-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 228 comments
Political Hay
P90X Politics
The media gets physical with the studly Paul Ryan — anything to avoid dealing with the substance of the Ryan/Romney ticket.
Even fitness guru Tony Horton couldn’t have imagined the transformation he helped generate, the political alchemy of turning House Budget Committee Chairman and vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-WI) from a self-described policy wonk into the studliest guy on a presidential ticket since JFK.
At least that’s what you’d think if you paid attention to the news media or the Internet over the past week.
Last Monday, the Washington Post, Politico.com, and hundreds of websites posted a graphic from Google noting that the second most common search term related to Paul Ryan was “shirtless.”
I couldn’t get myself to try that particular search, but I do note that a Google search of “Paul Ryan P90X” turns up hundreds of results.
On Thursday night, CNN’s Piers “half as many viewers as Rachel Maddow” Morgan interviewed Tony Horton, the creator of the P90X workout program, trying in the most desperate way to get the personal trainer to say something bad about Paul Ryan.
After showing a photo of Paul Ryan on the campaign trail eating a very yummy looking lunch, Morgan, who doesn’t look like the heart-healthiest guy around, offered this deep insight: “Now that is one of the biggest hot dogs I’ve ever seen. Massive amount of fries around him. Looks like a lot of Cokes as well. Now that’s a bad move, isn’t it?” Horton wouldn’t bite, if you’ll pardon the pun.
An apparently envious Morgan also suggested that Ryan was either obsessive or unhealthy to have such low body fat and even asked Horton whether Ryan “was a good payer,” to which Horton replied that he worked with various members of Congress free of charge.
Websites including the LA Times, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Daily Beast, the UK Daily Mail, and even the Cato Institute have comments along the lines of “Ryan’s 6 to 8 percent body fat.”
CNBC also interviewed Tony Horton on Friday morning. “Squawk on the Street” co-host Melissa Lee (a 37-year old Harvard College grad who hosted a CNBC special on “Porn: The Business of Pleasure” and apparently knows a hottie when she sees one) began the discussion saying “before the budget plan there was a beach body…the man behind the physique is Tony Horton.” (Apparently the Ryan rush is helping P90X business during what is usually the slowest time of the year for sales, showing that just by having fun Ryan does more to help the economy than Barack Obama does when he’s actually trying.)
And you know you’ve made it as an A-list hot-body celeb when TMZ.com trumpets having a photo of you, as that site did on Friday with a posting entitled “The Topless Photo” showing Ryan and his wife, Janna, in swimsuits several years ago. (One wonders what she thinks of Paul’s being feted for his looks.) TMZ, which is generally a much better source of information than Piers Morgan is, notes that Paul’s “bod ain’t bad in the pic” (taken “right before Ryan got hooked on the P90X workout”) but that “Ryan has totally transformed his midsection in the past couple of years… and how he’s totally shredded with a killer 6-pack.”
How long until Paul Ryan has paparazzi outside of the D.C. political press corps? How long until he’s asked to pose for Men’s Health magazine, if not (à la Scott “America’s Sexiest Man” Brown) for Cosmo?
The Ryan-body-obsessed Washington Post posted a photo of occasional “fashion twins” Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan from behind, basically centering on their posteriors. Can you imagine the outcry from feminists if a photo was published of a female candidate’s body, taken from behind and centering on her rear end — no matter how appealing — and not showing her head? The screams of “objectifying women!” would be deafening. I trust Romney and Ryan take no such insult, and Tony Horton is taking the whole uproar all the way to the bank.
The Obama campaign team, and particularly his henchwomen Stephanie “Never Heard of Joe Soptic” Cutter and Debbie “Never Heard of Bill Burton” Wasserman Schultz, must feel that they’ve gone through the political looking glass. They now live in a dystopian nightmare in which Paul Ryan metamorphosizes, reverse-Gregor-Samsa-like, from a creature who wants to eat senior citizens into someone who might remind voters — most dangerously women and young adults — that Barack Obama is not the only “cool” or “sexy” guy in politics.
Could it really be, Cutter-Wasserman might be asking herselves, that that Paul Ryan is being changed in the eyes of voters from a heartless safety-net-shredding radical into an object of desire or — dare I say it without feeling that even I have finally gone too far? — a real person, a human we can relate to, if perhaps on the slightly extraordinary side of ordinary?
Ryan has been transformed in less than a week, with the help of the liberal media, into a potential negative for Republicans (on a Mediscare basis, though Ryan himself is certainly unafraid of the debate) into the most unlikely competition for Barack Obama in terms of personal likeability. I say unlikely not because Paul Ryan isn’t likeable; having known him for more than a decade, I can state with certainty that he is extremely likeable. But unlikely because anything close to a Republican VP candidate’s personal likeability should have been, and certainly was, the furthest thing from the minds — or at least the mouths — of those television and newspaper pundits and reporters who have so much invested in Barack Obama, both professionally and emotionally.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (224) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/20/p90x-politics
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi| 8.20.12 @ 6:31AM
Ryan seems to be a man of substance. He seems to have a lot more upstairs then other pretty Vice Presidential candidates, like Sarah Palin or Dan Quale who did not seem to be quick on their feet. Obama has been a terrrible President. Romney has to show the people that he can run the country better. I always thought Romney could get elected. I have always questioned if he could sell the deal. He has 2 and a half months to do it. So far I see a very close election.
Aristocat| 8.20.12 @ 7:37AM
Ryan was such a brilliant choice....I was for Rubio, but he has been in the Senate less than two years, and his being on the ticket would have made immigration the issue, which is a loser for Republicans....
For the first time in history, there is no Protestant on either ticket....a Mormon and a Catholic on the Republican ticket, and a Muslim and an apostate, pro-abortion former Catholic on the Democrap ticket...Take your choice, America...
Eddie P.| 8.20.12 @ 9:21AM
Drunken Republican Congressman Swims Naked in Sea of Galilee
A group of Republican congressmen visiting Israel last summer enjoyed a late night of drinking at the Sea of Galilee that included swimming and, in the case of Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kansas, a little skinny dipping in the place where the Bible says Jesus walked on water.
Horrors!
Had Yoder been a Democrat Am/Spec and all of its readers would have foamed and the mouth screamed "Sacrilege," and quoted the Bible and raged on and on. But since it was a Republican who defiled the holy spot . . . silence. Complete silence.
Occam's Tool| 8.20.12 @ 11:04AM
How did he vote on Obamacare? I don't care about the skinny dipping, just like I shouldn't care about Clinton's escapades, right, Eddie?
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 4:18PM
Yeah, Eddie.
Where we're you on the whole RAPE thing, with Billy Boy?
Was that just "His Private life" and "Between him and his wife"?
What about the Indecent Exposure Suit, filed by a woman that he pulled his pants down, after having just met her?
What about his Phone Sex, Oral Sex, and his using of a Fat Intern, as his personal Humidor?
You okay with that?
His Molestation of Kathleen Willey, as her Husband lay Dying?
His 11 Year Affair with a Club Singer, during his 12 Year Marraige?
Where do YOU draw the line Eddie?
Skinny Dipping?
You gotta be Fckng kidding me.
GTF outa here.
Drunken Sailor| 8.20.12 @ 11:56AM
Please explain how he "defiled the holy spot". Since there are public beaches all over this sea, it couldn't have been by swimming in it. And if it was the nudity, well that was stupid but I highly doubt sacrilegous. I'm pretty sure not many bathing suites were worn in biblical times.
And considering almost a year ago a thousand Israelies stripped down for a art piece at the Dead Sea I highly doubt they were offended either.
http://www.jpost.com/HealthAnd.....?id=238177
Doctor Right| 8.20.12 @ 12:12PM
Is that ALL you got, Eddie??
Better get used to the following phrase: "President Romney."
JimP| 8.20.12 @ 5:06PM
I missed this story. Was it big news at all the MSM outlets? I'm sure I would have raised a fuss if I had heard about it./s
JmsA| 8.21.12 @ 9:20PM
As if you cared about anything holy.
Lyneuss Fields | 8.20.12 @ 10:53AM
The jig is up Jack. As the WSJ has already reported, Congressman Paul Ryan sought stimulus funds for Wisconsin in 2002. Google "Youtube" for the numerous videos--from conservative reporters--to support The Wall Street Journal’s assertion. Paul Ryan also received Social Security Survivor Benefits--after his father's untimely death-- which helped him attend college. By Ryan's own admission in these videos, government funds were critical for his family to maintain their way of life. For Ryan’s family excavation business--a going concern for over 100 years-- they have also sought government contracts, throughout the years, which Ryan now decries as wasteful spending. These are entitlements and government stimulus projects Ryan now seeks to rip-off from his fellow Americans--how precious Mr. Kaminsky! This is quite a tag-team Republican extremists have in 2012 and a testament to your termite's hypocrisy. Click below for a "documented" history of his running-mates filthy sect and "Ryan like-crimes" Mormons perpetrated on the American people throughout the 19th and 20th century and continue to perpetrate today.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......gious.html
Drunken Sailor| 8.20.12 @ 11:58AM
That is the best you can do? Pathetic.
