Was thinking about this before, if you could ask pointed questions, allowing for reasonable answers, (not "hey, Romney, why do hate the poor?" or "hey, Obama, why do you hate America so much?") of each of the candidates, what would you ask?
Here goes, for me:
Obama/Biden to Romney/Paul "Do you think there is a difference between rape and "forcible rape"?"
Romney to Obama "Why is Guantanamo Bay still open?"
I think it's a fair question to ask Ryan "Why?" and Romney "Do you think there's a difference...?"
Why aren't Mormon missionaries allowed to swim?
Why does your church partner with and provide funding to the Boy Scouts but NOT the Girl Scouts?
Do you believe that the Earth is made up of other recycled worlds and that's where Dinosaur bones actually came from?
Do you believe that the Earth used to orbit another star and then was relocated after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden that was in Missouri?
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit goes to bed at midnight?
Redundant? Wow, our education levels are sinking badly.
You have heard of the concept of statutory rape? A big difference from forcible rape.
I do not think taxpayer money should be used for abortions except in the case of incest or forcible rape. Not morality, strictly financial decision.
Go to a doctor for pro bono treatment if they want to help people.
It's telling how little (D) has to run on in this cycle. There is almost no actual policy or hard success being run on......at best we get vague, meaningless, flexable cliches like "pay their fair share" or "the War on Women" or the always popular "the (R) won't compromise", which most can translate to "higher taxes" and "abortion, abortion, abortion!!!" and "why won't (R) just give in 100% instead of 95%, those bastards".
"Because a Fetus is a seperate life from the mother, and taking life is wrong. It's horrible a women was raped, it's equally horrible for that victim to create another victim and to kill her fetus".
In anutshell, that IS what the Pro-Life (R) crowd believes. It's worth honest debate. The shame is the (R) lacks the sack to actually be simple and straitforward about it, and instead does what it usually does, and mumbles the same old talking points that do not tackle the issue, abortion and the rights view of life, head on.
Did I rape her? Was it forcible?
Are they one and the same?
Is it possible the party that always claims things are not black and white is suddenly making a black/white only argument for political gain?
Is it also possible that same party used rape/incest abortions (a tiny tiny fraction of those performed) in order to defend the vastly more common abortion-for-convenience/family planning that do occur?
Also, I assume if you are a crusader against redundency, we have you support in cutting ALL redundant and/or dumplicative Govt. Programs currently in place, right?
Last edited by Warfish; 08-25-2012 at 12:26 PM.
Yea, see the whole statutory rape argument doesn't fly for defending the term "forcible rape".
Rape, by definition, is forcible. When you put statutory in front of it, the meaning is changed, when you put forcible in front of it, the meaning is not.
And speaking of "running on nothing", you can go ahead and tell us exactly what Mitt Romney will do... Oh yea, he hasn't said sh*t, vaguest platform since Bush in 2000.
You don't? You'd rather ask a question about the war and hear him (either candidate) wax poetic about our soldiers bravery while saying he'll listen to our generals on when to pull out of Afghanistan, even though he's the Commander in Chief.
Or would you rather ask him about the economy, which he has been asked for several years now and hasn't said sh*t. "Get government out of the way" - great Mitt, we've heard that one before - What exactly will you do? "I'll lower taxes and cut spending", "Which taxes and which spending?", "You'll just have to see motherfu**er!"
And yea, I wasn't really crusading for anything Warfish, that seems to be you in this thread. I just want to ask Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan if they see a difference between "rape" and "forcible rape"... but ugh, yea I'm down to cut redundancies in government.
The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states.There you have it. Palmetto. Wanting children to have their rapists babies. For morality.Originally Posted by Palmetto
And the polls I've heard reported would imply he is not, as yet, "losing it hard".
I'm a Libertarian, who will be voting Libertarian.Romney was the best you....
There is no "you" in regards to myself and Romeny/Ryan.
Simple, as in simply your opinion and your position on the life of a fetus.Good luck with that "honest debate". No woman should ever be forced to give birth to a child she conceived through rape. Simple.
That opinion is not shared by all.
Hence why an honest debate, not the current ongoing dishonest code-word-filled debates we currently have.
For example, you don't actullay think the issue is the abillity to make choices, do you? or "womens Health", do you?
The issue is, and always has been, the right to terminate fetuses for any reason someone may choose, and those who stand against that position. Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion.
All "statutory" means is by statute. Nothing more or less, and isn't generally used in actual Law.See, we already have language for that situation - statutory rape.
So I'll ask again, am I a rapist?In statutory rape, overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally challenged adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.
And in a week, when a different issue unrelated to any major policy or current event hits the news, THAT will be what you want to ask.I just want to ask Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan if they see a difference between "rape" and "forcible rape"... but ugh, yea I'm down to cut redundancies in government.
I assure you, the intentions here are as transparant as the air itself.
The only way to win for Obama is to convince women, minorities and the so-called poor that Romney will take away their abortions (he won't and can't), their special treatement (he won't) and their endless benefits and special programs and abillity to abuse same (he might, but not much).
For starters: Wait until Obama starts talking about his budget proposal. Then I'd ask: "Are you referring to the budget you proposed that couldn't get a single vote in the House or Senate or is this a new one?
You either believe the fetus is a living human being or you don't. If you do, it's not "taking away the rights from a class of citizens" by not condoning murder.
People can argue whether the unborn has a legitimate claim to life, but to call it "an attack on women" is political mud-slinging at its finest . . .
Not for morality means I don't not care about the moral implications of abortion. Want an abortion? Then pay for it. It was pretty clear that rape and incest are an exception and the government (at whatever level should pay). There is something called the VCCB (every court fine has this added on) the Victim's Crime Compensation, yes, but Warfish's example is common - lots of teens a year apart (underage) engaging. Someone could be charged if an irate parent complains.