Flippity-Flop will never win over the Social Conservatives….nevah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

Tommy, its the economy stupid…Only the liberal media and u bring up stuff that 99% of the rest of us dont care about.

What in the hell does this have to do with being President? We have a guy trampling the Constitution on a daily basis and this is what they ask? What will he try to pull next?

Even Dems know that he cannot get away with this criminal action.

“Obama is operating lawlessly for campaign reasons and they are ignoring it. He just appointed “recess’ appointments when the Senate is in session.

Only one Senate Democrat, out of 51 asked, told The Daily Caller that President Barack Obama was correct when he claimed the Senate was in recess Jan. 3. That’s the day Obama announced that he had exercised his executive authority to fill four top posts during a Senate recess.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/only-one-senate-democrat-supports-obamas-recess-claim/

 Romney knew the question was going over the baggers’ heads, so he just played it safe, dodged it and pandered to the stupid

apparently, you haven’t followed GOP politics for the past three decades. these guys live and breathe hot button wedge issues.

I’m glad the moderators finally got around to jobs over an hour into the debate, and after more pressing issues like banning contraception(which no one has advocated)

“This kind of ignorance might play well with an audience that feeds on media victimhood, but in a general election, Romney is going to need to be better prepared for questions like these.” You mean questions that are utterly irrelevant? 

“stumbled badly”? are you kidding? that was one of the highlights of the show!

I won’t call it a “debate,” because a debate doesn’t have Democratic strategists asking the Republican candidates questions designed to get them to start unloading on each other.

Mitt was absolutely right. what the hell is George on about? we’ve got  crises all around us, and this is what George wants to talk about? that only makes sense if George’s purpose was to make the candidates look bad, not to actually have a useful debate.

makes you wonder, eh?

Another biased take by Mediaite’s resident liberal hack. I read the Mediaite headlines from an RSS feed, seeing only the titles. I can spot your headlines every time. They’re snarky or sensationalistic (and almost always attack conservatives). You should be embarrassed by that, but I imagine you’re proud of it.

Will ANY voter go to the polls in Nov. 2012 and vote for a candidate based on their views of contraception? The real issue with this is Stephanopolous’ persistent, completely random line of questioning. Not sure why Tommy is bashing Romney for reacting to this irrelevant question in such a manner. I’m not surprised the audience boo’ed Stephanopolous. Who gives a crap about this issue? We have 9% unemployment, you know.

You really think us Tea Party folk care about contraception? I have never, not once in my life, thought about this issue until ABC so randomly brought it up tonight. 

Republicans want to regulate every aspect of our lives.  Mitt is having trouble saying so.

Tommy,
Griswald v. Connecticut established the right to privacy. Romney stated according to your quotation if the Supreme Court established that states do not have the right to provide contraceptives. CT outlawed contraceptives. They didn’t provide contraceptives, they were denying it, and the Supreme Court established that you can’t. 
CT was not providing contraceptives, and the Supreme Court did not say that they can’t provide said contraceptives. THe reverse is inferred from hearing the George and Romney back and forth, unless I am missing something 

Most of us have sex.

that cult member lying bastardly prick romney said he supported mississippi’s personhood that would have banned most contraceptions.. he’s evil and dangerous

President Obama’s reaction to the NHDebate:http://twitpic.com/7rpvdb

These pos asshat leftist “journalists” are asking questions about contraception? WTF does that have to do with helping our f’ed up near depresssion economy created by obama? WTF does contraception have to do with obama instigation another war with Iran?

isn’t obama the one forcing you to have healthcare?

Tommy, I believe your reading of this is off base.  Just watched the after debate on ABC and not one person brought this issue up.  George spent way too much time on this issue during the debate and came across as biased.  Romney was correct, why spend so much time on a non issue. No state wants to ban contraception so why go on and on except to try to show all republicans as reckless and extreme.  Romney was as confused as the viewers as to where George was going with this.

Mitt Romney Fights With Reporter After Being Exposed As A Liar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG7c7m37geI&feature=player_embedded

speaks volumes to the agenda of the author of this post. volumes.

No one is for banning contraceptives, they are however pointing out that it is not the business of the federal government. It is something that should be handled at the state level. Saying that does not mean these candidates are for or believe any state would be for banning contraceptives. This is pure political spin to take one issue, states rights, and makes it another issue. I am conservative Christian pro-life and I am a member of a fundamentalist church and I would march right along with those in my state if any group tried to ban the use of contraceptives.

Perhaps when you grow up, you’ll learn the difference between republican’s and democrats. Nobody gives a shit about contraception (except you and GEorge).

And you’re one brick short of a load.

Not suprisingly, Christopher misses the point.  The headline should be “Stephanopolous weirdly fixates on nonissue, wastes valuable debate time.”

ABC disgraced itself.  Their questions were ridiculous and not relevant.  Who gives a rat’s ass about contraception when we are in debt $16 trillion dollars and unemployment is through the roof.   I can’t say I blame them however as their leftie rumpswab Obama ass kissing questions were expected.   I blame the GOP  for subjecting us to that nonsense when there are so many good conservatives who could moderate instead of those nitwits.

Lets see how many Americans are willing to give up SOCIALIST MEDICARE & V.A. HEALTHCARE!!! I’m sure ALL Republicans will…. yeah right!

On top of that, if a State would try to ban contraception, the President has NOTHING to do with the outcome!!  It goes to the courts, not the President.

When you start having sex, your views might change.

Phew, thank God you use contraception. Your children would be scary, hateful creatures.

Crazed Republicans who don’t care about sensible solutions to economic problems, but do want the right to crawl up women’s vaginas to see what’s happening are a concern for all sentient people.

We don’t want these nuts mandating fiscal policy any more than we want them mandating social policy. The two forms of idiocy are directly linked.

Just think. This piece was written by a “white house corespondent.”

You’re afraid of truth. All Republicans are afraid of truth.

This is a stupid article. Contraception is irrelevant. Mitt Romney is right. Tommy, you are a silly liberal. Who really cares what you think?

Why is Mediaite talking about this and not the COMPLETE LIE about Romney’s 100K jobs created?

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romney-vs-obama-on-job-creation/2012/01/03/gIQA31g3YP_blog.html

oy

Again, Lib media (e.g., Boy George) more interested in gotcha questions when dealing with Republicans…. won’t let it go until he gets someone to lie or “stumble”. Mediaite is like a rat on a piece of cheese, making something out of nothing.

