddened or traumatized by it even if they'd do it again, to believe such a thing should be decided in haste or in isolation.
If it's a murder, it shouldn't be legal. Since that isn't currently the judgment, legislating anywhere in the middle is trying to force that moral load onto women, and I do not think that is fair or appropriate (other than regarding waiting too long, at which point most definitely do believe it is a baby with rights).
Gay marriage isn't legal either, the morality of it isn't really related to the law, I'll spare the in-this-case-justified remarks referencing Nuremberg. Also, the moral load belongs on the decision maker, that is the nature of decision making, if it is a women's right to make that decision on her own, as you insist, then she bears the absolute and naked responsibility of it, morally and legally. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not trying to be snarky here, but I don't understand what you just said. I thought I was expressing that each individual is fully responsible for her own choice, so I'm not sure what you mean by "both ways?" if you're referring to the homosexual marriage issue, I feel pretty much the same way - if two people are willing to legally commit to each other, who the heck am I to say what's right or wrong about that?
A large part of where we differ is that I do not think most people are making this choice in any more haste than needed (or not). Of course, some are, and I will not claim that every woman would do exactly what she thought she would before the situation arose, but I will stand by my assertion that most have thought about it to a sufficient degree before going through it. From the moment it is even a thought in their minds, they are doing nothing but thinking about it. I will not pull the "I have ovaries, so I'm right" card, because I think that is bull-honkey, but I know that as a human, when something major comes up in my life, I have usually at least thought about it previously, have some instincts about it, and think about nothing else until I make my decision. I do not think a woman should be penalized for knowing her mind and wanting to deal with the situation as quickly as possible. I can say that I know that if I decided to have an abortion, I would want it done NOW. Mostly because of when nerve cells develop in fetuses.
No one should be doing this without talking to someone - their partner certainly if they're in the picture, or a family member or close friend or preferably a spiritual or psychological counselor - and giving it some time to percolate. Whether one believes a fetus is a human or not, one or two days will change nothing.
And yet, many feel it is an intensely personal choice. They should not be made to speak to someone if they do not want to. I would not want to, and, knowing my personality, I would not react well to being forced to by law. I maintain that if it is legal, the govt doesn't have the right to make demands regarding an individual's feelings.
We're not really talking about forcing people to talk to someone specific, though I will say that if I had a partner who had an abortion during our relationship, mine or not, without talking to me about it beforehand, I would feel utterly betrayed. For my part, I'm not big on 'required counseling', we had to go through that nonsense after we came back and you don't get much effect by standardized routine. A cooling off period is what I would like to see, perhaps nothing more than go in to schedule the appointment, get told it's being setup for two days hence at 2 pm, that it by law can be canceled without charge at a moment, and that here are some pamphlets explaining your options, vetted for accuracy and respectability.
I personally agree that speaking with a partner is important, but this doesn't happen in a vacuum. There are plenty of reasons why a woman may feel that is impossible or at least unnecessary. And as I think I pointed out previously, many states do have a waiting period. I know that in my research I came across a table of which states handed out info and which said the actual words aloud, so I know people aren't just showing up, receiving no info and having an abortion in that moment. At least not in the info I've seen thus far. If i'm honest, I don't have any issue with that, or with mandatory info to be handed over; what I would not like is any extra waiting period added just to make some others feel better. Unless I misunderstood, you mentioned lengthening it, and I've seen other states with requirements of two return trips. That feels awfully arbitrary to me, and like one is hoping it'll be too much trouble to jump through each hurdle. One return trip seems like it covers the situation quite well enough, while still putting the burden on her to have thought it through and looked at whatever pamphlets were handed over.