Doctor Right| 8.20.12 @ 12:13PM
It's called utter and complete desperation.
Alej| 8.20.12 @ 12:54PM
"...his running-mates filthy sect and "Ryan like-crimes" Mormons perpetrated on the American people throughout the 19th and 20th century and continue to perpetrate today."
Disgusting comment.
Lyneuss Fields | 8.20.12 @ 1:20PM
Look you three boneheads, all this aberrant behavior by Mormon molesters is documents in their Comprehensive History and Journal of Discourses. The bottom line: Mormons turned the dime on themselves with their own sermons and proclamations (see Danite Manifesto or Salt Sermon). They believed their murder, extortion, polygamy and deceit was justified through divine prophecy of Smith Jr. and Brother Brigham.
As for Paul Ryan’s Ayn Rand stunt, the American electorate has video evidence he's a fraud, liar and Panderer.
Drunken Sailor| 8.20.12 @ 2:27PM
So go vote for Obama then boneheaded religious bigot.
Lyneuss Fields | 8.20.12 @ 2:48PM
When you come down off your "load" Sailor, you might consider that I do detest President Obama's lack of leadership. For example, with his ACA had he shown leadership, Americans probably would have had a single-payer system. That means there would be no blood-sucking leaches like The American drug and pharmaceutical corporations. But alas, his bumbling is good for all you bonehead, extremist, misogyny-stoned Republicans.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......ative.html
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 3:12PM
Blood-sucking leaches?
That would be the ambulance-chasing trial-lawyers, like your failed 2004 Vice-presidential nominee, the pig Johnny Edwards. Would it not, L.F.?
Lyneuss Fields | 8.20.12 @ 4:39PM
I'd spit in your eye! Trial lawyers are money-grubbing scum of the earth. But America’s adversarial system of law also fuels the abuse. Everybody talks about justice, but the bottom line is money and winning.
John Edwards long ago exposed himself as more than just s sexual pervert. Personally, I heard him and Clinton are second cousins--no shit; those Southern roots go deep (pun intended). But like Ryan, Edwards was also is a hypocrite with regard to his political positions; but unlike Clinton, he came across as a loyal husband.
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 6:34PM
"I'd spit in your eye!"
And, you'd be missing some teeth.
Lyneuss Fields | 8.20.12 @ 9:16PM
Hey Nick, my comment wasn't fair, and I did not mean it literally. But Republicans are in deep inside the doggy pound on this one. Now Michael Steel is even conceding, again for the second General Election in a row, the nominee for President (yes I mean Romney) has failed to vet his vice-presidential pick. Ryan has been in Congress for 12 years and there's plenty of video of him stumping for W. Bushes 2002 stimulus. Even saying how stimulus will help the unemployed and boost America’s economy, this is so devastating for all you tea baggers!
Drunken Sailor| 8.20.12 @ 3:15PM
Single payer system. So your mad he isnt a competent radical liberal leader?
And I read your blog. You'r aluminum foil is on a tad too tight.
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 4:21PM
Which goes perfectly, with his sphincter.
Lyneuss Fields | 8.20.12 @ 5:03PM
When you say Liberal, do you mean a Radical like Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves?
As an American veteran, I love going to the VA (a single-payer system). This way, I don't have to deal with some blood-sucking insurance corporation's professional bamboozler. How about you Sailor, or do you get your healthcare from the bottom of a bottle?
Drunken Sailor| 8.20.12 @ 5:12PM
Nice try but I also am a Vet. The difference is I retired, use Tricare and pay my deductible.
And I mean Liberal as in progrissive. Which you obviously are.
Lyneuss Fields | 8.20.12 @ 5:27PM
I am not! I'm rubber and you're glue; what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
Skippy| 8.21.12 @ 6:44PM
"I am not! I'm rubber and you're glue; what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you."
Did you really just say that?
Lyneuss Fields | 8.22.12 @ 7:36PM
Look, all you boneheads can live in denial, but you cannot refute documented evidence or the facts that are established from observation by scores of historians. Since I was 8 years old, the Mormon sect and Priesthood holders like Mitt Romney molested my family. Ultimately, my Catholic father committed suicide after his family had been indoctrinated. He didn't have Mormonism's Comprehensive History or Journal of Discourses to defend his family from my zealot mother or this filthy sect.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......gious.html
Anthony| 8.20.12 @ 1:21PM
Jack, What faint compliments you offer to the team!!! You can't stop fixating on Gov. Palin, and you're still in lock-step with the lefy media about Dan Quale.
And Ryan is perhaps almost as qualified as Joe Biteme, is that about right, Jack?
You have a real losers mentality, or should I say, you would have made a great collaborater with any invading army, especially one whose mission was the extermination of Jews.
You would be the last guy I'd want to share a fox hole with.
Jack in Wi| 8.20.12 @ 3:17PM
I have a picture of myself and the Mrs. with Dan Quale, I looked in his big blue eyes and saw the vacancy sign on the back of his head. Sarah could have been somebody too if she could tell Katie Couric any publication that she read. Really Sarah and her family was a moving target for some vicious smears. I could forgive her for a lot except her continuing hawking for Neocon wars. She just can't figure it out.
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 3:44PM
And you have a picture of your grandpa with your hero, Herr Hitler, at the beer hall, don't you, Jackboot the Nazi?
Tell us again how Hitler was such a friend of the Jews, because he wanted to ship them all to Madagascar? Or, what a mench Adolph was for not starting the "Final Solution" until 1942?
Anti-Semitic schweinhund.
Jack in Wi| 8.20.12 @ 5:52PM
George Nick, phoney warmongering Catholic, who pushes Israeli war crimes everyday on this site. Get this straight your racist hero Binny Netanyahu is pushing the world into a world war far worse then the one Hitler started. I believe in the universal brotherhood of man and Peace. I follow Jesus Christ who said. Blessed are the peacemakers. He also said. Those who live by the swaord will die by the sword. Quit with your nasty warmongering, hate, and racism against Muslims and Arabs.
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 6:08PM
You follow your hero, Adolph Hitler, Jackboot the Nazi.
Quit your love affair with terrorists and killers of women & children.
spike59| 8.20.12 @ 4:59PM
Jackie, if Quayle's memory of your glorious moment is more detailed than 'some drooling loser begged me to take a picture with him and his inbred cousin', i'll be surprised...
Jack in Wi| 8.20.12 @ 5:47PM
I got my picture with Quale by being a huge money supporter of the Republican Party. I also have my picture with many others, including twice with Barbara and George Bush. I also have pictures of myself with William F. Buckley, Oliver North and many local politicians. Hell they used to put me up next to the main speaker at some of these events. I sat next to William F. Buckley and Charleton Heston at a couple events. I more then held my own in conversation with them too.
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 5:59PM
Suuuuurrrrre...you did, Jackboot the Nazi.
It's more likely that you took pictures with Mengele & Eichmann as kid, scheizekopf.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 8.20.12 @ 6:05PM
"I got my picture with Quale by being a huge money supporter of the Republican Party. I also have my picture with many others, including twice with Barbara and George Bush. I also have pictures of myself with William F. Buckley, Oliver North and many local politicians. Hell they used to put me up next to the main speaker at some of these events. I sat next to William F. Buckley and Charleton Heston "
WFB is the only heavyweight above.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 8.20.12 @ 6:03PM
Ryan is a pro-life fanatic.
Skippy| 8.21.12 @ 6:53PM
As opposed to the pro-death fanatical muslim maggot at 1600 Pa. Ave?
Say it with me now: Vice President Ryan.
Joellen| 8.20.12 @ 6:33AM
Dont give the Obama media any slack, for if I recall they ran a nausating picture of Obama on the beach. I happened to think Obama has a saggy chest, and is skinny with no defination, but the way the worthless press portrayed him - OOLALA. So, to keep in the spirit of this article, let's put up a photo of Obama & Ryan - let's see who wins in the pin up category alone. Guess where my vote is? And to make it more interesting, let's put up pictures of Michelle, Obama & Congressman Ryan - how fun. And then lets get down to the nitty gritty and vote a landslide Romney & Ryan in November.
Aristocat| 8.20.12 @ 7:41AM
Ann Romney will restore a sense of dignity and patriotism to the White House, which has been so sorely lacking for the past 4 years...
Hardcard| 8.20.12 @ 7:22AM
Paul Ryan is honest, smart, and can kick some ass if need be.
Jack of Spades| 8.20.12 @ 7:53AM
Well, we now know why Chris Christie would have made a poor choice.
Kaminski is on to something when he mentions Ryan's studliness as a threat to Obama. Superficial as it was, Obama's charisma was a huge part of his political popularity. Aided, I might add, by media attempts to make him out to be some kind of Adonis. Now he's not only damaged goods politically, but he's now the equivalent of last year's boy band. And that's gotta hurt.
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 8:36AM
That was, quite possibly, the Stupidest thing you've ever written. Obviously, they're paying you by the word, and not for any semblance of Cogient Thought. All you left out was a synopsis of your latest foray in to one of the World's Mosquito/Malaria/Malnutrition Vacation hot spots, where you need a Shot for every Disease, known to man, before you can get on the Plane. And the Hot Baths consist of You, the Water, and an assortment of local Vegetables, associated with that particular Region of the World.