Because if we let these nutbags take over the leadership of our country, war and economics aren’t the only things they’ll screw up. They’ll cornhole social policies, too.

Also, hypocrisy and stupidity on social issues are leading indicators of hypocrisy and stupidity on a range of issues.

it’s not a non issue since as stated above, many states have tried to pass personhood amendments and rick santorum supports them

wtf? get a hold of yourself…

“Nobody gives a shit about contraception?”

Only those who use it, those who would ban it, and those who care about both.

Really, really, really stupid post, even by your standards.

Tommy wrote: “Then Romney displayed the fruits of that education. “Has the Supreme Court decided states do not have the right to provide contraception?” he asked. Oof. the first thing you learn in law school is never to ask a question you don’t already know the answer to.”

Tommy, this went way over your head. Romney knew the answer to the question – he wasn’t searching for a genuine answer. His rhetorical question was pointing out that if the Supreme court has ruled on this then it’s the law of the land. The president’s opinion of this issue does not matter in any way shape or form. Who cares about this issue, anyway? ABC is wack.

Trevor is having sex with his boyfriend and he thinks he needs contraceptives.

It’s really not very tough to make these candidates look bad.

wtf does romney have to do with it?

Have you thought about the “personhood” ;laws that some states have tried to pass that effectively ban certain types of birth control.

you need seriously mental help.  Call the authorities to your house immediately

you should have thrown in some caps with your hyperbole…

It was NOT random. It has a lot to do with Santorum’s emergence. He’s a culture warrior and it is he who brings these things up. 

But the media doesn’t give up trying. 

Then why was Romney being asked? 

What truth am I afraid of? 

That’s what we were told in 2010 before the midterms. “It’s all about the economy, stupid. Vote for Republicans.” Then, you guys win the US House and start introducing abortion bills. Please….stop being disingenuous!

Congress is in recess if they are not conducting business. 
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/202769-republicans-mute-dem-leaders-on-house-floor 
Stop the nonsense. 

And the Tea Party is connected to that how….? 

i doubt if he even could get a bf

The question was not irrelvant. The election is about the country’s leadership on all fronts, not just the one you happen to consider worth discussing.

One thing rightwingers tend to forget once they are elected is that they hold office for all constitutents, not just the ones who voted for them (or more precisely, purchased them, since voters are almost incidental to Republican strategists). It’s a failing that will bite Republicans in the ass about 11 months from now.

In a nation of 300+ million people, there are many, many issues of deep concern, and if Romney or his little friends can’t address that broad range, then what most of us know already will become obvious to those currently in the dark: wingnuts are not fit to govern.

the first think i think about is “how does this person stand on the contraception issue” when i hit the voting booth…..lol

Whenever people ask him, yup!

Wait a minute…

Don’t mind KoreanLiar. He’s insane.

Oh, did they outlaw abortion while I wasn’t looking?

Cool, you have sex. Do you need a prize or something? 

They’re not stupid?

Then why won’t Senate Democrats say that?

I guess Congress is in recess when they go home at night.

when was obama asked about contraception and what was his answer?

It’s pretty clear that you’re seriously limited in what you’re able to think about, but happily most Americans are a bit more sophisticated.

Oddly enough, it ain’t all about you.

As was mentioned in the article, several states are or have entertained “Personhood” bills which would, effectively, make the vast majority of birth control methods illegal. 
Therefore, it’s a not-so-randomly-brought-up question. 51% of the population is female and 99% of us have apparently used contraception at some point in our lives. It has been on *our* minds.

They do mental health care, you know. Just stop by and ask. I bet they’ll take you right in.

The media should maybe be superimposing lipstick on ‘em?

Contraception, abortion and gay rights–the big three of sex–is exactly how Santorum nearly won over the GOP in Iowa. I am amazed how many comments seem to ignore that the Republicans want to suppress our rights, and get outraged when the candidates are questioned about it.

Just answer the question, Mitt!

“Trampling on the Constitution.” Riiight.

Is this where you to demand to seen his birth certificate?

Ummmm… hello? Women? 51% of the population? We have some pretty serious interest in what’s going on with the laws concerning reproduction and yeah, we factor that into our voting. There’s nothing “irrelevant” about a question whose answer could literally change our lives. 

As far as the debates; something these jokers haven’t figured out is that half the time it isn’t about what you say, it’s about how it’s said. Style points count and these guys keep fumbling like a virgin with a girl’s bra. Hopefully one of them uses contraception…)

You’re asking these wingnuts to stop lying. Trust me, you’re going to be disappointed.

Truly clueless.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/5/another-try-for-vote-on-personhood-amendment/ 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLdLNcXTtL4  <-Same guy who questioned all the GOP candidates maybe 2 months ago. 

The line of questioning is VERY relevant.

don’t give the author of this post any more ideas…

Not yet. They just wasted hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars by repeatedly introducing extremist legislation concerning abortion for the past few years in order to keep anything productive from being brought to a vote.

Worked like a charm, didn’t it? Romney is just not very good at this campaigning stuff.

And was abortion banned?

Has Romney said he’s going to ban contraception should he win the presidency? 

Absolutely. 

Actually, anyone advocating for a “Personhood” law is advocating for making contraception illegal and Santorum has been quite clear in stating that he believes states have the right to make contraception illegal even for married couples. 

Do you think the rest of us care what Teepers worry about? We recognise the narrow, crabbed, and fanstastic point of view that fascinates you so much, but we’ll go on evaluating potential leaders on the breadth of their platforms and overall competence.

Which is why November is going to be a very tought month for the wingnutariat.

Are you saying that a question concerning women is “utterly irrelevant?”

That’s sure what I keep hearing in this comment thread… 

Obama has never suggested making contraception illegal, so the question would, indeed, have been “irrelevant” if directed toward him. 

That’s true; the media keeps putting microphones and cameras in front of the candidates, which just makes it that much easier for them to make complete fools of themselves in front of millions… 

You seem to have forgotten that the two winners of the Iowa caucuses are more hawkish on Iran than Obama is. They are the ones who want to bomb that country RIGHT NOW!
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/06/fighting_words 
Are you just misinformed or dumb?

