My wife and I busted up on that video. Thanks for sharing.

[url=www.theonion.com/articles/reince-priebus-forced-back-into-ancient-puzzle-box,29803/]GOP Fundraiser in Disarray After RNC Chairman Reince Priebus Forced Back Into Ancient Puzzle Box After Being Tricked Into Saying Name Backwards[/url]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;313962]WRT Mister Romney, we wonder:
[LIST][*]What thought process even gets you to consider, let alone even say, the "47%" remark? That was not an offhand remark. A lot of thought went into it.[/LIST][/QUOTE]

Actually, what he said says a lot about the man and his thought processes.

A lot of thought [U][I]didn't[/I][/U] go into his response. This is what he actually believes.

[url]http://www.cracked.com/blog/ndaa-biggest-election-issue-no-ones-talking-about/[/url]

[quote]Given the counterterrorism provisions in the fairly recent National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), we currently live in a country where the government can pick up American citizens and detain them indefinitely without access to a lawyer or even a criminal trial. That means locked up forever without even the basic protections we afford to rapists and murderers.

"That can't be right," you say. "Such a power would be completely unconstitutional!"

And you're right. Even President Obama said he had "serious reservations with certain provisions [of the bill] that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists." And then he signed it.

But the point is not just to beat up on the president. After all, Governor Romney did that for 90 minutes in last Wednesday's debate without a single mention of these NDAA provisions. That's because the NDAA will persist under a Romney administration as well. That's right: Regardless of who wins in November, your lingering notions of living in a country that is free and democratic can best be described as "quaint" and "wrong."[/quote]

[QUOTE=chalsall;314113]Actually, what he said says a lot about the man and his thought processes.

A lot of thought [U][I]didn't[/I][/U] go into his response. This is what he actually believes.[/QUOTE]

I prefer to draw conclusions based on the actual *result* of policy our elected representatives have pushed forward while governing, as opposed to comments they’ve thrown out to encourage political contributions from [anyone able to write the check, celebrity or not].

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-wont-pursue-abortion-laws-022009128.html[/url]

:confus:

[QUOTE=AES;314122]I prefer to draw conclusions based on the actual *result* of policy our elected representatives have pushed forward while governing, as opposed to comments they’ve thrown out to encourage political contributions from [anyone able to write the check, celebrity or not].[/QUOTE]

But I would argue it is important to understand the biases which any official has.

Romney thought he was "off record" when he talked about the 47%. Yes, he might have been trying to sell himself to the rich audience who would resonate with what he was saying, but a politician must realize they are [U][I]never[/I][/U] off record.

An interesting parallel occurred in Canada recently. A Bill was before their Parliament which would have re-opened the debate as to when life begins. This, of course, would have possibly lead to further limiting how far into a pregnancy a woman could legally have an abortion.

While the Prime Minister, a Mormon, voted against the bill for political reasons, his Minister Responsible for Women, Ms. Ambrose, voted for it.

The Bill failed to pass, but there is a lot of debate going on right now in Canada as to the appropriateness of Ms. Ambrose being in the position she is in.

don't [URL="http://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-remind-romney-abortion-pledge-192509554--election.html"]they[/URL] know they only have to wait a few months for Romney to completely return to their point of view?

[QUOTE=chappy;314197]don't [URL="http://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-remind-romney-abortion-pledge-192509554--election.html"]they[/URL] know they only have to wait a few months for Romney to completely return to their point of view?[/QUOTE]

Of course they know that.

The question is will he be President at that time? Or leader of the Opposition?

Or, a more reasonable explanation, is that Romney was simply telling the truth. He doesn't currently know of any legislation, nor has he (over the past 6+ months of campaigning) put forth any legislation, on abortion issues. Parsimony.

Edited to add: And even if we take his pledge to do all he can to promote life to mean that he must have legislation on abortion as part of his platform; I just don't see this as even close to the kind of broken promises on the other side.

Yeah, the more I read on this, the more it seems like a manufactured controversy. It will probably work though. *shrug*

Now, how about talking about a real issue. Libya anyone?