You go to Planned Parenthood's website and click on abortions, as I just did, the very first comment is how they are very normal and common and 1 in 3 women has had them... latter there's a couple discreet links on parenting and adoption... click on that and the very first thing mentioned is how you have a lot to think about, and that you have options... the first mentioned is abortion, I don't require or ask to require they speak to anyone specifically or even any one at all, I think I would require PP itself be required to hand out a variety of - tasteful - pamphlets on the subject but if the person throws them in the garbage and goes home, so be it, so long as we are at least making sure they have time to cool down. I feel the same way about plastic surgery or guns or lots of things, I don't see the dilemma
Later? You mean the very next paragraph? The information on adoption is not at all difficult to find, nor is the link to parenting. They are alphabetical, however. You might prefer if abortion were listed last? I clicked on the health info and services, and it took me to a list of services. The "thinking about adoption" page has exactly the same header paragraph as the "thinking about abortion" page, and both provide a link to the other, and a list of faqs. I don't want to be rude, but I get the feeling that because they are open about abortion, it makes you uncomfortable. I could be wrong. Thoughts?
I also absolutely reject the idea that women know if they want to have a kid, maybe you do, but what I lack in ovaries I make up for in eyes and ears and social relationships of my own. Sorry Jen, but that's just flat wrong, or a rare minority, even were it the majority it would still mean a sizable minority did not. You can not tell me a woman who just noticed she was missing her period, runs out and grabs a kit, and pops hot is instantly aware and fully rational to make that decision. Some, yes, I'm a level-headed pre-planner myself and I'm sure I would if female have given it much thought in advance, in general terms, but I do that for a lot of things and I know how often mental prep-work flies out the window when the real situation arrives. And I also know I do more of that than most people, I've that sort of mindset that prefers to pre-stress in hope of avoiding stress, most don't do much of that, especially younger people who account for most of these abortions.
I cannot even claim that I know I don't want a child (even though I feel fairly certain at this moment), but I do think that most are aware of the facts that help them decide - income, support, shelter, significant other, etc. At that point, there will be certain women who feel very strongly either way, and there will be some who have no idea ... I just can't believe they are not spending an inordinate amount of time thinking about it and weighing the options. I suppose that could be me not being able to get out of my own shoes, because I know I think too much. But based on my societal experiences, I am not sure you can convince me that I'm wrong.
You don't know if you want a child but you're confident you would know if you found out you were pregnant? Anyway, most of us aren't aware of the facts to help us decide. Most people aren't aware of almost anything till the time comes they have to be and most who think they are find out they aren't. Heck I research the heck out of stuff and plan ridiculous levels of contingency to the point of near neurosis and I still am never ready for a crisis, the planning helps though, but you never know till the time comes on any crisis and pregnancy is certainly no exception. You didn't play the ovary-exclusion card and I appreciate that but I'll throw it out there again by pointing out the dozens of women I've known who did indeed say stuff like 'what to I do?' or the ones who have said in hindsight 'I was totally unprepared'. I choose to interpret these remarks as indicating that those people did not know what to do, and were in fact, unprepared. I'm not going to convince you you're wrong, not trying to, not trying to belittle you either but I think you're standing on a rickety platform arguing that a 19 year old girl who just got knocked up exists in a state of prepared thought and certainty. Probably helps that I would generally consider 'pregnant teenager' on the top five list of situations likely to render someone of poor short term judgment.
I did not say I was confident I would know. I said that at any given time, if a woman were to find herself unexpectedly pregnant, you will have some instinct kick in immediately. If she could have the abortion in that moment, I'd agree with you, but I'm simply pointing out that there is quite a bit of time between those powerful first emotions and the actual moment of truth. You'll get some going "gah, I have no money, I'm renting, Ive only been dating him for two weeks, etcholycrap!" Youll get some going "yay, a baby!" and you'll get some who are in the middle and have to think quite a bit before they know. THAT is where my confidence lies - in general, there will be an instinct about it, re: her current situation in life, and from that moment until the time she actually does something about it, there is a hell of a lot of thinking going on. I NEVER said there was no freaking out. Just that I think some might underestimate the sheer amount of thinking that would immediately be tied up with the matter. A couple weeks of that is ample time, IMO.