The questioning on contraception and gay marriage was relevant due to Santorum’s culture war rhetoric. He did well in Iowa. His pet causes get coverage! Newt Gingrich was instrumental in getting the 3 judges in Iowa kicked out after they led to gay marriages being approved in that state! 

http://articles.boston.com/2011-12-19/nation/30534855_1_bad-judges-newt-gingrich-gay-marriage 

It is YOU CONSERVATIVES who bring these things up. For some reason, we are not supposed to discuss what you say and do!

Don’t make Romney wet his magic underwear!

Next he’ll “force” me to breathe air and digest food, that rat bastard!

The only reason I’ve even got healthcare right now is because my state offers subsidized coverage. I had to enter my name in a lottery. 

The insurance companies should be giving Obama a tongue-bath of appreciation for the additional money they’re going to make, because the GOP pressured him to make this yet another gift to the corporations, who vulture the healthcare world. Thanks to Obama, young people can stay on their parents’ plans and people who were previously being rejected can get the care they need.

Yeah, being denied care isn’t “force,” but being required to have it is. War is peace. Truth is a lie. Slavery is freedom. I’ve heard it before, thanks… 

Personhood amendments! There was one on a ballot just two months ago in MS!

You’re either celibate or selfish if it’s not a topic of importance to you. 

That was a classic from the last election! LOL. 

Other than the “cult member” part, I’m not sure where GoneRouge has said anything questionable. Romney did support the Personhood bill and it would have banned most contraception, as well as made very miscarriage into a crime scene… 

except me cuz I’m lame

I love it when I can name the writer without looking at the name. You know it’s Tommy when a. Completely biased hyperbole..’Romney BADLY stumbled’ and b. Painfully lame attempts at humor…’pursed him like Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugitive.’ Bingo! That’s patented Tommy Christopher. 

It’s effing absurd to fault Romney for not knowing completely irrelevant legal finding from nearly a half century ago. Romney did exactly the right thing-point out how stupid the question was. And, yo, Libs, most conservative-including SOCIAL conservatives, don’t have a problem with contraception. 

Nice try but it is not working, Romney would not walk down the road into 
Stephanopoulos’s trap.  In fact Romney clearly stated that he would defer to prior court rulings on the matter..  But like he said the whole matter was a none issue as group in the country is seeking to pass legislation banning birth control and that is just not going to happen.  He did however address the same issue of State’s rights vs. Federal constitutional issues very clearly as he spoke about marriage being between a man and a woman and the need for a constitutional amendment as that too is something that the framers did not address and rather than have an activist court legislate remedy for the issue Romney suggested a constitutional amendment..  Something that liberals have little patience for as they have historically used our court system to change constitutional interpretation as it is a much more powerful tool when one does not hold our constitution sacred.  

Please. All of you. Calm down.

Go here:

http://thenicestplaceontheinter.net/

Now, that’s better.

Yes, that is what I’m saying. The economy and foreign policy should be the most important issues – not some contraception randomness that has already been ruled on by the supreme court and is not affected by a politicians mere ideological opinion. 

And a ‘question concerning women’ – what’s that even mean? 

your starting to foam out the mouth

That was the most rediculous question ever asked by someone in a debate.  The liberal media bias is disgusting and more blatant than ever.  Anyone with half of a brain realizes that the question was not relevant.  Unfortunately, it seems like many people who frequent this “mediaite” site are in the “half of a brain” crowd.

Theresa, I agree that the theoretical question of illegal contraception is whacked out!  And I feel the personhood proposal was whacked out.

The problem is a President has nothing to do with this.  At all!

And while it may be useful to know how a candidate feels personally on this, it’s irrelevant to his duties.

Not to mention nobody, even Santorum, was advocating any such thing.  It was a useless exercise.

I didn’t go out drinking tonight so I could hear Romney explain to Stephanopoulos that birth control is working just fine.

ABC owes me some drinks.

Please, do tell, who is trying to ban condoms or any other form of contraceptive other than some concerns over the morning after pill from small groups who have no understanding of how it works…  The question was irrelevant.  Had he wanted to explore the 10th amendment he should have used a better point of controversy than birth control.  

They would if they had great numbers of like minded individuals in the US senate and had a like minded person in the white house. I was disabusing the fallacy that conservatives only care about economics. They do NOT! They don’t preach their social agenda because they know it is out of the mainstream and would alienate non-conservatives who they need to vote for them! All of the GOP candidates want to overturn RvW. So, don’t ask me such a silly question.

Why not ask him if it was legal for Buzz Aldrin to wear white socks for the moon landing even if Neil Armstrong wore black?   Did Clinton operative George really have to dig that deep to come up with an obscure and unrealistic gotcha question?   

See my response to Pablo. 

Funny how you guys are all Romney boys now. You know in your heart he wont be any different than Obama. In my case I wont care if Romney gets elected because I know that dude is gonna run the country left of center.

It’s like taking someone’s temperature. If they’re in a fever over such personal issues like contraception — which the Romney apologists here think is completely irrelevant — you probably want to keep them in isolation.

Not to mention that wingnuts have a very dark history of trying to control what other people do with their bodies and so sentient people watch them very closely.

What happened there Tommy? Missed the point?

Sorry you had a tea party revolution just to elect Mitt Romney.

http://i.imgur.com/GFVJT.png

Perfect.

 Romney wont though. He will go wherever the wind blows. He doesn’t give a rats ass about anything as long as he gets elected. His whole mission right now is to hold out a little longer and bam the nomination is his. Then he will send out his groups to each state to find out what he should say in the general election.

Historically, Democrats are not all wound up about contraception (except where the Mrs. Grundys of the world try to ban it).

Republicans are. That’s called “relevance.”

Yea see Socialist medicine for our veterans  is gooooooood. Socialist medicine for everybody else is baddddd. No republican can ever work there way through that one.

So, you think Romney is an *effective* campaigner?

This is going to be an interesting 11 months.

P.S.: The founders were wise enough to recognise that no work of man is sacred, so they built in a method for changing the Constitution at need (remember, you alluded to this process in the first half of the post above, before you forgot and slipped into your priestly robes).

And in case you missed this part of civics class, it’s the job of the court system to interpret the Constitution in light of legislation passed after its ratification.

So, no the Constitution is not sacred, and yes, “activist” judges are just doing their jobs.

