Ryan on Re-Electing Obama:

archer wrote: Exactly....I know the election is supposedly about the economy, but for me it is much more than that. I wasn't so concerned about Romney till he decided to embrace the far right social agenda......no abortion even in cases of rape/incest/life of the mother.....complete removal of Obamacare.....though he is walking that back a bit, pandering to the tax cuts but no revenue increases Tea Party. I don't trust him to follow his own conscience, only to try and keep the radical right base happy. He's not his own man anymore, he's a puppet for everything in the far right agenda I despise.

Even if he's elected, I don't think the abortion agenda will get implemented. There's far too many moderating forces that will mitigate that threat. I see it as an extreme that cannot realistically be achieved.

At least that's what I'm hoping.

Obuma has nothing to show so he has to use scare tactics. As Archer says Obuma unleashed. What a nightmare.

Really? We want 4 more years of this?

Thanks for the link Otis.

Nobody that matters wrote:

archer wrote: Exactly....I know the election is supposedly about the economy, but for me it is much more than that. I wasn't so concerned about Romney till he decided to embrace the far right social agenda......no abortion even in cases of rape/incest/life of the mother.....complete removal of Obamacare.....though he is walking that back a bit, pandering to the tax cuts but no revenue increases Tea Party. I don't trust him to follow his own conscience, only to try and keep the radical right base happy. He's not his own man anymore, he's a puppet for everything in the far right agenda I despise.

Even if he's elected, I don't think the abortion agenda will get implemented. There's far too many moderating forces that will mitigate that threat. I see it as an extreme that cannot realistically be achieved.

At least that's what I'm hoping.

Romney may not implement the abortion agenda, but any Supreme Court justices he nominates may do so.......there is a far greater chance of that with Romney's choices than with Obama's. Romney may also gut women's health issues out of health care.....I won't take that chance. I can't vote based on the hope that the candidate won't do what he says he will do.

archer wrote: Romney may not implement the abortion agenda, but any Supreme Court justices he nominates may do so.......there is a far greater chance of that with Romney's choices than with Obama's. Romney may also gut women's health issues out of health care.....I won't take that chance. I can't vote based on the hope that the candidate won't do what he says he will do.

I can understand and respect that. I get why you're not enthralled with the republican platform. Neither am I.

Does anyone have an answer as to how to effect change in a national party's platform?

That's a serious question by the way, if you have any ideas - share them.

archer wrote: Exactly....I know the election is supposedly about the economy, but for me it is much more than that. I wasn't so concerned about Romney till he decided to embrace the far right social agenda......no abortion even in cases of rape/incest/life of the mother.....complete removal of Obamacare.....though he is walking that back a bit, pandering to the tax cuts but no revenue increases Tea Party. I don't trust him to follow his own conscience, only to try and keep the radical right base happy. He's not his own man anymore, he's a puppet for everything in the far right agenda I despise.

Nobody is trying to pass a "no abortion regardless" bill. Certain people may put up a balloon to appease their certain district, but a vast majority of Americans don't want that. On the other hand, they also don't want abortion as birth control, which is what the democrat's want.

Obamacare is bad policy. Question is, remove it all, and start again with a much better method, or just modify the bill. I've heard good arguments for both methods.

Tax cuts but no "revenue" increases-Call it what it is. TAX rate increases, not revenue increases. You can't tax enough from the wealthy to pay for all the spending. You need a growing economy, which Obama can't make happen.

Romney is pandering, as is Obama. Why you can't see that is beyond me. Difference being, Obama has had 4 yrs, and didn't do hardly anything he promised. Romney is a moderate, who also, will likely not do all he promises. Obama doesn't have to face election, so he will likely go very far left to get all his dreams in to change our country forever.

archer wrote: At least that's what I'm hoping.

Romney may not implement the abortion agenda, but any Supreme Court justices he nominates may do so.......there is a far greater chance of that with Romney's choices than with Obama's. Romney may also gut women's health issues out of health care.....I won't take that chance. I can't vote based on the hope that the candidate won't do what he says he will do.

No they won't. If Obama is elected, the supremes he would put in would devastate our constitution forever, since they consider the constitution an impediment to progressive ideas.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

archer wrote:

Romney may not implement the abortion agenda, but any Supreme Court justices he nominates may do so.......there is a far greater chance of that with Romney's choices than with Obama's. Romney may also gut women's health issues out of health care.....I won't take that chance. I can't vote based on the hope that the candidate won't do what he says he will do.

No they won't. If Obama is elected, the supremes he would put in would devastate our constitution forever, since they consider the constitution an impediment to progressive ideas.

I guess the question is are voters more afraid of what the conservative judges would do to America or the more liberal judges.

Please show me any quote from a liberal that claims the constitution is an impediment to progressive ideals. If anything the liberals are trying to preserve the constitution and our rights under it and conservatives want to take away those rights ALREADY deemed constitutional.

....oh, I fixed your mangling of the quotes.

Total BS. You mean that might decide that corporations are people too, and allow unlimited secret money to be used for influencing elections?k Whoops, already been there, done that.