Just throwing out some anecdotal here, with the caveat that I tend to attract the weirder things in life, but at the same time a lot of that is just that I'm someone people tend to comes to with their problems when they need the friendly person known for keeping a cool head, confidences, and giving good advice. So the stuff ends up on my doorstep. Just form the proximate cases, I've got a coffee pot I can never quite bring myself to throw out even though the pot itself was a casualty years ago of a friend who came over to chat about 'stuff', which happened to be her own pregnancy, she wasn't normally the clumsy sort. There's the very nearly identical case two months later from a girl I knew more casually who she had suggested come chat with me, and while trying to help me fix dinner and talk, managed to peel an entire sack of potatoes. Which takes an abnormal amount of distraction since I had reinforced the whole 'just do one, I like to use 2 or 3 and leave the skins on 1 or 2 to get a nice mix'. That's a good way to do mashed potatoes I find, peel one, dice two, throw in maybe half a cup of instant.
Let's see, the girl who drove herself into a ditch on her way to get her pregnancy confirmed. The one who my girlfriend and I swung by to chat with the next morning after she'd found out the girl was pregnant, and she was scrubbing the grout in her bathroom, had been up all night, place was spotless and she was normally a bit of a slob. Clearly a bastion of emotional stability there. I think we can bypass the cases of extreme depression, occasional self-destructive acts, manic cheerfulness, etc all of which are notoriously common features of people totally, totally of sound mind. I mean, these same behaviors in soldiers weren't in the pamphlets and literature they used to pass around the leadership with titles like 'Signs of Post-Traumatic Stress' or various polite ways of saying 'So, your trooper is going batshit crazy'.
And you think she wasn't going over the whole thing in her mind at least some of the time? There is only so much mindless labor one can take, so I guess I'm not sure what the point of these anecdotes is.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting but the idea that your average person isn't stressed out and not so clear of thought and action in cases like this is just improbable for most people and bordering on the absurd for a teenager or young adult. That's the nice thing about life and experience, it tends to leave you tough as boot leather or maybe beef jerky, a quality most young people usually haven't acquired yet and I know how most people get it young.
I never said the average person wouldn't be stressed. Not at all, so I'm not insulted, but maybe slightly confused. While we are here, I have no problem conceding that I do think people should talk before making a decision of this magnitude. I always talk to my family about major decisions, because that is how most people are made. However, I still put the burden on the woman to have either talked to her own people or to ask to talk to a counselor before deciding. I'm not sure I favor a govt approved spiel any more than you think you trust the PP counselors to provide balanced info.
I also don't accept this notion that it's 'their decision'. Ignoring that I personally do not believe it is their decision, I also don't think pregnancy is unique compared to normal crisis mode that most people don't practically leap to obey anyone who seems authoritative or wise. Most people confronted with crisis, especially younger and used to be lower on the social totem pole and decision making flow chart are absolutely grateful if you suddenly tell them what to do, even if its just so they can get angry and defy you rather than have to actually stop and use their noggin. That's actually why we have things like juries and trials and review boards and different standards for decisions made in haste and panic as opposed to premeditated and such. I'm not really sure why abortion is somehow exempt from this. I mean we would definitely agree that getting a boob job is a women's personal decision but I don't think there'd by cries of oppression if the legislature said 'from now on, after they sit down for a face to face consultation, you must wait 48 hours before performing the operation and may not take any money till that time elapses as that could be viewed as pressuring them'. That's not draconian. Why would the same be true for this case?
I realize that it is an example, but are you asking me if I think it's acceptible to have a legislated waiting period for new boobs? Because, no, I really don't. I'd wonder why the govt felt they had any say, unless they were showing me indisputable proof that the surgery could harm me. And I'd rather they made smoking illegal if we're going for "things the govt does to save me from myself."
How quickly do you think this happens for most people?