Seriously.
That's all you've got?
Obviously, you're Beautiful new Wife's maiden name is Tyrrell.
It has to be.
Ross Kaminsky| 8.20.12 @ 11:19AM
Tim, you should get a passport and try exploring the world sometime. Doing so does not make one less American.
You may not care, but I think there's a lot more to the world than just the US...and I've been to all but two states. For me, it's important to take my children traveling as my parents did with me.
It's funny how you think it's sensible to criticize me for it where it would never occur to me to criticize someone for where they choose to travel.
Not sure whether you're narrow-minded or jealous or just a generally bitter person, but it's yours to bear, not mine.
(And I am not paid by the word.)
Doctor Right| 8.20.12 @ 12:17PM
Timmy thinks HE gets paid by-the-word...
That's why he usually uses 6 paragraphs of rants to say what anyone else could say in 1-2 sentences.
FYI, Ross, he's still waiting for his check from TASOnline...
...Do you have the heart to tell him?
C'mon Man!| 8.20.12 @ 1:58PM
Ross, Tim may be a little gruff, but we conservatives have taken liberal punches long enough. We need more Tim/Rocky types who are tired of being the whipping boy and stand up and fight. I for one am not going to criticize him for what may be a poor choice of words at times, since political correctness has been used so much to shut us up.
I love reading both of you. You have numerous facts and insight that are helpful, he has great one liners and attacking insights. We need them both.
Ross Kaminsky| 8.20.12 @ 2:44PM
I hear ya...but you will notice that Tim's comment was essentially a personal attack on me. Which is fine, but sort of a waste of time, and I do think his obsession with where I travel is somewhat neurotic.
When he sticks to the issues, I think he often has valuable or interesting comments.
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 4:31PM
Stop being a Baby, for crying out loud.
It was a Stupid Column.
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 4:33PM
Yours.
Not mine.
Ross Kaminsky| 8.20.12 @ 4:39PM
Tim, I'm sorry but somehow your prior comment which included inappropriate language seems to have disappeared. I wonder how that could have happened.
Suzyqpie| 8.22.12 @ 5:46AM
Hi Ross, I'll bite, what two states have you missed? I approve your writing and love the comments section it inspires.
wukong| 8.20.12 @ 8:46AM
There seems to be a herd of blonds (bottle?) that seem to decide life's options via the wet panties syndrome. I say casually and subtily go for it.
c. j. acworth| 8.20.12 @ 8:22AM
It looks to me as if Obama can also claim 6-8% body fat. Trouble is, it's mostly between his jug ears.
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 8:39AM
Now THAT is a Story!
Von Mises Jr| 8.20.12 @ 8:24AM
The MSM and liberals must talk about calories and abs since they are not smart enough to talk about economics and finance, no less history and governance.
They are counting on the public being as ignorant and shallow as they are. But Rush may get as many as 50M listeners while CNN has an average of a few thousand audience, NYT had major layoffs and Newsweek sold for $1.
I think the public is smarter than the MSM think while they are NOT Smarter than a Fifth Grader.
C. S. P. Schofield| 8.20.12 @ 8:58AM
Not that the Main Stream Media isn't an all around embarrassment, but this has pretty much always been true of reporters. The rare exceptions (Mencken springs to mind) have tended to be autodidacts of considerable wattage, and eccentric opinion; well worth reading, but often not reliable barometers of reality.
The MSM are worse, though. They have the lack of depth of the old school combined with a prissy pride in their non-existent expertise.
pogybait| 8.20.12 @ 9:13AM
Von, check out the latest opinion from Paul Krugman at the NY Times. I believe he has just come back from the re-education media camp complete with talking points...
Al Adab| 8.20.12 @ 9:28AM
When will the all too gentlemanly GOP find the spine to take the battle to the DEMs? To campaign above the fray while allowing the attack dogs to go uncontested; to not attack and leave the field of demagogury to the DEMs is the road to defeat.
Jacob McCandles| 8.20.12 @ 8:25AM
People, particularly women, cast their votes for the strangest reasons. Any doubts about this- look at the exit questionnaires and various on the street interviews. People generally don't know the issues or the candidates
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 8:38AM
Go get a TV Guide.
It's worse that you think.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 12:02PM
Being listed first on the ballot has proven to be a statistically significant advantage.
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 4:34PM
Yeah.
It's like the Drive up window, for the Lazy among us.
JimP| 8.20.12 @ 9:41AM
Thanks to Ross for writing this column. I had missed this entire meme taking place. The irony in all this is roll on the floor funny. Ryan should have no problem getting the Democrat women's votes since they much prefer bods over brains anyway, as evidence by their swooning over Obama in 2008. After the Romney/Ryan victory- hopefully- I bet the Dems will claim Ryan's P90X 'manly musk' as a dirty trick played against them. Republicans are always and forever acting like Nixon, are they not? Tony Horton better watch out, the Dems may try to ban his exercise routines.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.20.12 @ 9:41AM
The next time a conservative or even Republican expresses doubts about Romney's toughness or his commitment to changing the country's track, I suggest they take a deep breath.
Over the last week and more Ryan has completely overshadowed Romney, and have you noticed Romney is just tickled pink about it. Heh, his stance has been "you sic-em boy" .
I still believe Sarah could hav dragged McCain across the finish line if the campaign had turned her loose. Oh well. I don't think Romney is that stupid...or insecure.
I can't get it out of my head.....Ryan aways personifies Superboy character in the long running series.
Occam's Tool| 8.20.12 @ 11:02AM
Romney is an excellent manager. One of the things about being an excellent manager is to recognize and cultivate talent. The comparison between Romney and Obama and Ryan and Biden, couldn't be greater. Obama gets rid of competent people.
Al Adab| 8.20.12 @ 11:13AM
Ken continues to be right on this point. Ryan has energized the campaign in a way Romney cannot. My concer is still that the GOP just wants to manage the social-welfare state better rather than fundamentally transform it. Maybe we casnnot campaign in that, but it should be the underlying policy. I'll take a deep breath Ken and utter many prayers for the future of our country.
irish19| 8.20.12 @ 12:59PM
It took a long time to get where we are. The social-welfare juggernaut has to be stopped before it can be transformed. Getting zero out and taking control of the Senate is only the first step.
Alej| 8.20.12 @ 1:00PM
Agreed... Romney will be the leader/manager, and Ryan the junkyard dog... complementary styles and abilities... the definition of a team.
Prester John| 8.20.12 @ 10:23AM
I wonder how many of the women who voted for John Edwards because of his hair will vote for Ryan because of his abs?
Who Knows?| 8.20.12 @ 10:35AM
Actions speak louder than words.
That’s Ryan.
I was totally delighted to hear he was chosen to be Romney’s veep. One of the first things about him that I read, that he used to work in a fitness center and he worked out, really got my attention.
What a twofer!
Here we have a young and vital man, who’s played by the rules by being a hard worker with brains, AND who’s smart enough to also work hard enough on his body to keep it in tiptop shape. What’s direly needed by most individuals, especially bodily, is discipline. And, of course, the special expertise Ryan has built through years of study, about the economy, needs to be applied with alacrity.
Discipline is so essential!
It’s about time we had some leaders who walk the talk, instead of so many jackasses like Bitin’-Obama!
Clarity is good.
So, Newsweek has a cover saying we need a new president.
Think of this as a tiny hole poked in the dam holding back all the truths about Obama and his band of liars. Oh, may the cracks spread asap!
Maybe the competition among the MSM will fight to stand out in exposing BHO---a to be hoped for change.
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 4:38PM
Nah.
It's like putting Rush on the Cover.
They're just trying to sell their Gas Station Mens Room, Dentist Waiting Room RAG.
Wait'll next week.
You'll see.
cicero| 8.20.12 @ 10:36AM
With Ryan on the ticket to explain the specifics, Romney need only stay on message. He has already stated that he will balance the budget without raising taxes. He has already said that he will reduce the deficit. If he merely comes to the table with a balanced budget in the first term of his administration, the ecomony and the increased revenues will pay down the deficit. Ryan's ability to explain the financing of the federal government will take the mystery out of the story, even for the least aware of the voting public. At that point, Harry Reid, and the Obama administration will have to do more that shout slogans. They will have to explain why they have not produced a budget in 4 years, and what happened to the trillion in stimulous funds. They may even be forced to explain why they gave GM and Chrysler all those billions just before they filed for bankruptcy.
Simon Templar| 8.20.12 @ 10:36AM
Read this article. For those truly interested in knowing the whole story of Ryan, read it.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....DJHb6PSik0
There is no doubt we will vote for this ticket but the work to turn this nation around to its founding principle is far from done after that and as conservatives we should be cautious and not fooled again! They need to be held accountable and the Tea Party needs to keep them honest.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 5:17PM
Interesting article. I see it as a credit to Ryan. Like many conservatives, his ideas have been shaped in part by experience with the alternative. He followed the TARP line, then saw how badly such things end, and said "never again!"
