Akin

[3rdnlng]

A Denver reporter says she was told not to ask Romney about Akin or abortion

 

A Denver television reporter says Mitt Romney's campaign instructed her not to ask the candidate questions about the controversy over Missouri Rep. Todd Akin's comments on rape or the debate over abortion during an interview she had with Romney Thursday.

 

Shawn Boyd, a reporter for CBS affiliate KCNC, told viewers of the campaign's ground rules before the station aired footage of her interview with the presumptive Republican nominee.

 

------------

Mitt can't handle a tough question? Or is it that his opinion changes hourly on the subject.

 

 

Two things. Do you actually think Romney is controlling the media more than Obama? When are you going to start linking to the schit you post?

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

I don't live in Ontario, I live in Quebec. Ontario is booming, Quebec is going down the toilet.

 

Funny I read that Western Canada is growing faster that Ontario

 

Another fuc king Canadian who thinks he knows how the US works? Still kissing the old queens ass are you? Or is it the French you bend over for?

 

 

Two things. Do you actually think Romney is controlling the media more than Obama? When are you going to start linking to the schit you post?

 

Did I say otherwise? No you assumed as much

[3rdnlng]

Funny I read that Western Canada is growing faster that Ontario

 

Another fuc king Canadian who thinks he knows how the US works? Still kissing the old queens ass are you? Or is it the French you bend over for?

 

 

 

 

Did I say otherwise? No you assumed as much

 

 

So why aren't you criticizing Obama? And again, why don't you link to the schit you post?

[truth on hold]

I dont think it's unusual for a politicians people to tell reporters what's off limits , informing them he/she is there to talk about they're own platform or whatever. Then it's up to both sides to determine if the interview is worth having

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

I have criticized Obama. It’s much more enjoyable to criticize the Radical Conservatives.

[The Big Cat]

 

Because unlike the mass of cells, no one's deciding whether to kill the woman.

 

Me: Why do cells get the right to choose but the mother doesn't?

Rob: Because cells get the right to choose.

 

 

I assume your discussion is regarding abortion and not birth control. With that as the basis, and speaking only for myself, the baby inside her 'deserves more benefit of the doubt' because of 2 points:

 

1. in general, the mother already made her choices and they ended up with a baby inside her; and

 

2. the baby is innocent.

 

If the mother, again in general (not talking about situations such as rape), had used birth control and insisted the father used it as well; there pretty much wouldn't be a baby that needed to get hoovered out. If only 1 of them is using birth control the odds of a baby being inside her increase. If neither of them are using birth control the odds of baby being inside her go up substantially. Yes, the pill can fail, especially if the woman is on antibiotics, (and other forms can fail as well) but the odds of a prophylactic also failing at the same time are pretty miniscule.

 

As to your second question, except in limited circumstances, the mother already made a choice, which is why there is now a baby inside of her.

 

It's a ****ty situation, having a pregnancy that isn't wanted, but as pretty much everybody in this discussion will admit - we don't know when 'life' starts; in general I'd prefer to err on the conservative side.

 

I guess we disagree that the choice to have non-procreating intercourse is one that must come with consequences. And I said before, seems unfair that those "consequences" really only affect mom, and not the father.

 

Plus, there's no end to examples of people who DID take the right precautions, but one swam through anyway.

 

Also, I don't want to dispute whether or not a child has "innocence." But that's an awfully subjective quality--one that should not be the basis of legislation the remits rights from somebody who is--in fact--living, breathing and making decisions (whether you agree with them or not).

[Adam]

I knew nothing of the story until about two hours ago, so perhaps there's more to it than I gathered, but what is it about his comments that was offensive and caveman-like?

 

BTW, I find your comment insulting to cavemen.

Notice that Geico has removed those commercials?

[meazza]

Funny I read that Western Canada is growing faster that Ontario

 

Another fuc king Canadian who thinks he knows how the US works? Still kissing the old queens ass are you? Or is it the French you bend over for?

 

 

Debatable.

[Taro T]

Me: Why do cells get the right to choose but the mother doesn't?

Rob: Because cells get the right to choose.

 

 

 

 

I guess we disagree that the choice to have non-procreating intercourse is one that must come with consequences. And I said before, seems unfair that those "consequences" really only affect mom, and not the father.

 

Plus, there's no end to examples of people who DID take the right precautions, but one swam through anyway.

 

Also, I don't want to dispute whether or not a child has "innocence." But that's an awfully subjective quality--one that should not be the basis of legislation the remits rights from somebody who is--in fact--living, breathing and making decisions (whether you agree with them or not).

The choice to have sex will always come with the possibility of consequences. And, by definition, if a baby stakes out a claim as a result of that, it wasn't "non-procreating."

 

I'd suggest that the term "right precautions" is rather subjective as well if one swims through anyway.

[VABills]

The choice to have sex will always come with the possibility of consequences. And, by definition, if a baby stakes out a claim as a result of that, it wasn't "non-procreating."

 

I'd suggest that the term "right precautions" is rather subjective as well if one swims through anyway.

 

Just as one of the consequences is STD's such as AIDs. Of course the woman can just go down to the local clinic and get rid of that as well.

 

 

Oh wait she can't.

 

Of course, I always like the argument that why call abortions legal only before the baby is born. I think until they are self sufficient say around 12-14, then they killed should be able to be aborted by the mom whenever she wants.

