Mitt Romney... 47 percent will vote for Obama "no matter what"

[TulsaRufnex]

A more "eloquent" quote would have been "that roughly 40% of the population, the ones that would never vote Republican, believe in trickle down welfare, whereas I believe in Trickle Down Wealth."

"Trickle down welfare?"  Wrong.  We believe in public schools, public roads, public health, farm subsidies, minimum wage tied to the cost of living, public options in higher education, the rights of labor to organize and negotiate, and a simple social security system not subject to the whims and insider trading of Wall Street.  We believe in welfare... but not for corporations or good-for-nothing parents, but for their kids, who shouldn't be allowed to go hungry due to the sins of their parents or the sins of the corporate world.  We believe that pre-existing health conditions, giving future seniors medicare vouchers, and the declaration of bankruptcy based on medical expenses should be sentenced to the dustbin of history, where those ideas belong.

I am better off than I was 4 years ago.
I checked my 401k.  

[erfalf]

"Trickle down welfare?"  Wrong.  We believe in public schools, public roads, public health, farm subsidies, minimum wage tied to the cost of living, public options in higher education, the rights of labor to organize and negotiate, and a simple social security system not subject to the whims and insider trading of Wall Street.  We believe in welfare... but not for corporations or good-for-nothing parents, but for their kids, who shouldn't be allowed to go hungry due to the sins of their parents or the sins of the corporate world.  We believe that pre-existing health conditions, giving future seniors medicare vouchers, and the declaration of bankruptcy based on medical expenses should be sentenced to the dustbin of history, where those ideas belong.

I am better off than I was 4 years ago.
I checked my 401k.  

You may be and I applaud you for it. But what I meant by trickle down welfare was more of a direct comparison to trickle down economics. The welfare benefits from trickle down from the resources of those at the top.

[erfalf]

How is that stance radical?  Guess you've never heard of Roe v Wade?  It IS the law of the land.

I know there are many on the right that are against abortion, with legitimate arguments, but as you point out it is the law of the land. That being said, your man Obama is for extremely late term abortions, even as late as if the child is born alive, he thinks it not worth protecting infants born alive after abortion attempts. I would guess that most would agree that is a bit on the extreme side.

[nathanm]

What the heck are you even talking about? Is there some new abortion scare story circulating around church or something?

[erfalf]

This whole discussion smacks of a setup. Romney says things that piss off people who won't vote for him anyway as a homage to the rich. Either it don't matter if he loses as long as they make this fight or they are desparate to change the conversation about Romney's other failing ideas.

Maybe so. There are plenty for sure.

This evening I flipped between CNN & MSNBC and it was wall-to-wall Romney gaffe coverage. I did not witness any other event being covered in the early evening shows. It would seem to me that the Obama administration is just as happy for the subject to be changing. Away from the middle east issues.

[erfalf]

What the heck are you even talking about? Is there some new abortion scare story circulating around church or something?

It's old news, but like most things about Obama it just goes by the wayside. The guy voted for some Born Alive acts in Illinois years ago four times, claiming that he thought it would undermine a woman's right to choose even though the legislation specifically said it could not and would not undermine a woman's right to choose.

Edit: This is something that he has a propensity to lie about because politically it is reprehensible to most voters.

[Hoss]

It's old news, but like most things about Obama it just goes by the wayside. The guy voted for some Born Alive acts in Illinois years ago four times, claiming that he thought it would undermine a woman's right to choose even though the legislation specifically said it could not and would not undermine a woman's right to choose.

Edit: This is something that he has a propensity to lie about because politically it is reprehensible to most voters.

That's rich.  This coming from a supporter of one of the biggest liars on campaign right now.

[Hoss]

I know there are many on the right that are against abortion, with legitimate arguments, but as you point out it is the law of the land. That being said, your man Obama is for extremely late term abortions, even as late as if the child is born alive, he thinks it not worth protecting infants born alive after abortion attempts. I would guess that most would agree that is a bit on the extreme side.

Cite please?

[Hoss]

Awesome.  So in this same video he says the following:

Mitt Romney on dad: 'Had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this'

(just for Gassy here)

Just epic FAIL all over this guy's campaign.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/09/mitt-romney-on-dad-had-he-been-born-of-uh-mexican-parents-id-have-a-better-shot-at-winning-this/

[erfalf]

Cite please?

http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-illinois-born-alive-infant-protection-act/

[Hoss]

http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-illinois-born-alive-infant-protection-act/

Can you cite from a non-biased source?  This lady is the same person who said the guy that killed the doctor in Kansas "did not get a fair day in court"....

This lady also, later on in 2008, said she 'made a mistake' when referring to his stance on abortion.