Bob S| 8.20.12 @ 10:55AM
He helps boost the economy too, just look at how much gun sales have increased over the past three years.
Eddie P.| 8.20.12 @ 10:59AM
GOP Concept of Women and Rape
Missouri Republican Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin says, "if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
Akin is representative of the GOP we have today.
He is a classic Islamist-Republican, seeing women entirely as temptations for men who somehow have responsibility for their fate even when being raped. Women are entirely objects - their lives and crises simply requiring an air-brush to keep the whole neurotic ideology intact.
Occam's Tool| 8.20.12 @ 11:06AM
And Obama voted for throwing a living baby into a trashcan if the abortion failed, Eddie. Which is worse?
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 11:17AM
Bullshit he did.
George True| 8.20.12 @ 11:48AM
Eddie got the details slightly wrong. Obama not only voted for, but was the one who pushed through a bill to leave the live baby who survived the abortion in a room with no food or water or care until he died, and then throw the baby's body in a trash can. Look it up, stooge.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 12:07PM
I did look it up, George, that's how I know the claim is bullshit. Obama neither voted for, nor pushed through, a bill allowing babies to be thrown in trash cans. That was at the time, and still is, a felony in Illinois. (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm) Whoops! Looks like you didn't look it up!
Jack James| 8.20.12 @ 12:19PM
You are so in the tank for President Obama, that you automatically assume that a bill he voted for was passed. Fortunately, other state senators were more thoughtful, and the bill failed. Even though The One voted for it.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 1:37PM
Which bill was it? You should be able to show me, right? I'll save you some time and tell you that it doesn't exist, but feel free to show me I'm wrong.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 2:51PM
Democrats have an amazing capacity to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions - in their own minds, anyway.
In this case, they think that voting for a law doesn't make them responsible for the most direct consequences of that law. In other cases, they think that businesses' inevitable responses to Democratic legislation are the businesses' faults, not the Democrats.
Of course, they're hypocrites about it. If a Republican presidential candidate is tangentially involved in a chain of events that correlates with a woman dying of cancer, then of course it's fair to blame him!
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 2:48PM
The Illinois law, which you are relying on, DRed, is irrelevant.
The SOCTUS decision Doe v. Bolton (the companion case to Roe) enshrined abortion on demand through all THREE trimesters of the pregnancy.
Because of the "for the life, or health, of the mother" language it contained.
If you got your link to the IL law from one of your favorites, FactCheck.org, then you should have read that they said O'Bama was...."WRONG"!, in his bogus contention that he opposed IL SB 1082 because it was different than the federal BAIPA.
For those interested, IL state senator O'Bama continuously voted against any legislation that defined a so-called "pre-viable" baby born during an abortion as a "person."
Because O'Bama is beholden, & a slave, to the abortion industry.
Read all about here:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/.....fanticide/
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 3:44PM
No, abortion on demand for all three trimesters was not enshrined by Doe. No, that case has no bearing on the Illinois law requiring a doctor to care for an infant that survives a botched abortion. Try to stay on topic, Nick.
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 4:03PM
You are WRONG and WRONG, DRed.
First, do some research on Roe & Doe.
Next, the IL state law, that you linked to, didn't make much sense, anyway. There were several loopholes in that law. The abortionist could decide if a physician was required to be there, or not.
Then, there was this little gem:
"(4) (a) Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable possibility of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus."
Abortion is the deliberate killing of a fetus (Latin for unborn baby.) There is no "method of abortion" that will "preserve the life and health of the fetus [Latin for unborn baby]."
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 4:24PM
I've read both Roe & Doe. This is the important language from Roe: "With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother." You're clearly wrong.
(4)(a) has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Try to stay on topic.
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 5:41PM
You may have read them, DRed, but, you obviously haven't studied them, or, the subject.
So, you are WRONG!, yet, again.
Here is the relevant language, from Doe, that defines the post-viability health exceptions:
"The medical judgment [for a late-term abortion] may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age—relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman." (Emphasis mine.)
Doe v. Bolton removed any state restrictions on late-term abortions, thus, abortion on demand.
You may educate yourself further at these two links:
http://www.mccl.org/page.aspx?pid=323
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....d-forsythe
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 6:29PM
States can and do restrict late term abortions. If you need to get a doctor to declare that your abortion is medically necessary, that is by definition not abortion on demand.
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 6:49PM
WRONG, again, DRed.
You must also believe that getting a doctor's permission for "medical" marijuana is an impediment, too, huh?
Why do you always turn to obtuseness when you have been shown to be WRONG! over, and over, again?
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 7:09PM
How do I get an on demand third trimester abortion in, say, Texas?
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 8:21PM
The same way you do in the rest of the country, DRed.
Get a note from a doctor.
Planned Parenthood will find you one.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 8:28PM
If I need a 'note' from my doctor, it's not on demand, is it? You're being obtuse. How often do doctors give out these notes? They passing them out like candy down in Texas?
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 11:39PM
I don't know, DRed, I haven't tried to procure an abortion in Texas lately. Have you?
Are you saying that getting recommendation from some pro-abort doctor is a "restriction"?
Ever since Gov. Ronald Reagan signed abortion into law in California back in the 1960s, with a "health of the mother" exception, doctors have been giving recommendations for abortions. Whether the baby was viable, or not.
Whether the mother had health problems, or not.
All the doctor has to claim is that having the baby will cause the mother psychological problems, and, presto!, she can have an abortion in her ninth month. Ask Occam, next time you see him post.
You don't know what your talking about, on this subject, DRed.
DRed| 8.21.12 @ 11:18AM
Yeah, it is. It's certainly not abortion on demand. Assuming the existence of pro-abortion doctors who will find a late term abortion medically necessary for anyone, you'd still have to find such a doctor and be able to afford to travel to him or her. Which is not abortion on demand.
Presto! Abortion in the ninth month for a psychological problem. When was the last time that happened in America? Give me your source. How often do abortions for the psychological health of the mother occur?
Nick| 8.21.12 @ 7:37PM
Now traveling is a restriction, DRed?
Where is that in either opinion?
Should the government provide transportation for the abortionist to the mother's home?
It is abortion on demand. Your semantic games, notwithstanding.
Tell you what....you spend the next 15 years studying the issue of abortion, from both sides, and then get back to me, okay?
DRed| 8.22.12 @ 3:01PM
It's not a fucking semantic game. Factually, semantically, any way you want to slice it, an abortion that you can't get merely by demanding it, is not an abortion on demand. If a woman seeking a late term abortion can't get a doctor to say that she needs an abortion for her health, does she get one? No. So how is that abortion on demand? It's amazing to watch you twist yourself into pretzels to try to get around this.
Wait-I bet now you're going to back to claiming that doctors are handing out 'notes' to women for abortions for psychological reasons all the time, right? So you've got evidence to support that, right? Let's have a look at it.
ps
You didn't need the comma between games and notwithstanding.
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 2:55PM
Check out these quotes from President "You Didn't Build That!", from '01 & '02:
"Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.
"Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."
O'Bama only cares about keeping abortion on demand legal through all three trimesters of pregnancy.
Some liberals, like Babs "The Troll" Boxer want abortion after the baby is born, too.
Eddie P.| 8.20.12 @ 12:17PM
You mean fetus, not baby. Fetus.
Doctor Right| 8.20.12 @ 12:20PM
No, idiot-boy...We mean "BABY."
Do you know the difference between a "baby" and a "fetus," Eddie?
One is wanted; the other is not.
Simple as that...and as sick as that.
If you support a woman's "right" to an abortion, you support the killing of unborn babies...
Simple as that...and as sick as that.
Al Adab| 8.20.12 @ 12:49PM
How many children have we sacrificed to the goddess Choice? If six million is a holocaust, what does 55MM make?
"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." T. Jefferson.
Jack in Wi| 8.20.12 @ 1:22PM
Fetus is the Latin word for baby. What do the Democrats stand for but abortion, homosex, sky high taxes, massive wasteful spending, big boated government unions and endless war? 52 years ago an illegimate baby was born in Hawai. His mother had every reason to abort him. He was interacial in a culture that dispised such kids. My mother had no right to kill me. Obama's mother didn't kill him. The Democrats are truely the party of death and taxes.
Jack London| 8.20.12 @ 1:45PM
Obama's parents were married when he was born. Taxes are very low in the US compared with other countries. It is not illegal to be gay or have an abortion as it once was - but clearly we still have anti-gay and ant-women bigots like you, unfortunately.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 2:48PM
Obama's parents were married while his mother was pregnant with him, it has never been illegal to be gay, and once again, the definition of "bigot" is not "disagreeing with Jack London".
Jack, once again you have problems with the truth.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 3:01PM
That is, they GOT married while she was pregnant with him.
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 3:04PM
Human life begins at conception, Eddie P. That is scientific fact. Look it up.
An unborn baby (fetus in Latin) has all the human rights that you or I have. It is incumbent on those who would violate the unborn baby's (fetus' in Latin) right to life.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 3:29PM
LIFE begins at conception, per every candidate definition of life the scientific community has produced. A zygote at conception is already considerably more advanced a creature than many other organisms, some single-celled, which are considered alive without question across all partisan boundaries.
