Romney Intends to be "Unapologetically Aggressive" Toward Obama

All of which are unconstitutional and have absolutely no prayer of being changed because a Republican President is in office.

 

The right to contraception is a fundamental right under the Constitution. It's not threatened, and neither is abortion.

 

I agree that they are rights under the Constitution, I disagree that they are not being threatened.

 

Do you see Constitutional amendments on the way to outlaw contraception and abortion? If not, how are they threatened?

 

I think he should go hard but I think he's going too hard, or extreme maybe. He told a reporter the other day that he'd give Obama a "F" grade for every category, like the economy, which is understandable, but also foreign policy. That is dumb and doesn't help his chances with the middle who will decide the election, granted "they" say foreign policy position never determines a presidential election.

 

There are people who would and are seeking to amend the Constitution as such or overturn Roe vs Wade, and they are Republicans.

 

There just isn't anything foreign policy-wise to attack or defend to a degree of it mattering, compared to the economy or equality.

 

Yep, they've been trying for almost 40 years, and it doesn't appear they're gaining any more traction now than they ever have. I totally agree with you that the Republican social stance is just totally retarded, but I think it's a huge, huge stretch to act as if abortion or contraception stands any chance at all of being outlawed. It's an irrelevant issue, and that's why I won't make my choice on who to vote for based on it.

 

Agreed on Gay Marriage; the others are constitutionally protected. They would not change under a Republican President.

So you will vote for Obama because of Gay Marriage despite the "obvious economic cost".

 

The gay marriage issue will be decided in the courts not the legislature or the executive. To me, it's like abortion and contraception in that the outcome is not going to be different no matter who is President.

 

The President won't affect any of the libs sacred bovines, for well or ill, outside of some largely meaningless executive orders and PR BS (see: favoring gay marriage, Obama).

And that any of the issues mentioned, other than gay marriage would be constitutionally banned, is well, an outlandish thought, at best. And Obama could reincarnate JFK and Honest Abe to lock arms across the tracks to prevent the constitutional train from defining of marriage as being solely between one man and one woman - and you'd watch all three get flattened. That shit is going to happen whether you elect Obama, FDR or Babs Streisand. And worse, you not only know it...but know that there isn't a damned thing that can prevent it - now that the "just don't let it come to a head while we slowly ingrain ourselves into mainstream society" strategy has shit the bed.

Insert menacing laughter here.

In all seriousness, I'd prefer you just said, "I vote Democrat, no matter what.", IP. It's an easier position to defend, as personal preference is largely unassailable.

At least four years ago, you could argue that while he was a woefully under-qualified candidate, that his abilities as a President were yet unknown. Unfortunately, the question of what kind of President he'd make has been overwhelmingly answered: a shitty one.

You know, if he'd snazz up the britches and southern euphemisms....the similarities between Obama and Dooley would be uncanny.

 

Agreed, Law.

The question of gay marriage will be determined by the high court.

Until such time as The People return the favor.

 

the problem, TD, is I have never before voted democratic for President. But now I live in a battleground state and voting independent isn't such a good idea.

 

IP, I wasn't trying to be an ass earlier. You've got to vote for who you want. If you're an fiscal conservative, I hope you give the GOP ticket a look. Trust me, I understand the frustration with the GOP social stances. It's pathetic.

 

The GOP's ineptitude to maintain / exact social change rivals that of Obama's ability to stimulate the economy.

 

I just think the GOP social stance is a fraud for the most part. I don't think it has anything to do with causing change, I think it has something to do with securing a voting bloc. That's what bothers me the most about it.

 

I'd say the inability to stimulate the economy is a far bigger flaw than the inability to exact social change. Social change will occur whether the GOP wants it to or not.

 

For me this is what is so damn frustrating. Being a social liberal/fiscal conservative I yearn for a balanced party/candidate. My problem with the GOP is not only the social conservatism, but the relationships with some anti-gay groups (which is obviously a big deal for me). I have similar issues with the fiscal ramifications of the Democratic party, but in the end I typically vote based on the social issues. And you know, it's not like I expect the Democrats to exact much social change; I fear some stuff could go the wrong way under the GOP. I've mentioned it before, but for me to vote for a candidate/party that openly opposes even civil unions for gay couples is sickening. From my perspective, which is obviously much different from most, opposition to civil unions is like open bigotry. Just makes it really difficult when time to vote.

 

I wonder if "like" is being substituted for "don't want to appear racist". What the heck is so likeable about Obama? Seriously, what?

 

It's definitely a tough balancing act. I will say that despite their opposition, I really don't think the Republican Party is going to be able to do a damn thing about gay marriage ultimately being the law of the land.