Want someone to cut up your food for you, too? http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300085&tab=votes
Fuck off, old woman. How many years have you spent around here demanding links from people? EDIT - This is fucking worthless. All it has is the bill number and his vote. I would have to backtrack every one of these to figure out what they are.
I find it hard to believe it would get to that point but the best thing for the party would be to do just that and then go and pull a wild card out of their hat that was not any of the guys currently running. Ideally, Marco Rubio although they would face the same lack-of-experience complaint that was thrown at obama four years ago (notwithstanding Rubio has quite a bit more experience in the state level than BO did) but there are a lot of ways one could go. if they wanted a more established guy, Jim DeMint would make a pretty good choice.
Well seeing as the good state of Pennsylvania kicked his ass out more than a hot minute ago, you probably won't. Personhood was extreme then, he's pre Tea Party hard right resurgence era when no one would even consider "Personhood amendments" . However he did sign a pledge supporting such amendments. http://www.personhoodusa.com/news
If a person is defined as a fertilized egg, it's a small hop, skip and a jump to make illegal the birth control methods that prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the wall of the uterus. That aside, Santorum has said, according to the link below, said that Griswold v. Connecticut, the SCOTUS case that guaranteed the right to access to contraception, was wrongly decided: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/san...-v-connecticut-pre-roe-right-privacy-decision By appointing like-minded Supreme Court judges, he hypothetically could accomplish an overturning of Griswold and pave the way for some states to make contraception illegal. Now that relies on a lot of ifs, and trying to make contraception in 2012 seems like it would be an obvious non-starter. But who knows?
Why, in your mind, does that preclude providing links? Obviously if you read something, you might actually learn something, and we can't have that...
Maybe he is. That's why I asked for specific legislation as proof that his money is where his mouth is.
Missouri is the same state that voted in a dead man to Congress and gave the casinos a monopoly in exchange for a tiny sliver of the gross profits, so I don't think it's just the GOP voters . . .
So did you read the information at the link I provided? I'm not saying whether there's specific legislation or not; you'll have to actually figure that out for yourself. Then again, I'm talking to someone who thinks the Independent Nation of Pennsylvania can declare war.
There are plenty of ways that the executive branch can influence -- or not -- gay marriage and other similar issues. Obama has done it by ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell and not using Justice Department resources to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Even within the small area of appointment of judges, the 9 people who make up SCOTUS are important. But so are the hundreds of people who will be appointed as judges at the district and appellate court levels. Although their decisions are not final in the same way as SCOTUS's, they decide more cases and write more law than SCOTUS does. While there is a limit in the number of appointments that will likely be made in the next four years (I'd say a maximum of two), it's clearly false that we've always had about an even split of justices. It just seems like it's been a long time. Clearly, some courts were divided more along the lines of 6-3, 7-2 or whatnot.
This is a good thing. Without the State paying to moderate parties they start to show their true colors. A party SHOULD select the candidate they want, and not be overwhelmed by a bunch of people who don't give a shit. I just hope that all the States that have cut back on Primaries due to the Recession don't re-institute them once the economic picture improves enough. I'd like to see all State's go a caucus system. First off the government should not in any way support the two party system by spending millions to run a Primary for them. Ads (aka money) have less influence on them, and they pull the parties into their ideological corner.
Most Caucuses are party funded. Why the fuck would Missouri pay for a caucus, and a useless caucus at that? And Six Million? Washington's got 800k more people than Missouri, but we were only spending $10 million on our (canceled) Primaries. Missouri got hosed.
Yeah, a candidate's voting record is "fucking worthless" in determining what he stands for. But, hey, you can always vote for his hair.
To continue with what I was saying, caucus v primary is one of the Four Pillars of Change in Ancism. After '08 I basically gave up on National Politics. The system simply can't be beat as long as the rules are made by the same people that own both teams. In order for any real change to take place we (those who want real change, and not just Rep v Dem) need to turn our focus to the state level. I have come to the conclusion that there are four major reforms needed at the state level: Electoral Reform. The above mentioned Caucuses over Primaries when it comes to Presidential races and then moving to some kind of open/top two/Louisiana Primary for other positions. Redistricting Reform. Don't think I really need to get into this. Campaign Finance Reform. As long as elections can be bought and sold, what's the point? Build local '3rd Parties.' Gotta get that ground game on. The two parties have a HUGE advantage here. Even if the above three issues were all to go our way, it's going to be very hard to build up comparable organizations to the two parties on the ground.
I understand the same is true in Missouri where Newt wasn't on the ballot and where Romney didn't even bother to show up to campaign.
If Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination and I'm sure he won't, I'm probably voting for Gary Johnson.
There's that mean spirited part of me that wants Obama to win so we can hasten the inevitable collapse and just get it over with.
As for Santorum and birth control, forget what he might be capable of doing were he elected President, the fact that he wants to regulate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms should send up a giant warning flag that his frothy ass has no fucking business anywhere near the White House. I'll submit that were any Dem to say the same thing about guns that Santorum's said about birth control it would have a great number of people calling for that Dem to be killed despite the fact that the right to bear arms is specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, while being able to slap a rubber on your willy is not. So, in theory, Santorum would have an easier time banning birth control, than our hypothetical Dem would have in getting rid of guns.
[Sokar-type dumbass voter]"B-but you don't understand! He's an American! He was born here, not in Kenya. And he's not a Secret Muslim! Oh, and he's white. Did I mention he's white?"[/]
If you had half a brain, you'd realize that there is nothing in common between 'hoping for something' and 'feeling something is unavoidable.' Note the part where I said 'get it over with', which implies getting past the ugly and moving on with the good. As a writer one would think you'd have better reading comprehension, or at least the ability to infer what one means from what was written. Sorry if it doesn't fit into your little, self-imagined 'wrodforge' stereotype.
If that's all you see, then pretty much every aspect of existence is worthless. You know what to do. Actually, you're one of the principal perpetrators of the WF type. Thank you for not answering the question.
There is a video floating around from last week where Santorum revived the old proven false claims about "death panels" in the health reform bill and then ups the herp-derp even more by claiming the Dutch practice "involuntary euthanasia" claiming doctors routinely kill up to 10% of elderly Dutch people against their will. Even more bullshit was Santorum's claim that older Dutch people refuse to go to the hospital because they supposedly fear for their lives because the evil socialist-communist doctors will kill them if they do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yn-eejMcmuA This is just such obvious bullshit I'm surprised Republican voters in those three states actually believe such nonsense. I mean this is a basic intelligence test which they're failing. Oh, well. At least Santorum has stopped talking about "anal leakage" after gay sex (man, does he know how to get his voters excited or what?).