That many are highly sensitive to their environments, including requiring incubation and symbiotic relationships with other organisms to sustain their life has never been considered cause to consider them not alive.
Furthermore, there is no scientific precedent for the concept of mid-lifecycle species change. Thus what is alive at conception is a HUMAN life.
The question politics introduces, then, is the start of PERSONHOOD, an artificial construct which has been created to embody a status beyond mere "human life". But why?
JD| 8.20.12 @ 3:29PM
As some claim to defend our poorest and weakest, these same people have created, unnecessarily, a distinction by which some human life can be considered invalid, worthless, and open to wanton destruction. Moreover, they have defined the transition out of this phase in an inconsistent and scientifically ludicrous way. Killing the unborn considered murder if the act is perpetrated by a non-mother's violent attack on the pregnant mother, but not if the same organism is killed by the will of the mother. Personhood on the whim of another? Hardly biologically sound! Also, a full-term baby may be killed if not yet born, but a months-premature baby may not be killed if already born, despite the latter being considerably less physically mature than the former. What a messy policy!
Overall, defining "birth" as a transition point smacks of primitive superstition akin to that which the Left condemns the Right for supposedly believing. "Oh we can SEE it now, now it's alive!" Really? That line of thinking should have died with the invention of the ultrasound.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 3:29PM
Reality is, the Left uses this definition for political convenience, not out of any sound reasoning or science. Any allowance for pre-birth personhood is seen as a slippery slope to earlier and earlier revisions of the start of personhood, even though logic says any woman should know she's pregnant fairly early on and make her choice (especially if we're jumping to the "rape or incest" line the Left always pulls out, nevermind that 99% of abortions today don't meet that criteria). Then they make straw man arguments like "should miscarriages be murder?", as if accidental deaths of the already-born are considered murder.
They can't formulate a rational explanation for why personhood should begin at birth that deals exclusively in the biology of the being in question. I've never even seen them try. They ALWAYS invoke the mother, and every way they do so is subject to the same fallacy: It justifies the murder of two-year-olds. A listing:
1. It can't survive without mother, so it's not an independent person.
2. It won't be loved, and may in fact be hated and resented, so it's better off dead.
3. Its death could save the life of mother (shall we kill our kids to harvest their organs, which are compatible with the parents who might need a life-saving transplant?)
All-in-all, we see yet again how one party is the party of reason and logic, and the other is the party of emotion, superstition, and enough hypocrisy to think the sides are reversed.
Al Adab| 8.20.12 @ 4:50PM
By all that we once held holy, the very fact that this issue is even subject to debate (the humanity of the unborn) proves conclusivly how far this society has fallen. It is nothing short of depravity that death can be covered in euphemisms.
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 3:35PM
Oops! That should've been: It is incumbent on those who would violate the unborn baby's (fetus' in Latin) right to life to present the justification for so doing.
cuban pete| 8.20.12 @ 11:55AM
Despite voting present on almost 200 items he voted yes on the Born Alive legislation.
In the 2008 debates he said when life began was "above his pay grade". If that is the case why did he not vote present on the Born Alive matter?
If the intrepid little person can survive the abortionist it is okay to crush her skull once she is outside the womb. This is unthinkable.
Drunken Sailor| 8.20.12 @ 12:06PM
"A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to their mothers. She alone should decide whether her baby lives or dies. Before voting "no" for a 2nd time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002,
Eddie P.| 8.20.12 @ 12:19PM
a fetus is a fetus is a fetus
no name, no mind, no personality, no personal identity, etc. & etc. ad nauseum
Doctor Right| 8.20.12 @ 12:23PM
Wrong again!
So are you a physiologist specializing in neo-natal development?
Do you know WHEN a brain begins to develop?
A mind?
If not (and you don't), then your support of child-killing is based on nothing but supposition.
That's not a good foundation for the truth. But then again, you're a liberal, so you have no concept of the truth.
Eddie P.| 8.20.12 @ 12:54PM
More disrespect for the rights of women coming from Sharia Republicans.
A fetus is a part of a woman's body, and she has the right to control her body. Stop screeching "killing babies." Use the phrase " terminating a pregnancy" instead.
Ever heard of emotionally-loaded language. You're full of it. Stop your adolescent screaming, and try a more intelligent tone. Try a little objectivity for a change.
Anthony| 8.20.12 @ 1:36PM
Sharia Republicans, is that what the dolt Eddie P. said?????Jeez, what a jackjass.
So when the Muslim Brotherhood starts beheading women who defy Sharia law in the USA in an Obozo 2nd term, does that qualify as "terminating a pregnancy", Eddie ole pal?
And when they scream in pain, do you wish for us to stop screeching that a woman has the right to control her body, including all the parts she might want intact?
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life Eddie.
But here's hoping the Brotherhood has a similar policy for useful idiots. What size neck did you once have Eddie?
JD| 8.20.12 @ 2:55PM
Eddie demands that we use his emotion-laden language instead of ours and sees no hypocrisy. Impressive.
Doctor Right| 8.20.12 @ 4:11PM
More glee and excitement expressed for the murder of innocent children from sick, twisted, Marxist Democrats.
Ever heard of logic? because you don't have it.
A Fetus is part of a woman's body?
Really??? Since when?
Al Adab| 8.20.12 @ 4:57PM
Eddie P:
If you understood Sari'a at all you would not so cavalierly use the term to insult republicans. Shari'a has much to say about homosexual acts as well and I think you would be hard pressed to find any on the republican or Conservative side wanting to enact that either. Study and show yourself approved before you spout nonsense.
Drunken Sailor| 8.20.12 @ 12:47PM
Didn't do much research did you Eddie? aborted babies from being shelved to die, was in reference to failed abortion attempts. Child was born. The act was to ban the stopping of medical aide to keep the child (outside the mothers womb) alive..
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 1:44PM
That (stopping or failing to provide medical aide) was, and is, illegal in Illinois for a child that survived an abortion attempt.
Cpm| 8.20.12 @ 2:18PM
But that didn't stop Obama, on one of the few times he actually cast a vote, from voting to make it legal.
Drunken Sailor| 8.20.12 @ 2:30PM
He voted to make it legal and it was defeated anyway. But spin it anyway you want. I live in the state he cast that vote in and knew his record before 2008.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 2:39PM
It's not spin to say that you're factually wrong. Show me the record of the vote.
Drunken Sailor| 8.20.12 @ 3:28PM
Since your to lazy to do your own research. Try this one.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/.....fanticide/
He voted against it many times, changed it, voted against it again, lied about it and got caught.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 4:51PM
Voted against it? I was told by someone who knows his record that he voted to make it legal and it was defeated anyway.
Drunken Sailor| 8.20.12 @ 5:17PM
Nice try, I see what your doing. He voted against the ban, in essence voting to make it legal to withhold medical aid to the now born child.
And here after I complimented you too.
George S| 8.20.12 @ 2:46PM
Then what was the purpose of the Illinois BAIPA Acts of 2001, 2002, and 2003? Were there any prosecutions against medical facilities for not tending to a live birth abortion?
Fact is, state Sen Obama voted no in the judiciary committee hearing and present on the floor for the 2001 bill. He voted no in both the hearing and the floor for the 2002 bill. In 2003, state Sen Obama was chair of the Health & Human Services Committee that voted to rewrite the statute to match the federal version. Obama then voted against his own amendment claiming it was "different" than the federal bill, otherwise he would have voted for it.
Bottom line: Obama never supported tending to a live birth abortion with medical care or protecting its unalienable rights as a person.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 3:00PM
Bottom line, when you said: "Obama not only voted for, but was the one who pushed through a bill to leave the live baby who survived the abortion in a room with no food or water or care until he died, and then throw the baby's body in a trash can. Look it up, stooge.", you were wrong about every point. Try looking things up first next time.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 3:07PM
The only point he was wrong about was "pushed through", since the bill failed.
As derived from the link Nick provided in response to your request:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/.....fanticide/
Obama did vote against a bill that would ban the abandonment of a live-born child after a failed abortion attempt. He also changed his story regarding the reason for his vote. First it was because it lacked language preventing it from impacting Roe v Wade. Then (because such language actually had existed) he changed to saying it was because it had different impacts as a state law than as a federal law (he gives no such quarter to Romney on Massachusetts health care...).
Bottom line is a federal bill identical to the one Obama voted against has passed with huge bipartisan support and become law, and Obama claims to like it now. So I guess he evolved again.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 3:27PM
He was also wrong about Obama voting for the bill, and he was wrong that the bill would permit a doctor to leave a live baby to die and be thrown in a trash can. So, he was wrong about everything.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 3:41PM
Are you saying he was wrong in saying Obama voted for it because Obama actually voted against a bill to ban it? Weak argument.
George S| 8.20.12 @ 3:27PM
I didn't say that...
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 3:29PM
ha. Well, it appears I was wrong about something as well, other George.
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 3:51PM
STOP THE PRESSES!!!