Got any more straw men to knock over?

Not if Santorum had his way. He is against all forms of contraception.

And he had plenty of time to prepare.7 years!!!

troll much?

You wish.

When questioning former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Stephanopoulos, a
former press secretary in the administration of Democratic President
Bill Clinton, premised some inquiries on the assertion — offered without
supporting facts — that Romney’s job-creation statistics were
inaccurate.

Nuff said.

I’m sure you’re right.

I’m equally sure it won’t work.

Then I guess the GOP should make a big stink about it.

your an idiot

you lose, again

the teaparty is a group of white kkk racists who dont want to pay their fair share, not a single one of them is honest hard working god loving american.

You’re wrong. As I mentioned in the article, several states have tried to do it this year.

were sorry you elected a moron ask media matters and acorn  to give you back your money  moveon.org already

When given the chance to speak after Romney’s display of how much he lacks constitutional knowledge, Ron Paul answered right away, clearing up the question and totally showing up Mittens; He couldn’t have embarrassed Romney more with any negative attack.

Candidates continue to regurgitate the Republican mantra that taxes and regulation are the primary factors for job growth, despite two recent surveys and other evidence debunking this myth. 

For more details on common Republican claims that simply do not square with reality, please check our post: http://thebottom99percent.com/what-to-watch-out-for-in-weekend-gop-debates/

And who nominates judges to the federal bench and Supreme Court? the President.

Maybe you and your fellow Rethugs should brush up on your civics lessons.

After prefacing the question with what Santorum had said on the stump related to privacy, Stephanopoulos should have asked Romney whether he believed there was a constitutional right to privacy.  Once he got him to commit to an answer on that, he could have followed up with a question about whether a state outlawing certain kinds of contraception, such as the morning after pill, would violate one’s right to privacy under the constitution.  

Washington Times is the ultimate propaganda rag. 

what recent survey what dope makes you dumber or kills you faster

I used that source because it would be the most sympathetic to conservatives. 

The Tea Party is connected to this because, like it or not (and I don’t), you’re Americans. The question of personhood is very much in the forefront now. Do you mean to say that you don’t care either way? You’re just going to “punt” as a political entity? If you’re going to be a political party, then you have to act like grown ups. You have to have positions on the issues of the day. Will you wait for the Kochs to issue you your position on this important question?

I would say Republicans are both ill informed and dumb. 

Good one, but they’re not known for doing what’s good for their health-mental or otherwise…

Smiling

And your foaming out of where you talk, your ass.  

I’d say he fell right into the trap. It’s an issue that is very pertinent, and he doesn’t have clue. Hasn’t even thought about it or read about it in the paper. The marriage crap was an attempt to dodge the question, because he HAS read about that one, and has decided his position is whichever one will get him more votes. (In the primary. He’ll change his mind if the opposite position will get him more votes in the general). 

Only Romney (and OSTL, of course) speak the truth. Everyone else is a liar.

This is the sort of forward-thinking, reason-based approach that will help Mitt Romney spend millions and millions of other people’s dollars to fail (again) in a bid for the White House.

this from people that poop in parks what happend to your protesters all indited for rape or murder? useful idiots

Its an important question because it goes to what kind of judges Romney would put on the supreme court.

He evaded the question because he didn’t want to tick off conservatives by sayign he was for Griswold

But he didn’t want to turn off mainstream voters either by sayign he thinks states have the right to ban birth control

So he just completely ducked the question.

If you say so, then it must be so. (Makes twirling gesture with forefinger pointing to temple)

“Will ANY voter go to the polls in Nov. 2012 and vote for a candidate based on their views of contraception?”
Geez, I hope not. Single issue voters are some of the stupidest voters we’ve got! 

Oops, sorry! No offense!

By the way, how is this an irrelevant question when it’s being considered in at least a half dozen states already? It’s really an anti-abortion issue. Isn’t that one of the republican’s sacred cows?

Well, he was asked, and his head nearly exploded trying to formulate an answer that wouldn’t cost him votes!

So basically no one here even understands the entire point of the question

The point was NOT if they wanted to ban contraception but whether the state should be ABLE to.

It’s not a very hard concept.

no that must be your mom at the top of the basement stairs telling you to go to bed

You probably don’t care about contraception. But do you care about the ability for a state to ban it or anything similar?

Because that was the entire point of the question. It’s pretty much a core issue for Tea Party folk, big government and all.

Well, no one excpt for republicans in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia… should I go on?

I agree with you.  Mitt made me laugh with him on this question and he made George look silly.

Yah, the Democrats only want to regulate what you drive, how much AC or heat you have in your house, what you eat, and how your health insurance works.

But those darn Republicans and now they want in on our lives.

If you really cared about life intrusion you would be a Ron Paul guy. 

BTW- I am not a Ron Paul nutter- just saying- life intrusion goes across party lines.  Makes me wonder why I am not a Ron Paul guy sometimes- but then he speaks.

Obama spends billions of other peoples money and fails daily then demands more

“And a ‘question concerning women’ – what’s that even mean?”
I believe that’s what one would call shooting yourself in the foot.

And the question wasn’t even really about contraception.

I thought 
George Stephanopoulos’ question was totally “whacked out” !  He’s out of practice and hopefully he can get it together after a few weeks back on “This Week”

I think the core of the question was basically on Privacy. But the question was “out of left field” and so “inside baseball”.  Maybe Santorum could have debated Stephanopoulos on this topic, but I didn’t think it make a good debate question.

I thought Romney handled it quite well. He, and the audience, instead of saying, “Whaaaaat” ? or WTF ? just kind of blew over the question and phrased that no state would want to ban contraception. Again, I thought the question was about “Privacy”.

Romney also declined to get trapped by a theoretical question that could have easily bogged down in the details. Good on him !

Good job for Diane. the other host/moderator for getting the panel and debate back on track.

I googled this topic to see if there was any discussion. I think the author of the blogpost, Mr. Christopher, was way off on his interpretation of how Romney handled the question. But thanks for writing the piece so I could comment on it.

…Colorado, Iowa, Arkansas… Not to mention that Gingrich, Santorum, Perry and Bachmann all signed a “Personhood Pledge”. You guys just love to sign those pledges, don’t ya?

So, anyway, yeah. Some people ARE advocating it. Don’t you read the papers?