[WorldTraveller]

You know it's bad when Politico discusses the topic:

 

 

 

 

Debbie Wasserman Schultz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper engaged in a heated exchange Thursday night when Cooper charged that the Florida congresswoman “misquoted” the Los Angeles Times in a letter that the anchor also said misrepresented Mitt Romney’s stance on the Republican Party’s abortion platform plank.

 

The segment, which has gone viral in the conservative blogosphere, features Cooper, on his CNN show “Anderson Cooper 360,” pointing to a fundraising email Wasserman Schultz signed. He said that a quote she used from the Los Angeles Times in the appeal was taken “completely out of context.”

 

 

“The DNC chairwoman calls out Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan for saying they don’t entirely agree with that plank,” Cooper said. “And here’s how she backs it up…’But guess what? ‘The Los Angeles Times’ reported yesterday that the platform was, and I quote, ‘written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.’

 

But Cooper said the quote “was ripped, in fact, out of a sentence,” saying that the real piece read, “Delegates for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney are voting down substantive changes to the platform language that were written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.”

 

“Do you at least acknowledge that the quote that you gave from “The L.A. Times” is completely incorrect?” Cooper asked, after a back-and-forth over Romney’s record on allowing for abortions in certain instances, like rape.

 

“No, I don’t acknowledge that. I know that is what you’re saying,” Wasserman Schultz shot back. When he started to read the quote, she interrupted, “Anderson, what I’m saying is, it doesn’t matter.”

 

“I think what you say does matter,” he said. “You’re quoting the LA Times and, again, you’ve misquoted them to back up a position.”

 

Wasserman Schultz said that the point of the fundraising email was to highlight Romney’s connection to his party’s platform ban on abortion, which doesn’t specifically designate exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

 

“There’s no way a presidential candidate can separate himself from that party’s platform,” she said.

 

Cooper challenged her assertion there, too, but the most fiery moments of the segment centered on the question of the quote from the Los Angeles Times.

 

“Just as you don’t like being misquoted, I don’t like being misquoted, I’m sure the LA Times doesn’t like being misquoted to back up your political position,” Cooper said. “I don’t understand why you’d need to do that.”

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80088.html#ixzz24TQnK8lZ

[birdog1960]

You're right on this point: akin put Romney in the awkward position of distancing himself for the sake of moderates/indepedants but at the risk of alienating the fundamentalist base. Which is happening now:

 

"Following the pounding of Todd Akin by the GOP kings and lieutenants in the last 36 hours, I've come to the conclusion that the real issue is the soul of America," wrote David Lane, an evangelical activist who's influential in the Republican Party, in an e-mail to fellow activists Thursday morning.

 

"The swift knee-jerk reaction to throw Akin, a strong conservative pro-life, pro-family born again Christian under the bus by some in the Republican Party is shining the light on their actual agenda," Lane continued.

 

http://religion.blog...sm/?iphoneemail

 

-------

This is what really must be eating at Romney. I'm sure they wanted to have it both ways, and not really have to opine so explicitly on Akin-type positions.

uh, huh. and it's nice to see you conceding the enormous influence that fundamentalists have over the current republican party. funny how no one challenged you on it. i spent multiple posts trying to establish that fact and you just state it and it flies. wonder why that is? no matter: this is divisive to republicans and therefore good.

[meazza]

uh, huh. and it's nice to see you conceding the enormous influence that fundamentalists have over the current republican party. funny how no one challenged you on it. i spent multiple posts trying to establish that fact and you just state it and it flies. wonder why that is? no matter: this is divisive to republicans and therefore good.

 

So are you saying that there are no crazies in the democratic base?

[WorldTraveller]

Remember, you're talking to a loon, who criticizes the Koch Brothers for not espousing the moral high ground, yet supports another Billionaire who bet against England and literally bankrupted thousands of middle class families as a result of his greed.

 

[meazza]

Remember, you're talking to a loon, who criticizes the Koch Brothers for not espousing the moral high ground, yet supports another Billionaire who bet against England and literally bankrupted thousands of middle class families as a result of his greed.

 

 

For the cause.

 

/birddog.

[birdog1960]

So are you saying that there are no crazies in the democratic base?

so you're not arguing the point on fundamentalists? what has changed?

 

Remember, you're talking to a loon, who criticizes the Koch Brothers for not espousing the moral high ground, yet supports another Billionaire who bet against England and literally bankrupted thousands of middle class families as a result of his greed.

 

asked and answered. see the newsroom thread. there's no inconsistency there. he's on the right side of issues the vast majority of times. the koch's- almost invariably the wrong side

[WorldTraveller]

<p>

asked and answered. see the newsroom thread. there's no inconsistency there. he's on the right side of issues the vast majority of times. the koch's- almost invariably the wrong side

It's just too easy

Edited August 24, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[Chef Jim]

so you're not arguing the point on fundamentalists? what has changed?

 

 

asked and answered. see the newsroom thread. there's no inconsistency there. he's on the right side of issues the vast majority of times. the koch's- almost invariably the wrong side

 

According to whom?

[birdog1960]

According to whom?

according to me and millions of like minded voters.

[meazza]

so you're not arguing the point on fundamentalists? what has changed?

 

No. I'm arguing that the Democratic base is just as !@#$ed up as the republican base so pot meet kettle.

 

asked and answered. see the newsroom thread. there's no inconsistency there. he's on the right side of issues the vast majority of times. the koch's- almost invariably the wrong side

 

And that's where you fail.