DRed admitted he was wrong.
Just between you and me, DRed, you got that link to the IL law from wiki? Am I right?
I'm still waiting for those names, dates, and sources, for your claim that a 5-year-old was murderd, and the mother raped, by the Contras.
Drunken Sailor| 8.20.12 @ 4:20PM
Give him credit. He will at least admit it unlike some of the trolls.
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 4:48PM
For me, Drunken Sailor, it is like pulling teeth.
I agree that DRed is much more like RCV, rather than Perp, Jack Moscow, or KooK of the Net.
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 4:43PM
Of course he did.
He Voted for that 3 TIMES, in the Illinois Senate.
It was called The Born Alive Bill.
Look it up.
Get off your Lazy, Partisan Ass, and go LOOK IT UP.
And, then get back to us.
You sound like a moron, with these kinds of statements.
"No he didn't."
You sound like His Bitch.
Be a MAN, and go look it up.
Now you owe me 3 Beers.
Ross Kaminsky| 8.20.12 @ 5:08PM
Tim has this basically right. (The language is confusing in that Obama opposed a bill, rather than voting for the bill.)
Three separate times, Obama opposed legislation that would have given rights to medical care to a baby born as the result of a botched/failed abortion, or more generally a baby which is born and which has vital signs separate from its mothers.
http://www.jillstanek.com/2008.....ction-act/
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ck-brennan
JD| 8.20.12 @ 5:39PM
I'd prefer that you had said "defended the rights of", not "given rights to".
Rights are not provided. They are protected. That is a crucial distinction the Left has lost. We should not use their propagandized language.
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 7:48PM
Apology accepted.
See you next year in Misquamicut.
As far as the "Confusing Laguage"?
Obama Voted FOR letting these Babies be thrown in to the Trash Can, as opposed to "No he Di-int" from DRed, whose becoming more of a waste of air, by the day.
Hey, DRed.
Put on a Dress, and a pair of Kneepads, and get it over, already.
Pathetic.
Doctor Right| 8.20.12 @ 12:18PM
Democrat concept of a President: Obama.
And that is exemplary of why your Party is going down to another flaming defeat in 2012, Eddie...
Doctor Right| 8.20.12 @ 12:24PM
Democrat Concept of Women and Rape:
1. Bill Clinton
2. JFK
3. Ted Kennedy
Jack in Wi| 8.20.12 @ 1:17PM
What do the Democrats stand for but abortion, homosex, sky high taxes, massive wasteful spending, big bloated, out of control government unions, and endless wars. The Republicans may be bad, but the Democrats are evil incarnate.
Ross Kaminsky| 8.20.12 @ 2:50PM
Eddie,
Please show me where Republicans are standing up for the idiot Akin?
On these pages, Quin Hillyer has already called for Akin to drop out of the race.
Republicans like Akin do indeed play into the erroneous stereotype that some people believe -- and other people want to believe and propagate -- about the GOP.
For the record, Eddie, this particular Republican (me, not Akin) is a pro-choice non-religious Jew. If the GOP were really like the Islamists, I would have no part of it.
The thing about the Republican Party is that unlike the Dems, who claim to be the party of tolerance, the GOP really is tolerant of a range of views. That said, nobody should be tolerant of what Akin said...and so far I don't think anybody (at least not anybody relevant) is being tolerant of it.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 3:03PM
http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....s-defense/
JD| 8.20.12 @ 3:09PM
Ok, the head of the Family Research Council. Congratulations, you found one. No doubt CNN worked hard on that. Shall we proceed to the "demonizing all of us because of what someone somewhere said" part?
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 3:26PM
This is a NON-story, because Representative Akin has already repudiated his own clumsy remarks:
http://hotair.com/archives/201.....mate-rape/
Tony Perkins is % 100 correct.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 3:31PM
Contrast Biden's stubborn support of his remarks.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 3:34PM
He's still wrong about women who are the victims of rape not getting pregnant because 'the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down'. It was bad enough when Republican after Republican revealed that they don't understand how hormonal birth control pills work, but apparently they don't really understand anything about women. Where do you find these ignorant jackasses?
JD| 8.20.12 @ 3:39PM
His was a clumsy way of citing the fact that a very small percentage of rapes result in pregnancies, nonetheless no prominent conservative is supporting the comment which he himself is retracting. You're trying to make it more than it is.
57 states? Double-standard!
Speaking of not understanding how things work, what of Democrats and... well... everything!
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 4:44PM
"His was a clumsy way of citing the fact that a very small percentage of rapes result in pregnancies [...]."
That's the most charitable way to construe that statement, JD.
I don't know what Rep. Akin was talking about in the quotation in DRed's reply. He said he's talked to doctors about this. I hope you are correct. From his retraction, as quoted by HotAir.com, he seems to have misspoke.
Mr. Akin's opposition to a "rape exception" to abortion is right & just. But, at the senatorial level, he should be able to explain it better than that, I think.
He should still be able to beat McCasKILL, though.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 5:36PM
Charitable? Perhaps. I just don't find the alternative believable. Liberals may want to believe all who disagree with them are knuckle-dragging cavemen, but I'm pretty confident that there's some minimal intelligence at work (often not constructive work) in anyone who makes it to federal office. I don't find it plausible that he meant to invent some new biological mechanism here.
But the defense for any abortion opposition should be the personhood of the unborn, and such personhood doesn't disappear just because of rape. Support of unlimited abortion is more defensible than support of abortion only in certain cases.
Nick| 8.20.12 @ 5:48PM
I hope you're right, JD.
I only saw the clip that HotAir posted. Do you know how old this clip is? I heard Dana Perino say that Mr. Akin's GOP opposition should've found this clip, during the primary. How old is it?
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 4:45PM
But Bill Clinton's RAPE of Quanita Brodrick was okay.
Right?
Ross Kaminsky| 8.20.12 @ 4:40PM
http://spectator.org/blog/2012.....difference
Occam's Tool| 8.20.12 @ 11:01AM
It doesn't hoit.
Slacker| 8.20.12 @ 1:00PM
How strange that our culture pretends people over 40 are still good looking. Nice but totally delusional.
Drunken Sailor| 8.20.12 @ 1:21PM
More to the point, how sad that we even contemplate this when someone is running for office. Like good looks will mean they will do a good job. Winston Churchill was no male model but we damn sure could use someone with his backbone.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.20.12 @ 1:35PM
Slacker,
other than our soldiers, very few people uner forty have character carved in their features.
My wife just turned 66, and I consider every blemish merely a battle scar of a life well lived. She makes children whole.
oligarch| 8.20.12 @ 2:25PM
Mr. Ken (Old Texican)
I do hope you and your wife no longer share the same bed. The thought is sickening.
Two old people goin' at it. Pass the barf bag, pleeze!
oligarch| 8.20.12 @ 2:27PM
Make that (Old Texi can o' worms)
More apt.
like a cigarette should| 8.20.12 @ 2:32PM
Margie! You're signing in as oligarch. I know it's you.
Do you still hold that grudge against Ken? Let it go, woman, let it go. Practice a little Christianity, please.
Drunken Sailor| 8.20.12 @ 3:55PM
I thought the same thing.
George True| 8.20.12 @ 3:25PM
Simply amazing, and also so breathtakingly infantile. You cannot in any way impeach Texican's wise words, so you revert to ad hominem attacks. How very.....leftist, Marxist, Democrat of you. By such verbal excrement you reveal your sub-par level of intelligence and arrested social development.
like a cigarette should| 8.20.12 @ 3:36PM
My, my, my.
Such strained verbal dexterity, and all for old Ken, the senior shitizen from Texas.
like a cigarette should| 8.20.12 @ 3:37PM
Oops!
Make that citizen.
like a cigarette should| 8.20.12 @ 3:39PM
Or denizen
as in denizen of AmSpec
Slacker| 8.20.12 @ 6:57PM
I’m agreeable to your thoughts on a spouse. I don’t get the military part whatsoever.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 1:41PM
Ross has a crush. It's sweet.
So when do we get around to talking about Ryan's actual record? How much has this super serious intellectual done to cut the federal budget during his time in Congress? Which tax deductions will his super serious plan to reduce the deficit eliminate?
Jack London| 8.20.12 @ 2:00PM
That's what they desperately want to avoid - his 'plan' as it stands would increase the deficit by $2.5 trillion.
Cpm| 8.20.12 @ 2:21PM
Then why aren't the democrats championing him, that's right up their alley? Or maybe you are just full of it.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 3:00PM
Vs a status quo that would increase it by much more than $2.5 trillion over the same period. Another deliberately deceptive half-truth from Jack London.
Oh, and you mean "debt", not "deficit". But that was an honest mistake, right?
Ross Kaminsky| 8.20.12 @ 2:51PM
I concede that Ryan's voting record is not perfect.
But the most important thing is that he is the only important politician in many years to put his name on a plan to reform entitlements, at least the only one to put his name on a plan which has passed at least one chamber of Congress.