You’re wrong (again). Gingrich, Santorum, Perry and Bachmann all signed a “Personhood Pledge”.
http://www.personhoodusa.com/news/breaking-four-republican-presidential-candidates-sign-personhood-pledge

You’re assuming he supports Obama. Not supporting Republicans does not mean you support Democrats.

You’re also making the mistake of pointing out the faults of another as a way to ignore your own.

He could’ve said it more eloquently, but what he said was essentially right. Romney did support personhood at one point which is directly related to the issue of contraception.

Well, Obama hasn’t been asked yet. You see, he’s the incumbent which means, in America, there won’t be a primary challenge on the Democratic side. So there won’t be all these debates on their side, which means there won’t be a Democratic “Crazy Clown Show”. You’re not from around here, are you…

But one thing I’m sure of: If and when he’s asked, he’ll be able to give a thoughtful and rational answer. You might not like his answer, but it won’t be a huge cathartic embarrassing moment!

Gingrich, Santorum and Perry, to name three!

http://www.personhoodusa.com/news/breaking-four-republican-presidential-candidates-sign-personhood-pledge

It was John Marshal who gave the courts the power to interpret the constitution not our founders nor the constitution itself. It was never granted to the court in the constitution but assumed by Marshall, a federalist who viewed the court as an effective tool in accomplishing federalist goals which had not been achieved at the constitutional convention as in order to get ratification many powers were reserved to the states that the federalists wanted to see vested into the federal government. In fact, for some time in this country there existed such a thing as jury nullification where a jury could rule on the validity of the law itself.

I agree that the founders gave us a means to change our constitution but activist judges have felt that their way is easier and more expedient, John Marshall it can be said set this precedent, consider an excerpt from his M’Culloch V State of Maryland decision were he discusses the 10th amendment and pretty much decides that we don’t really have to pay it much heed as he brakes down the plain and simple language of the founders and suggests that there is more to be read in to the amendment than what was written…

“Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word “expressly,” and declares only that the powers “not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people”; thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the articles of confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments.”

Typical argument even for liberal’s today. The fact is that the founders meant what they said and they said what they meant but liberals have always considered themselves to be of superior mindset and therefore had to find away to make our constitution into something it was never intended to be.

You’re getting into abortion/stem cell/in vitro fert now, and NOT contraception!

I think the personhood pledge is crazy, but that’s not the point…

Even the batshit personhood pledge has nothing to do with contraception…so you are wrong, not me.

Want to debate abortion?  Fine.  But that wasn’t what ABC spent 5 minutes on.

Read above, guyoxim.  You’re ill informed.

I would say democrats are just dumb

No.

Are you kidding?  This was Romney slapping down Stephanopoulos for a completely stupid question.  I loved it.  How could Romney possibly think this was a serious question considering all of the important issues facing our nation?  That Mediate would put this spin on the exchange is laughable.  Romney didn’t dodge the question, he refused to take it seriously.   Go Stephanopoulos and take Mediate with you.

Your reply made me laugh.  Thanks.  Stephanopoulos bringing up a 52 year old court decision, then Media taking it seriously, then chiding Romney for not remembering it from law school.  I’ll bet they never even talked about it in law school.  Ohmigosh, it has been very entertaining.   Somebody stumbled, but it wasn’t Romney.

This debate was good news for Obama.

Romney has cruised through this campaign with very few attacks and relatively little scrutiny. 

Means Obama will have plenty to work with…and Romney won’t have all of his answers rehearsed yet.

Nobody is talking about a constitutional amendment at the federal level or even legislation at the state level to ban birth control.. There is some controversy over the morning after pill and if that was what Stephanopoulos was referring to then it was a piss poor question as he lacked specificity. To me this suggests that either he is a poor journalist, especially in his follow up questions, or the question was posed as a hopeful gotcha question.  Either way after Romney’s response Stephanopoulos’s follow up and unwillingness to move on just made him look small. 

Santorum is a radical nutcase. Ban contraception?  This comes directly from supporters such as the Duggar family, who are total, absolute, without question, nutcases all their own that will soon be producing mutants with complex birth defects we all have to pay for?  They feed their children paraffin, yes, they do? Just as oriental nations banned more than one child and female children? This is the United States of America, people. How would this be enforced?  Put birth control pills and condoms on the black market?  Who from the government is going to be there to monitor the “pulling out” method?  Rick Santorum and the Duggar family?  That banning contraception was even, even, even raised at this time in our country when our country is facing the most serious problems it has ever faced since the Depression is dumbfounding.  Less government, yet the government is going to dictate that I must have as many children as I can produce or the government limits me to not having sex? There are millions upon millions of people unemployed and underemployed. Our jobs have gone to India, et al. There are millions of people that live in almost worthless houses now that depended on their profit from their houses for part of their retirement. AND SANTORUM WANTS US TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN THAN WE DECIDE OURSELVES WE CAN AFFORD?  AND SANTORUM WANTS THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE THAT DECISION? Yet, he doesn’t want to give “blllllllaaaaaa…………” he meant “uhhhhhhhhhhh” people handouts?

tommy christopher is an embarrassing suck up wannabe insider to the media darlings.

i spent years inside the dc political media/political world and his desire to be loved by them is so obvious and embarrassing.

the idea that romney looked bad here and georgie good is utterly ridiculous.he belongs at the daily kos.

embarrassing.

This kind of ignorance might play well with an audience that feeds on
media victimhood, but in a general election, Romney is going to need to
be better prepared for questions like these.

Ahh, typical Tommy. It’s too bad journalists doen’t have to take oaths like Doctors. I would assume you would fail the test because according to Websters  journalism is “writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation”. FAIL

You spell recognize the European way as recognise that suggests to me you are not even a citizen of this country, so shut up whatever.

How in the H is whether someone is using contraception or not very pertinent to the government?  Explain that one to me, please?

Amen, bro’.  The Duggar clan et al are behind this stupidity.  Nobody should take it seriously.  Should the government go in and clamp Michelle Duggar’s V shut because she is starting to produce mutants now?  Same thing.  Every exact same thing. Government control over the V. I say we should go staple it shut.

Romney has always been my boy. Why? Because he can beat Obama. And, I know in my heart he will better than Obama. It’s impossible to be worse.