[guido911]

It's old news, but like most things about Obama it just goes by the wayside. The guy voted for some Born Alive acts in Illinois years ago four times, claiming that he thought it would undermine a woman's right to choose even though the legislation specifically said it could not and would not undermine a woman's right to choose.

Edit: This is something that he has a propensity to lie about because politically it is reprehensible to most voters.

Is this a source for your point?

It's a striking claim, and he's not the only Republican presidential candidate making it. Speaking at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition Forum last March, Rick Santorum said, "any child born prematurely, according to the president, in his own words, can be killed."

Both Gingrich and Santorum are referring to "born alive" bills that were brought up in the Illinois Legislature in 2001, 2002, and 2003 when Obama was a state senator. The intent of the legislation was to protect any infant who survived a botched abortion by requiring the doctor to give life-saving care. In part, the bill said "a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."

Then-state Sen. Obama opposed the legislation because he said it would undermine the legal protections given to abortions under Roe v. Wade.

On the state Senate floor, Obama said he believed courts would eventually overturn the legislation since it would "essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." He added that Illinois already had a 1975 state law that protected the life of an infant that survived a botched abortion, if doctors determined the infant could survive. When the legislation came up for a vote in 2001 and 2002, Obama once voted "present" -- essentially a non-vote -- and once voted against it.

In 2002, Congress was also writing a "Born Alive" bill. Obama said several times he would support that version of the bill because it contained a clause that would protect the legal standing of Roe v. Wade. Opponents of abortion rights, such as the National Right to Life Committee, challenged his explanation, saying the 2003 version of the Illinois law contained language virtually identical to the federal law, so by his own logic he should have supported it. He didn't. The new legislation never made it out of the Health and Human Services Committee that he chaired.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-24/politics/politics_fact-checking-gingrich-infanticide-charge_1_bar-abortions-opponents-of-abortion-rights-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS


And for those that want the facts about this, listen to this debate and report regarding the Born Alive Act. I am convinced that the lives of the babies that survived abortion and needed medical attention (other words, left to lay and die) were less important to Obama than preserving Roe v. Wade. Period. That is what you support when you back Obama.

[guido911]

More recent analysis.

A speaker in the ad Hicks is considering, Melissa Ohden, says that Obama "voted to deny basic Constitutional protections for babies born alive from an abortion." Hicks writes, "This is true in the sense that the Illinois bills would have guaranteed certain protections for these infants. But Ohden's claim lacks context: Obama's objections to the bill suggest that he wasn't so much bent on denying rights to newborns as wanting to block any legislation that could erode the premise of the Roe v. Wade decision." He then awards Ohden "one Pinocchio for her slanted take on the president's position."

What Ohden said was true in the sense of being true, and Hicks's criticism is irrelevant. Yes, Obama thought that legislation offering protection for pre-viable infants would in principle erode Roe's premise, and that's why he opposed giving them any protection. In other words: Just as pro-lifers have long maintained, his devotion to abortion was so extreme that he thought a form of infanticide should remain legal.

Hicks continues:

    [Mike] Huckabee said Obama "believes that human life is disposable and expendable . . . even beyond the womb." But this is a mischaracterization of the president's stance on the Born-Alive Infants Protection legislation in Illinois.

    Granted, we don't know why Obama voted against the 2003 bill that included a clause to protect abortion rights. The measure never made it out of committee, and comments from the meetings are not recorded. Nonetheless, we find it hard to fathom that the former senator expressed a belief that human life is disposable outside the womb.

    Huckabee earns Three Pinocchios for his twisted interpretation of Obama's no votes.

Huckabee was right: Obama did believe that at least some human lives, "even beyond the womb," are "disposable and expendable." He believed that for the law to treat them otherwise would be wrong. Whatever Hicks can or cannot fathom, Obama expressed that view both in his words and in his votes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316590/obama-and-infanticide-ramesh-ponnuru#

What get me is that there is no disputing the content of the bills, Obama's votes, or the effect of the opposition to the Born Alive Act on "born alive" infants. It was about whether that "born alive" infant has cognizable rights, which Obama said "no" to because it would interfere in his mind with Roe v. Wade.

[Hoss]

More recent analysis.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316590/obama-and-infanticide-ramesh-ponnuru#

Because the National Review is so....unbiased.... LOL

[guido911]

Because the National Review is so....unbiased.... LOL

You are a doofus. Did you ever read the article? Did you read the CNN article? Did you watch the CNN video? lol,..And where's your damned source contradicting the NRO article? Or, are you expecting to find a media source out there you like that is going to portray Obama negatively? Tell me, which one would that be.

Those non-biased sources, like you, are so nuzzled up in Obama grundle that you refuse to even look at what really happened in Illinois. By the way, I have family there and they remember the story unfolding just as it was reported in the NRO...but you probably know more.