George S| 8.20.12 @ 2:55PM
Much easier to criticize a painting than paint one. Or, not paint any for three years while being paid to paint one each year.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 3:25PM
Don't get me wrong, Ross, I think he's serious about entitlement reform. What I don't see, either in his voting record (not perfect is a nice way of characterizing it) or in his budget, is any remotely serious effort to reduce the debt.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 3:32PM
Name a person making an effort more serious than his. And remember, every Democrat's proposed budget has a far larger deficit than Ryan's.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 3:47PM
You're missing the point, JD. You can't analyze how Ryan's budget would effect the debt because he doesn't explain which deductions he's eliminating in order to reach the levels of revenue necessary to balance his tax cuts. That's why it's not a serious plan.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 3:50PM
You're conflating "serious" and "complete". There are aspects of ObamaCare that remain similarly incomplete years after the legislation's passage. Is ObamaCare not "serious?" Then there's Dodd-Frank (completely lacking substance at time of passage) and, well, everything else Democrats have done.
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 4:48PM
And, what is your Boy's Plan?
I'll wait.
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 7:52PM
I'm still waiting.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 2:58PM
DRed, stop being a hypocrite. Democrats frequently claim all sorts of "accomplishments" that can't be seen in the aggregate, claiming "Republican obstruction" as the reason things have gotten worse "in spite of" the great and noble work of the Democrat.
In Ryan's case, it's plain that no single congressman can effect substantial policy change. Despite that, he's done more to advance dialogue on these issues than anyone else in the House.
Stan Redmond| 8.20.12 @ 3:11PM
This is nothing new for the media.
Bush was "obsessed with fitness" and it was "creepy." Paul Ryan is obsessively fit so obviously Ryan = Bush = Bad.
Barak plays basketball to keep fit and Moochelle does pushups on TV but they are "fabulously fit" and role moldels for all the world.
like a cigarette should| 8.20.12 @ 3:54PM
and fabulously thin. No gluttons they.
like a cigarette should| 8.20.12 @ 3:57PM
and faboulously "in," as in IN THE WHITE HOUSE
and there to stay
for another fabulousl four years
four more years of fabulously thin
Drunken Sailor| 8.20.12 @ 4:22PM
Odd, a cigarette that stinks of Brooks.
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 4:49PM
In which case, with Alan, a Cigarette is a Fag,
Just like Alan.
BackToBasics| 8.20.12 @ 4:55PM
Tens of millions have been aborted in America but we were told by the elites of both parties in the 1990's and 200's that we needed tens of millions of legal immigrants and illegal aliens to fill the job positions.
Gone from public discourse since 2008 is the phrase used to justify illegal aliens entry and that was that they would , "Do the jobs that Americans just would not do."
It was always a sickening phrase to hear whether it was spoken by Clinton or Bush II. That it was a lie to justify illegals and too many legals entry into America was exposed after the 2008 slowdown. Elites know it would be an absurd thing to say these days. It always was absurd but now their cover is gone.
like a cigarette should| 8.20.12 @ 8:26PM
"Tens of millions have been aborted in America . . ."
Good thing. We really would have OVERPOPULATION with "tens of millions" more people.
BackToBasics| 8.21.12 @ 12:28AM
You missed my point. Those who were aborted would have been sufficient to fill the jobs of a growing economy instead of being told we had to import the labor both legally and illegally.
And since the US government supports the children of illegals that enables them to have higher birthrates in America than their counterparts do in Mexico, the US government is directly contributing to the overpopulation problem that you pretend to care about.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323028,00.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-0.....=PM:HEALTH
"Among Mexican immigrants in the United States, for example, fertility averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children per women in Mexico. " from city - data website
Ross Kaminsky| 8.20.12 @ 5:09PM
I have to say that I wish my article about the media treatment of Paul Ryan hadn't devolved into a discussion of abortion...
JD| 8.20.12 @ 5:15PM
There was no relevant article on today's top story to comment under until later in the day, and also, certain left-leaning trolls ("Eddie" started it) came in and changed the subject for us.
It is what it is.
I have to say, seeing you write of being "Pro-Choice" above makes me want to see your response to my posts at 3:29, which their targets seem to have ignored completely.
Ross Kaminsky| 8.20.12 @ 6:30PM
JD,
I would prefer not to debate religion with you, and focus on the areas where we can agree to work together for the betterment of the nation.
For the record, I am against Roe v. Wade, and against government funding of abortion. And the large majority of my political campaign contributions have been to anti-abortion candidates.
RGK
JD| 8.20.12 @ 6:52PM
I consider "religion" to be a useless word. What is its meaning? The modern Left uses it to lump together beliefs it dislikes for purposes of oppressing them, in the same way Christians lump together "heathens" or Muslims lump together "infidels". Prior to that, it seemed to be tied to the idea of god(s), but we recognize many "religions" that lack gods. Haters of specific "religions" try definitions that encompass "anti-science" or belief without evidence, but I've never known anyone who would say he has no reason or evidence for what he believes. That others reject evidence doesn't mean one can't disagree and consider it evidence.
I can find no definition of the term "religion" that "works" in a nonpartisan way, save mine: "belief set". Atheism is a "religion". A "religion" is something everyone has in an "I think, therefore I am" sense. It makes the term rather pointless, though.
So, to your comment, I would say that we cannot speak without debating "religion". I would further say that attempts to link abortion positions to Christianity or other recognized religions are straw man arguments, unless one is referencing Christianity's opposition to murder, which is hardly unique to Christianity. The Bible is not required to see that abortion kills a person.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 6:53PM
I do not recognize "separation of church and state" as a viable principle, in that the definition and reach of "church" is subjective, and the state cannot exist without intruding on it. It's an illusion of ideology. Both church and state make principles that govern ALL aspect of life; they cannot avoid overlap. Government comes closest to avoiding overlap by remaining as small as possible, but even then it cannot avoid conflict completely. For example, even the smallest government cannot abide radical Islam's desire to execute infidels without obvious intolerance of non-Muslims. There are, in the end, certain incompatible differences that force people to form separate nations which will either avoid or war with each other.
The only interpretation of the Establishment Clause that is practical is the idea that no one's position in an organized "church" should grant him more OR FEWER voting rights than any other citizen of our democracy. This I support.
Anyway, the reason I asked for your response is that my purpose in participating in web forums is to test my ideas against competition. This has been extremely frustrating in recent years, as I can find no opponents who will debate honestly. You have been honest and reasonable on this site; I found your disagreement with me on an issue to be an exciting opportunity. Perhaps another time.
Ross Kaminsky| 8.20.12 @ 7:46PM
By the way, JD, I read the first Amendment as basically preventing the government from interfering in the free exercise of religion (at least to the extent that that free exercise does not violate other constitutional rights), and from preferring one religion over another. I do not read it as requiring government to strip religion from our lives, or even from every public square.
TLP| 8.20.12 @ 8:06PM
Actually, the Establishment Clause was set up to keep The State, out of The Church, and not the other way around.
The Separation of Church and State, came about from a letter from Thomas Jefferson, to the Baptist Church in Danbury Ct. in response to a letter that they had sent to him, complaining about State Interference in their affairs.
There is Nothing in the first Amendment that would prevent Prayer in School, in the Locker Room, or at a Graduation.
There's nothing in it to prevent a Manger Scene, or a Christmas Tree, on the Public Square, or a Display of the Ten Commandments.
The CONGRESS begins each Session with a Prayer, and the Ten Commandments are on Full Display, in the Supreme Court.
The first Amendment has always been about preventing another Church of England.
Okay?
Idiot.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 8:08PM
And I appreciate that. But you hit on the problem: "Violating other rights". In a world where the Left creates "rights" to all manner of things, many beliefs will be trampled in service of these rights. Even if "rights" are properly defined, well... you read my Muslim infidel example above.
When faced with mutually incompatible positions, government has three choices:
1. Take Side A
2. Take Side B
3. Stay the heck out of it
Our government rarely chooses #3 anymore. Homosexuality is a prominent example.
Choosing #1 or #2 WILL contradict someone's beliefs. Choosing #3 on every issue is anarchy.
You can claim that we'll tolerate "reasonable" religions, meaning Muslims who want to kill all infidels don't qualify, but now you've opened up a slippery slope that leads to "Kid Expelled for Bringing Bible to School".
And what of "preferring one religion over another?" What's a "religion"? Why can government use Anthropogenic Global Warming as a basis for policy, but not the Bible? Why Marx's philosophies, but not the Torah? You're stuck until you can define "religion", which leads back to my posts above.
Though I grant that if we had our way, none of the four references above would be used, because government wouldn't make social or economic policy. Still, even in basic defense, law, and order, these issues arise.
In short, I think the Constitution is better than most of what modern Americans would replace it with, but I don't think it's perfect.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 6:52PM
Well, let's get back on topic. What deductions do you think Paul Ryan and Mittens plan on eliminating from the tax code to find a couple trillion dollars? How realistic, politically, is it that those deductions will be eliminated? If they're not eliminated, what steps would Ryan/Romney take to ensure their budget doesn't grow the federal debt?
JD| 8.20.12 @ 6:54PM
What does that have to do with Paul Ryan's abs?