Thanks for the copy pasta from the right-wing websites.

Any thoughts of your own?

Go find the Duggars.  They are leading a huge campaign for San……..although they are for “less government,” they actually pay no taxes due to their HUGE deductions and they want to force their religious beliefs on us all….they are producing mutants in their old age, but refuse to stop because they don’t believe in contraception. Look at their history–they had a miscarriage over 20 years ago and blamed it on birth control and never acknowledged the birth until they just had another miscarriage they “celebrated,” then they were forced to acknowledge the first miscarriage. These people think they are God and they want to act as God for the rest of us.

If you get to define “failure,” maybe. Luckily, you’re just one vote (presuming you vote), and don’t get to define such things.

Otherwise, what Obama does is more commonly called “serving as an elected official.” I realize that doing so makes him devil spawn in your mind, but see above.

There is a differenct between “regulate” and “regulate every aspect of our lives.”

The two leading parties have very different ideas about what should and should not be regulated. Right there is the major difference, IMO, between what makes Democrats and What makes Republicans.

Debates aren’t solely about presidential duties. They are also about candidates’ characters and the issues they would use the office of the Presidency to promote.

And that makes questions about contraception relevant.

Reply to post below:

Let’s have a look at what Alexander Hamilton had to say about what Marshall codified (very soon after the Constitution’s early outings) as “Judicial Review:”

“The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.”Works for me.

Translation?

only pretend journalist blogger-fanboi tommy would even try to say that georgie looked good with his ridiculous questioning along this line.

my god tommy – buy some pride why dont ya!?tommy is one embarrassing wannabe.

What was most telling about this question and answer is it showed how Romney is ignorant of basic law, Constitutional precedent, and a whole universe of settled legal opinion (on a topic of intense concern to millions of people). At the same time, he pretends he’s oh-so-reasonable since “no one is trying to ban contraception” — when Republican officials around the country are trying to do exactly that.

And in Romney’s universe, it’s unreasonable to think about rightwing officials banning contraception, but perfectly sensible to consider a constitutional amendment (guaranteed to fail) to insert the Federal Government into the most intimate aspects of citizens’ lives: who they may marry.

Romney’s attempt to believe 9 impossible things before breakfast may well make his head explode; it’s very likely to make his campaign crash in flames once he steps outside the circle of antediluvian moralist zealots who make up Republican caucuses and primary voters.

Sorry but whether you’re female or not the issue of banning contraceptives is irrelevant

No it isn’t “being considered” in ANY states. There may be groups trying to push it onto ballots but there are any number of fringe groups – left and right – trying to get ridiculous things on ballots.

It’s a hard concept, it’s an irrelevant concept.

Expat, perhaps the jobs issue may be more important than trying to re litigate Griswold vs Connecticut, no?

Especially since no one suggested it.  This just showed me that Stephanopoulos is still the Democratic political operative that he was when he was running the Clinton campaign.

BTW, I’m still waiting for one of the candidates to say “my views on same sex marriage are the same as President Obama’s” and just leave it at that.

The right also hopes to eliminate the use of prophylactic protection on the economic member. No modifications are to be made to the instinctual lusts of the financial class… The ideal citizens body an open vessel. RNC, eliminating all barriers to a complete f@*#ing.

congress is not in recess they are in a pro forma session.  Same thing that occurred when bush was president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_session
110th Congress, 2nd Session (2008-2009)

The 110th Congress reconvened on November 6, 2008, just two days
after the election that gave Democrats wider majorities in both the
House and Senate, and ushered in a new Democratic President. The
November 6 session, however, along with 14 other sessions from then
through January 2, 2009, continued a series of pro forma sessions of
the Senate that began in October and were intended to foreclose
opportunities for outgoing President George W. Bush to make recess
appointments to Federal offices.

I did not realize Santorum was anti death penalty.

the real people who were watching … the indie and conservative voters…ptobably shook their head in disbelief at the question,  Mitt handled it just right and made george look like the little dem operative he is.

You know, that is not a nice thing to say about the unborn children, currently sacred eggs in KT’s future wife’s womb, simply bc you do not agree with his politics.

My an idiot?

These laws are promoted by the Tea PArty candidates who came in in 2010. Although the Tea Party started out as fiscally conservative , they were soon hijacked by amd used by other conservative groups , including the socially conservative base the candiadates like Romney pander to.

A new standard to measure “the dumbest question ever asked by the dumbest moderator” in the history of political debates.

I think his answer was correct, ‘just leave it alone”, which I interpret to mean he does not want to overturn griswald. Mitt didn’t want to say that because he has to pander to the santorums of the world.

It’s called legal prescedent. Romney understands that but didn’t want to stop his pandering to be straight forward about it. Social conservatives keep talking about honoring and returning to the constitution until it interferes with thier agenda. The point of the question was to see if Romney would recognize the legal presedent and the constitutional issue. He wouldn’t because defending the constitution in that way would upset the base.

Exhibit A as to why Teepers are too stupid to live.

You know nothing about independents voters.

They’re rational,you are not.

Yeah, but you don’t need contraception when it’s only with yourself.

This is Tommy’s resume which he will submit to PMSNBC.

It seems to me that whether it’s a state issue or a federal issue only matters accprding to which way gets the social conservatives what they want.
Conservatives , like Perry, and others have said states should decide on the SSM issue and the feds shouldn’t interefere, until more states began recognizing SSM legally and now we need a constitutional amendment. Legal precedent in Roe v Wade protects a woman’s right to privacy and to choose whether to have a safe legal abortion. To circumvent federal law conservatives ushered in in 2010 have tried to pass a record number of laws to make abortion less safe and available , and even define a “person” as the moment of conception, which means contreception that is and has been widely used for decades would be tantamount to murder because of how it functions.
That’s what that question was about. I don’t know why George wasn’t more direct. 

The whole idea that our legal policy and individual rights should be decided by popular vote is actually agasint the basic principles of our Constitution.

“It was John Marshal who gave the courts the power to interpret the constitution not our founders nor the constitution itself”

Isn’t it nessecary in order to function to interpret the Constitution? Aren’t we obligated by the realitiies of living in a complex society to do so? You may not agree with certain interpretations but it seems to me that interpreting the principles in our constitution and applying them to a changing society is a must.