It's impossible to say, as every individual is different. I've known many a gal who got nauseous as their first sign, ran out as soon as they stopped genuflecting to the Porcelain Throne, and got a test from the nearest drugmart. Anecdotally the fastest turnaround I know of was 'under an hour', that was the coffee pot dropper, I know because she repeated the time line maybe twenty times that afternoon, kinda stuck in the head. One of my all time favorites was the rather vivid conversation with the gal who thought - because her grandma died of breast cancer and her aunt too - that her tender swollen breasts might indicate breast cancer. I always find it rather humorous that people tend to assume I know jack about medicine, having not even taken high school biology, but the gal came by dragged by another when I was a RA back in college to ask if that was a sign of cancer, not so much google and wiki then I guess. I shrugged and said "It could be pregnancy or menopause, I think we can rule out the latter" and she damn near fainted... fainting, again, not one of those signs of a healthy emotional condition, nor are mantra repetitions of denial. Some people wait, re-test, etc. That's fine. I want them to have a face to face with a licensed medical expert who can tell them the ins and outs, and who has to face an ethics board and malpractice if their advice is wrong unlike Dr. Online and Mr/Ms. Knowitall Friend. I want them to talk, and under legally protected confidentiality to be able to talk, and to get sound advice and options and then to go ruminate on their options. Informed. Calmed down in at least some part by the observation and presence of a doctor who knows the score. I want them to then go home and think about things, talk to people if they want, read some pamphlets if they want, cry into their damn pillow if they want, or sit back and watch a movie marathon while they wait for the 'stupid 48 hour government required waiting period to pass cause I ain't changing my mind'. I don't get what's complex or draconian about that.
I can't really claim that I think a waiting period of two days is draconian, but I do think it is more about the legislators (and you, honestly) than about the woman. I don't know why it is enforced calm that you think she needs. Maybe I'm just different, but I do not think your waiting period does much for her that she hasn't already been repeatedly telling herself. And as we discussed, I'm not pro-abortion, so I'm not trying to rush them through - just confused why you think govt-mandated thinking time is better than that she will have done on her own. Even the gun laws seem different to me, because you can go straight from angry to a gun store, and in some cases only have to wait a day or two to have the weapon. In our discussion, I simply have not seen the process move anywhere near that speed, and a woman is likely to feel different towards her own body/progeny than someone who made her angry enough to want a gun (and before you put words in my mouth, I am not claiming that a woman will never be angry at the situation, or even the baby).
From thinking it's an option, getting to the store, taking a test (knowing friends who've gone through this, I can say with some certainty that it is likely several tests are taken before one feels certain), making an appointment, getting to the location, many states have a 24 hour waiting period, going back to the location and then finally going through the procedure? How many women are doing that in less than a week? I would like to see that stat, because we seem to disagree on how many women decide and rush into it that quickly. Besides (and I need to check the real numbers on this), I have read that many physicians won't do the procedure until a few weeks later,
Many physicians have ethics and common sense, if they won't do it for three weeks as their own choice, it hardly matters, it's not like I'm suggesting we tack on an additional 48 hours after that 3 weeks.
for fear that they may not get all the pregnancy tissue and/or that the pregnancy may not be in the womb at all (ectopic). That's already 4 or 5 weeks in. If we assume that a woman has sex the very first day after the end of her cycle, we've got about 28 days before she expects the next one, she may not find out about this until that 4-5 week period has passed, but if we call that the most extreme case and assume that most pregnancies happen when we are at our most fertile (14 days in or so), that extends that even longer.
That, like a lot of this, is very case specific, I don't know why a gal already at say, 45 days when she finds out is going to be harmed being required to wait till 47 to terminate her pregnancy. She makes the decision, or is thinking about it, she goes in and the clock starts ticking, I'm not suggesting she sign a legally binding and public contract of intent to abort, just that there be a waiting period.
If you're trying to make a case against a day after pill, I will not agree with you there. I do believe that one is ending the process by which a human is created, because that IS what is happening; however, I do not believe that is the murder of a baby. Sorry, but I definitely do see a difference between a blastocyst/zygote and a baby.