JD| 8.20.12 @ 7:04PM
Your last question isn't worth answering. It boils down to "how would their plan work if it isn't passed". The same as any other plan - it wouldn't!
I personally would eliminate all credits, deductions, subsidies, etc, save one which could only debateably be called a deduction: charitable contributions and gifts. If you're not keeping the money, you shouldn't need to pay taxes on it.
Romney/Ryan won't be so ambitious. In particular, mortgage deductions will probably stay. A mortgage is a huge cost, a 30-year contract, and people factor the hundreds of dollars per months in tax deductions that one provides into their planning when signing a mortgage. To end the tax breaks would impact them as would a $300/month payment hike imposed out of the blue by the bank, with no recourse over the remaining 28 years of someone's deal. Honest home buyers have suffered enough at Democrats' hands. Romney wouldn't do this.
The EIC and child tax credits could go down. They were only recently raised, and foolishly so, by liberal Republicans. All refundable credits could be made non-refundable. Blatantly social engineering credits (hybrid vehicle) could go.
I'm inferring that you demand $2.5 trillion in savings to balance the budget, despite the fact that Obama offers nothing close to that on the other side. I won't bite. Any improvement on Obama's trajectory is improvement worth voting for.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 7:13PM
So we don't know how it will work if passed, because Ryan and Romney aren't saying. But it will definitely reduce the debt. How? Oh, don't worry about that. It's totally serious!
I presume Ryan will dazzle recalcitrant legislators with feats of strength in order to get his undefined plan passed.
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 7:24PM
Oh, the 2 trillion odd is the result of the massive tax breaks in the plan for the wealthy combined with Ryan saying that his plan is going to be revenue neutral.
Ross Kaminsky| 8.20.12 @ 8:13PM
http://rossputin.com/blog/inde.....h-tax-cuts
JD| 8.20.12 @ 8:22PM
I could have written that link myself! I'll save a reference...
When in doubt, remember this:
From 2001-2012, federal revenue (in nominal dollars) increased 40%. But spending doubled.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 7:26PM
Do you have any idea how hypocritical that sounds coming from the party of "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it"?
There are over a trillion dollars per year in tax expenditures in America, and the tax code that governs them is over 16,000 pages long, give or take. The money is there to be cut, but deciding the best way to do it is an exercise that could take some time.
You Democrats would know. You don't even pass rules anymore. Dodd-Frank just created a committee to spend YEARS deciding what the rules should be! How can you demand instant answers from us given your precedent?
DRed| 8.20.12 @ 7:52PM
Yes, there are a lot of expenditures. The JD plan already excludes the second largest tax expenditure (the mortgage deduction). The others in the top 5 are excluding employer health benefits, 401(k) plans, the lower rate on capital gains (which Ryan plans to make even lower) and exclusions for certain pension plans. Which of those will it be politically feasible to eliminate?
JD| 8.20.12 @ 7:56PM
The top 5 make up what portion of the total?
Again, MY plan would eliminate all of those. Romney/Ryan, I expect, will only nibble at them, simply because they stand as preferable alternatives to nationalized health care and retirement plans. But to come up with $2.5 trillion over 10 years doesn't require a big dent in tax expenditures.
And of course, all of this assumes we're playing your liberal game of pretending that lowering rates doesn't increase taxable revenue, which might pay for itself. History begs to differ.
George S| 8.20.12 @ 8:39PM
Ryan explained how 1.3 trillion can be cut right off the top by rescinding unspent TARP and stimulus funds, repealing ObamaCare, freezing federal hiring and rolling back discretionary spending to 2008 levels -- all without touching entitlements or the tax code.
At least there is a plan on the table whereas the Democrats in the senate have refused to even print out a budget. There is just no way any serious analysis on "Obama's plan" can be done without a budget that explains how Medicare is saved over the next 10 years, how we pay for ObamaCare, how we save social security and how to stop the death spiral of a budget consuming 100% of GDP. All we get from Obama is let's just tax the rich "a little more" and that will solve all of our problems. Yet Obama does not say how much money this will raise to reduce the deficit -- he says it's a matter of fairness. This is not a serious person; comparing him to Ryan is an insult to our intelligence.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 7:22PM
One more to Ross:
Libertarian "pro-choicers" remind me of Henry Clay and other "stay out of it" centrists of the mid-19th Century. Their proposed "third way" compromises on slavery, such as the Mason-Dixon line, employed similar rationale.
Clay tried to appease abolitionists by telling them how wrong he thought slavery was and opposing its expansion. To appease southerners, he claimed that to simply end slavery would be wrong, because slave owners had paid a lot of money for their slaves and were economically dependent on them. According to Clay, ending slavery was UNFAIR unless slave owners could be compensated for their loss, which was economically unfeasible. Thus slavery had to remain in the South.
Just reading his logic, Clay's argument sounds good. But it wasn't so good, was it? It protected the economic rights of the slave owners, sure, but at the expense of the far greater rights of the slaves!
So too today's abortion discussion, where timid wafflers complain when they're called "pro-abortion". They say no, they're for "choice". They punt, saying, "it's the mother's personal decision", then celebrate their backing of her "rights"!
They're as pro-choice as Henry Clay was on slavery.
Ross Kaminsky| 8.20.12 @ 7:39PM
JD,
This is exactly the discussion I don't want to have.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on most of this.
Regarding what is "religion", what I meant is that I don't want to discuss something where I know no compromise, no change of opinion, is possible, because much of the anti-abortion view is founded in a person's faith which, by definition, is not subject to change by reason (or by unreason, as you might consider my views.)
JD| 8.20.12 @ 7:52PM
The above only applies to those who claim to be "personally opposed to abortion" but not willing to "impose their beliefs on others." There's no such "safe" place.
If you disagree as to personhood, it doesn't apply. I was wondering how a reasonable, intelligent person who's NOT just going to misuse the Establishment Clause or accuse me of hating women might answer my personhood argument at 3:29. There's no "religion" in that argument, any more than in any other argument on this site.
I agree that we're unlikely to change each other's positions, but I don't consider arguments "not worth having" even if they won't change minds. There are things to learn anyway.
Ross Kaminsky| 8.20.12 @ 8:05PM
JD, I believe the religion argument appears in defining human life at conception for purposes of being subject to legal protection.
I'd rather have this discussion over a beer some day than online. In my experience, online discussions on this type of topic end up causing all involved to speak/write the way TLP writes all the time, which is something I don't want to do.
JD| 8.20.12 @ 8:18PM
My argument was logic, science, and biology, and more a debunking of alternatives than an advocacy of conception == personhood, which merely remains as the only unassailable position. There are too many flaws with the presently defined "start of personhood", and there's no good reason to distinguish personhood from life, either.
I do hope you at least read it through. I seriously would like to hear someone make a serious effort to poke a hole in it. It's... very frustrating to have stood on it for years without being challenged, yet not be able to advance it past the blog scene.
Ross Kaminsky| 8.20.12 @ 10:00PM
JD, I did read it. Again, I believe that your views are fundamentally religious and not subject to debate. I don't say that as a criticism. It is just an area of discussion that I find perpetually unproductive.
JD| 8.21.12 @ 12:11AM
Then how would one approach, scientifically, the question of the beginning of personhood, if one does not wish to accept the pro-abortion camp's premise on their say-so? What is it about my argument - defining life, attacking the premise of separating personhood's start from human life's start, and discrediting current law as well as other candidate starting points for personhood - that makes my argument "religious" instead of "scientific"?
I feel the "science" vs "religion" dichotomy is itself a straw man pushed by those who wish to win arguments without having them by labeling their position "science" and the opposing position "religion". There is no difference in the methodology of either "side". Both have their evidence, their reasons, their search for truth, etc. They simply weigh different evidence differently and draw different conclusions. It's no different than the liberal's view of economics vs the conservative's. Trying to malign the motives or intelligence of one camp instead of finding flaws in the arguments and conclusions only lowers the debate.
JD| 8.21.12 @ 12:27AM
In the past, I ignored those conservatives who added "breakdown of the traditional family" and other "soft" trends to the list of reasons for society's recent problems. It seemed to be a tenuous argument, and unnecessary given economic history and logic.
Lately I've come to think it's more than I gave it credit for being. One cannot ignore the impact of the formative years on a person's aptitude and mindset as an adult. We are training bad citizens! If we relegate certain aspects of policy, debate, and "philosophy" to the realm of "religion" and refuse to include them in serious discussion, we'll find that we're unable to address all of society's problems. The Left has no problem trampling rights in areas of life deemed the province of "religion". If we can't even talk about these areas, we cede ground without a fight.
One could make the same "fundamentally religious" and "perpetually unproductive" claims about the Left's moral basis for social welfare. I've certainly found these discussions unproductive often enough! But I won't stop having them.
I'm sorry, I've just received the "Your position is religious; end of discussion" evasion from abortion supporters for so long, I'm quite frustrated by it! I NEVER get a REAL explanation for the supposed invalidity of my argument. It's as if mere alignment with the wrong "religion" makes an argument invalid regardless of its wording, which is surely an easily-abused debate tactic!