It’s an interesting question whether there is a right to personal autonomy under the constitution.  Santorum says there isn’t a right and the State (with a capital S) gets to decide on the limits of personal autonomy not the individual.  Very China. 

My guess is Romney knew what it was about and took the opportunity George offered him to dodge it. I’m not sure why George wasn’t more direct.
To try and end run federal law MS tried to pass a law declaring a fertilized egg to be a person and due all the legal protection any other person gets, effectively making abortion illegal, and making many common methods of birth control tantamount to murder. Even though MS failed social conservatives are still pushing this initiative in other states.
So the question was relevant to current events in the US and Romney avoided a direct answer.

Yes, that was mentioned in the article – but it seems that Tommy Christopher deliberately misstated the truth when he wrote “ballot measures that could ban most forms of birth control”

“Most” ? … no, and certainly not the vast majority.  No state has any proposed legislation which would question the use of the pill, condoms, IUD’s, diaphragms, etc – and that is easily the ‘vast majority’.

The issue of post-conception birth control is at the heart of any such legislation, and it is certainly reasonable to question the desirability for such laws.

George (a Clinton war-room Dem operative to the bone) was pushing a question which muddled the underlying questions in his ‘gotcha’ gamemanship.  It should be obvious that his thrust was not ‘state vs federal power’ nor the 10th amendment.  For that, he could have posed the question: “Does a state have the power to prevent consumption of french fries”.  But he chose ‘contraception’, and did not frame the issue as post-conception contraception.

Further, George directed the question to Romney, and repeatedly did so, because the Dem game now is to beat down Romney – while the more relevant candidate to subject to that question would have been Santorum. 

Let’s not lose sight of the effective subliminal message which is broadcast by even raising the issue of Griswold v Connecticut – that is, that government can pass laws to outlaw birth control, it has happened before and can happen again.  And at this point, everyone should do a reality check – the law which was overturned in Griswold v. Connecticut dated from 1879, during an era far preceding the FDA, when ‘snake oil’ salemen were selling a myriad of toxic concoctions which seriously harmed many women.  No doubt a well-intentioned law in its day, in several decades it became irrelevant and unenforced.

Considering social conservatives tried and are still trying to pass state law that makes common forms tantamount to murder, it’s hardly irrlevant.

It was actually on the ballot in MS, and a state Senator in AL is trying to introduce it there.
Doesn’t Romney want to overturn Row V Wade and make abortion illegal? So he wants to protect human life, from the moment of conception, AND allow birth control that ends it after conception? Is that it?

I think it has to do with the science of how common birth control works, the very relevant point being that if you’re going to seriously argue for personhood from conception then you need to understand all the real ramifications of that position.

If they want to pass an amendment prohibiting SSM, then their views are not the same as the President’s.

Trying to pass laws declaring “person from the moment of conseption” effectively bans many common forms of birthcontrol because of the science of how they function. The point is to get people to lokk at and duscuss honestly the consequences and realities of thier positions.

Created by Obama? I hope you’re joking.

I thought Romney did just fine calling out George for the ridiculous question, since both Snufalufagus and Tommy know that NO candidate is calling for the states to ban contraception.  George was a good little liberal lapdog last night. 

How in the hell is Romney pandering on this? By pointing out that it’s a ridiculous topic of questioning in a POTUS debate?

And who does a lot of court appointments? Didn’t Romney take the opportunity to say we need more conservative judge appointments?

How in the H is whether someone is using contraception or not very
pertinent to the government?  Explain that one to me, please?

Because when you’re talking about contraception, you’re not talking about Obama’s abysmal record. Therefore IT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN AMERICA!!!!

Ah, so now you’re talking about what you just know they would do if they could and not what they actually did, which is where you started here. So, we’ve gone from the record to your imagination. Excellent.

Does anyone care?

Well, we’d better discuss our laws on alien abduction, because we’re all susceptible!!!

Maybe we can get Krugman to moderate one of these.

The point is , in accordance with the realities of science and how contraceptives work, that declaring  “a person from conception” belief, means commonly used forms of brith control amount to homicide. In fact my guess is many individuals who claim to believe “person from conception” use these very methods.
Personal beliefs are fine, but let’s examine them in light of facts and reality.

Because he is also running for president?  Just a wild idea.

Yeah CD, and progressives are still trying to push reparations. And progressives want to get rid of all the Jews. And progressives want to give illegal aliens the vote. None of which are going to happen.

Hey, maybe we should discuss our actual problems!

Actually as I understand it those who are trying to ban the morning after pill are mistaken about the science in the way that pill works. As I understand it the pill does not allow the sperm to bond with the egg so there is no conception. So unless they can define conception as the simple act of having sex it is highly unlikely that these folks pushing this would be successful. I do not think that it wise to confuse the abortion fight with contraceptive, of course I am sure that such an argument and the confusion created by it would probably serve the Democratic party well so I am sure that we will see it pushed by both the media and the DNC.

Couldn’t reply below.

I’d say bringing up a Constitutrional amendment to ban SSM and saying Roe V Wade should be overturned and mentioning that we need more conservative judges, is pandering.
I’m not sure why GS wasn’t more direct and just bring up the “personhood” issue. IMO that’s really what the question was about and what was shot down in MS. Romney said no state wants to ban contreception, but making the “person from conception” premise law would effectively ban common forms and a state did try to do that. He also said he would oppose it.  The whole states rights vs federal authority seems to eb a flow with where social conservatives fall on the specific issues.

btw; since I can’t responf directly to boris88 may I say that his response is either the work of a shameless troll jackass or a hyperpartisan jackass.

Yes, the constitution must be interpreted and of course the courts are the logical place for this to occur. I do however disagree with your premise that because we live in a complex society that we should welcome interpretation of the constitution that fits our new reality. That is what the amendment process is for.