I'm fairly torn on the morning after pill myself, so no I'm not making that case. I suspect if asked for a definition of when human life begins I'd say 'cell division begins', that always seems a neat sidestep around fertilized embryos being used for research or kept on ice. Again the party isn't unified on these matters, I think we'd forcibly expel anyone who was okay with legal non-life threatening late-term abortion, most of us favor hanging those people anyway with the majority of the remainder prefer jamming a vial of formaldehyde in the back of their skulls, but you get into pre-heart beat or even pre 'viability' and agreement goes out the window, most haven't given it to deep of thought as the focus is getting Roe v Wade flipped.
I mean no insult, but I think on this point you are succumbing to wishful thinking. An unexpected pregnancy is a crisis by definition, possibly excluding people on their third or fourth kid or abortion, no one should ever act quickly in a crisis if circumstances do not require it, and doubly so if there is no advantage to rapid action. A few days should make no difference excluding possibly those who believe things change on brain or heart function, and then only those in that window would have cause for haste.
See several comments about this above.
I'm not insulted. I can only go based on my own feelings and those of several close friends who have gone through this. There are three I know have undergone the procedure, and each says that even though the actual decision was (and is) painful, they would not have taken it back. Whether that is rationalization or how they truly feel, I simply do not believe that most people rush into this so willy-nilly as you think. Or that the govt has the right to force them into anything more than the mandatory 24hr delay most states have in place.
Well, I know more than three, most people probably do too but I seem stuck in life playing confessor. And its a mixed bag, the reaction of your friends isn't uncommon, common in soldiers and I imagine police as well. Others are wishing they hadn't done it, false bravado, fits of anger and outrage at anyone questioning the ethics of a parallel case, and so on. Suicide rates are several times higher in women during the period after an abortion, not mentioned on PP's site I notice, so presumably many have had some regrets.
You are right that it doesn't specifically mention suicide rates, but did you look at the FAQ? One of the questions covers how one might feel, and they do point out that while many feel relief, some become very distressed and depressed. It mentions that women who don't speak with anyone about this process are often those who feel the worst, and then mentions that PP has people on hand for such discussions. I guess it is up to your cynicism whether you believe those counselors say the "right" thing or not.
Paul Ryan is selected as Republican VP candidate
- 11/08/2012 05:01:47 PM
1765 Views
Personally? No, I'm not voting Republican at all this year.
- 11/08/2012 05:18:06 PM
806 Views
Ya know that narrative of the right getting further right is pretty ridicolous
- 11/08/2012 06:43:44 PM
774 Views
it could possibly be the "all or nothing" budget fights and gay marriage among other things
- 11/08/2012 08:19:11 PM
814 Views
Yeah, I forgot the Dems are very enlightened about gay marriage now for what? 2 Months?
- 11/08/2012 08:59:17 PM
869 Views
yet despite that, dems didn't put referenda and push bills discriminating against gay people
- 12/08/2012 07:55:38 PM
895 Views
They certainly have, they've just done it less and less recently
- 12/08/2012 09:39:53 PM
769 Views
I dunno, but from my perspective (and this is from one who doesn't follow politics closely)
- 11/08/2012 08:32:43 PM
1007 Views
I'm sorry, but anyone that votes for Obama after the past 3 and 1/2 years is a moron.....
- 12/08/2012 03:30:47 AM
718 Views
If you are proud of not voting, please shut up: The adults have a country to run.
- 12/08/2012 04:11:49 AM
738 Views
Candidates have to earn my vote - I'm not a slave like you to the 2 party system.
- 12/08/2012 04:24:02 AM
880 Views
Who said anything about the two-party system?
- 12/08/2012 04:29:36 AM
713 Views
No offense intended, but voting third party is as stupid as not voting.
- 12/08/2012 04:42:28 AM
964 Views
I'm with Joel on this. There's a big difference between voting third party and not voting.
- 12/08/2012 07:31:29 PM
873 Views
Nice asshatery.
- 12/08/2012 07:56:57 AM
955 Views
Wouldn't you love to have a "none of the above" option.....
- 12/08/2012 03:36:54 PM
728 Views
Or you could use a PR system and act like responsible adults. *NM*
- 12/08/2012 05:47:14 PM
388 Views
Not voting sends no message but "we will let politicians do as they please."
- 12/08/2012 05:12:55 PM
1154 Views
Well there's a difference between not voting at all and not voting in one race
- 12/08/2012 05:55:47 PM
893 Views
Usually only in degree, not kind, though I mostly had the former in mind.
- 12/08/2012 07:27:54 PM
842 Views
I hope that most of the disenchanted Obama 08 suppoerters feel the same way *NM*
- 13/08/2012 11:27:15 AM
377 Views
I'm happy with it, I like Ryan
- 11/08/2012 06:47:21 PM
790 Views
What a shock. 
- 11/08/2012 08:18:35 PM
911 Views
- 11/08/2012 08:18:35 PM
911 Views
Most Republicans are fine with gutting Medicare.
- 11/08/2012 08:31:03 PM
1007 Views
Everyone with an ounce of common sense is okay with "gutting" Medicare.....
- 12/08/2012 03:37:17 AM
726 Views
The only thing bankrupting Medicare is unsustainable US healthcare costs eating 20% of US GDP.
- 12/08/2012 03:56:28 AM
1033 Views
Silly comment - 30% of Medicare is FRAUD.....and the program is fatally flawed.
- 12/08/2012 04:09:26 AM
862 Views
So private insurance costs are really growing SIXTY percent faster?!
- 12/08/2012 04:24:49 AM
868 Views
Medicare worked for 50 years and SS for 80 because most people were DYING before 65.
- 12/08/2012 04:29:26 AM
664 Views
Eligibility age for both must increase (SSs has, but not enough.) They are not "unsustainable."
- 12/08/2012 04:31:57 AM
653 Views
definitely a bold pick but not going to help him enough in november
- 11/08/2012 08:27:59 PM
816 Views
Since I forgot you asked Americans if it would change our votes: No, still voting Jill Stein (Green)
- 11/08/2012 11:07:12 PM
736 Views
Who cares? He's hot.
- 11/08/2012 11:53:42 PM
975 Views
- 13/08/2012 03:31:38 PM
857 Views
I actually said, "He's not hot enough."
- 13/08/2012 01:15:58 PM
711 Views
On the plus side, you need not fear Ryans failure to mention abortion and contraception.
- 13/08/2012 03:17:45 PM
896 Views
- 13/08/2012 03:31:38 PM
857 Views
Legolas a question for you, what is your opinion of George W Bush Social Security Plans in 2005?
- 12/08/2012 01:03:24 AM
726 Views
Wonderful choice! Truly wonderful.....check the video.
- 12/08/2012 03:22:48 AM
712 Views
No, it doesn't change my opinion any
- 12/08/2012 07:50:21 AM
898 Views
I hear even the DNC has rejected its TN Senate nominee. 
- 12/08/2012 05:46:37 PM
806 Views
- 12/08/2012 05:46:37 PM
806 Views
Yes, they disavowed him
- 12/08/2012 08:00:33 PM
801 Views
Apparently the TN Democratic Party agrees voters should write in someone elses name.
- 12/08/2012 08:34:46 PM
772 Views
Does not work in the US
- 13/08/2012 01:17:58 AM
757 Views
We do not need most of the populace to cast protest votes, only most voters.
- 13/08/2012 01:33:41 AM
718 Views
I was going to vote Romney anyway, so no, it doesn't change anything.
- 12/08/2012 10:39:15 PM
797 Views
But I'm guessing you're glad with Ryan? Prefer him over the alternatives? Or not?
- 12/08/2012 10:49:35 PM
956 Views
Makes sense for you. You are Romney's target audience.
- 13/08/2012 01:19:26 PM
732 Views
What should Obama have done?
- 13/08/2012 07:31:23 PM
761 Views
Mmm, Objectivism. Another reason for me to vote Obama.
- 12/08/2012 11:00:34 PM
881 Views
But doesn't he say he detests Rand?
- 12/08/2012 11:53:47 PM
625 Views
No he doesn't disavow Ayn Rand, he still believes in her
- 13/08/2012 01:15:34 AM
812 Views
that is pretty mild of you campare it to the radical influence in Obama's life *NM*
- 13/08/2012 11:35:52 AM
489 Views
Ah, the classic "it is OK because their guy rapes puppies, too, even though he does not" defense.
- 13/08/2012 03:23:29 PM
654 Views
Obama doesn't have a history of openly endorsing the views of said radicals. *NM*
- 14/08/2012 12:32:52 AM
532 Views
he has a much closer and more personal realtionship with radicals than Romney or Ryan *NM*
- 20/08/2012 03:54:17 AM
495 Views
Link to audio of Paul Ryans address to The Atlas Society.
- 13/08/2012 03:37:27 AM
926 Views
Or you could have just read my response which posted prior to yours
- 13/08/2012 01:45:07 PM
697 Views
- 13/08/2012 01:45:07 PM
697 Views
Don't get me wrong
- 13/08/2012 12:53:10 AM
736 Views
Actually I believe he promised to vote for Romney if I did
- 13/08/2012 03:48:35 AM
877 Views
- 13/08/2012 03:48:35 AM
877 Views
What an amusing retrospective.
- 13/08/2012 04:20:02 AM
891 Views
I tried reading it again, but my eyes glazed over when you started babbling about lesbian covens.
- 14/08/2012 12:30:03 AM
668 Views
It was a hyperbolic reference to the extreme left (one stolen from Matt Groening, btw.)
- 14/08/2012 10:12:09 AM
738 Views
Interesting.
- 14/08/2012 11:34:30 AM
810 Views
They have a pill for that now.
- 14/08/2012 01:14:39 PM
849 Views
I'm pretty sure the solution is you learning elementary composition. *NM*
- 15/08/2012 11:33:57 PM
511 Views
Your willful reading incomprehension is neither my fault nor problem.
- 16/08/2012 07:40:46 PM
806 Views
Disillusioned, sure. But I don't recall ever considering voting Republican.
- 14/08/2012 12:31:17 AM
814 Views
No birth control, no right to choose, no planned parenthood?
- 13/08/2012 01:58:51 PM
670 Views
I saw a theory just after the announcement speculating Ryan was chosen as a scapegoat.
- 13/08/2012 03:33:56 PM
815 Views
I agree with your statements
- 14/08/2012 12:53:41 AM
891 Views
It's mostly nonsense
- 14/08/2012 04:46:11 AM
798 Views
Well
- 14/08/2012 02:54:06 PM
1011 Views
'Nonsense' refers to the thing said about the religious right by the media
- 14/08/2012 04:01:47 PM
1004 Views
I'm wondering if "belittles" is the wrong word.
- 14/08/2012 06:30:23 PM
1055 Views
Re: I'm wondering if "belittles" is the wrong word.
- 15/08/2012 01:45:59 AM
754 Views
I have to keep this short, because I am on the iPad.
- 15/08/2012 05:38:48 AM
713 Views
Triple reply chain is usually a good point for the trim-edit anyway
- 15/08/2012 05:27:20 PM
899 Views
- 15/08/2012 05:27:20 PM
899 Views
The question, as for Tom, is what you believe Romney would improve for small businesses.
- 14/08/2012 01:38:29 PM
831 Views
I am aware of that, thank you. And I don't distill my choice down to small business, either.
- 14/08/2012 02:24:24 PM
882 Views
I see your point, but...
- 14/08/2012 02:30:22 PM
653 Views
Well
- 14/08/2012 03:09:18 PM
838 Views
Are you really going to let Obama con you into voting for him again?
- 21/08/2012 02:00:06 PM
659 Views
Expanding our perspective does not improve our options much, sadly.
- 14/08/2012 04:23:48 PM
778 Views