Remember the constitution was written for governing those who would govern, it was not written so much to govern the governed. The principles embedded in the constitution were principles which took into account human nature and the corrupting influence of power. The founders were well studied on democracies and republics and set up a government that would insure the liberties of the governed and reserve powers to local governments. An idea that never really set well with Progressives, who in their day would have been termed Federalists. The Federalists had conceded much to the states that they did not want to in the constitutional convention, Marshall a Federalist himself quickly saw the power of the courts to influence the constitution in ways that were never intended by the founders. He saw that he could fundamentally change the intent of the constitution through his interpretation of it. Just look at the ruling that I outlined above, Marshall does not make his argument based on what the 10th amendment says, instead he brushes it away using the omission of the word “expressly” to make his argument. This case was over the establishment of a central bank which lacked firm support of not only the people but also was a very divisive issue of the day, but had always been important to Federalist’s such as Hamilton and Marshall as it would be a funding source for an expansive Federal government. People were aware of the history of England and it’s central bank and were not supportive of a central bank in their young country. This is evidenced by the fact that the first two central banks which followed Marshall’s ruling were short lived and abolished and short lived not to return again until the 1910′s.

The point is that there is a process provided in our constitution but progressive agendas find it easier to utilize the courts during times that it is balanced to their favor. If you read the constitution for it’s intent and then look to how the courts have used specific clauses in the constitution to achieve their ends this becomes evident. It has lead us to the behemoth of the federal government that we have today that has become so dysfunctional that it is becoming increasingly difficult for it to function and this is filtering down into the daily lives of our citizens. It is apparent that our leadership has little use for the constitution in our modern world, just look at the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act which basically strips us of our protected rights. I am sure that there are plenty of people amongst us who see this bill as necessary for our prosecution of the War on whatever as I know that the word terror is in some circles taboo… but at any rate this bill strips us of our right to due process as American citizens can now be detained indefinitely without trial both abroad and on our own soil. Maybe this does not bother you, but to me it is another

 So, we’ve gone from the record to your imagination. Excellent.

It’s a very short trip .

But any policy issue can be an ‘issue concerning women.’ 

Economic policy is an ‘issue concerning women’ since women’s have jobs and go to work. The poster that replied to me framed it that way, in such a vague manner, to bring out the sexism notion. 

 Can you ever post anything without mentioning Obama? You are obssessed.

Awesome. The Pablo as fervent Romney supporter is less than 60 days away! A metamorphosis which is and will be so completely surprising that no one could have predicted it even 6 months ago.

Ah, Pablo, the culture warrior, Beckian Super-Republican

Oh, and to the point, it is an inappropriate question in a debate to ask about the future nominee’s views on Constitutional rights. Meanwhile, 4 years ago, Pablo got an erection when the same stephanopoulus asked Senator Obama about Bill Ayers and his damn preacher….two amazing important subjects to delve into.

It’s hard to say which was more disturbing here:  Romney’s truly shocking ignorance about really basic supreme court jurisprudence or his refusal to take a position on any issue.  It’s pretty obvious from his remarks that he really has no idea that Connecticut did try to prohibit the sale of contraceptives and that the supreme court held the prohibition was unconstitutional.  Why does a guy who doesn’t care enough to inform himself about this fundamental issue even want to be president?

Huh? What? Did this guy watch the same debate I watched? Romney stumbled? Major headscratch. I’m still trying, like Romney and the audience, to figure out what the hell Stephanopoulos was talking about or where he was trying to get to? “Do states have the right to ban contraception?” Jesus, he might as well have asked if states have the right to ban consumption of ice cream. As Romney pointed out, the question is pointless since it’s not an issue. George looked really silly pressing in on a completely inconsequential question. Romney made him look foolish and gave us all a couple of good laughs with his reference to “our constitutionalist” and the remark about contraception working just fine. Wow, either Tommy Christenson, or whatever his name is, has got a hard on for Mitt Romney or he’s playing catchup on the debate with someone who watched it. Yo, Tommy. Watch the youtube replay and then show us a little bit more journalistic integrity.

@cosmodan – conception is the egg being fertilized and most common forms of birth control prevent the fertilization of the egg so perhaps you are the one who needs to take a look at his understanding of science and how birth control works.

“. . . define a “person” as the moment of conception, which means contreception that is and has been widely used for decades would be tantamount to murder because of how it functions. . . “.- – - – Wrong, conception is the egg being fertilized and most common forms of birth control prevent the fertilization of the egg.

Such an intelligent sounding comment BUT conception is when the egg is fertilized so you completely miss the mark. Most commonly used contraceptives prevent the egg being fertilized. Personal beliefs are fine, but let’s examine them in light of facts and reality.

Only two forms of birth control could come into question under the personhood laws and under the premise CosmosDan presents. These are the Plan B pill and IUDs. These are the only two which prevent the egg from being planted in the uterus and are not currently common forms of birth control.

I could not understand this argument that conservatives want to ban contraceptives as it is utterly ridiculous. I keep seeing laws and personhood brought up and CosmosDan’s comment claiming common forms of contraception would fall under that concept. It seems that the liberals have landed on the idea that contraceptives kill a fertilized egg when in fact most forms only prevent the egg from being fertilized. Now in strict form if personhood laws were enacted there are a couple of forms of birth control that would if one wanted be targeted. Plan B and IUD’s. But neither of these constitute the attack on the candidates that we saw displayed in this debate. These candidates for the most part are just against abortion and not even in all cases. CosmosDan thanks for helping me understand where you kooks are coming from.

Check the votes!

If congress is not doing business, they are in recess.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/202769-republicans-mute-dem-leaders-on-house-floor 

I also suggest you look at the activity on the house floor (congressional record) during week 1 of December and week 4 of the same month. It is EVIDENT that they are in recess. 

He’s your boy because he’s saying some right wing bullcrap now. Wait till the general when he goes deep into the center you will love him even more

The Republicans are stupid to have this debate format.  They should have
the debates with Republican supporters asking the questions and then
giving the feed to the networks but do not allow the networks to have
their Democratic sympathizers destroy the debate with agenda driven
questions.

Nope. You might want read this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/mississippi-personhood-la_n_1079710.html even people who are pro life found the proposed law to be very problematic.

I’m not expert but from what I’ve read the birth control pill, used by about 11 million women, can also prevent a fertilized egg from lodging in the wall,  thus killing what that law discribes as a person. See what I mean about facts and stuff. Tricky little buggers.

I don’t know who was worse, the little Greek trying to make some stupid point that even the audience tired of and booed loudly. The guy from the Boston NBC station that was all hung up on asking questions about gays. Or the blond ditz who must have had a couple of cosmos before hand.

Sam…You need to actually read a bit…You responded to someone with a moniker of expatpatriot…Let’s break that down some so that your might be able to figure out. ExPat/Expatriate a person that is temporarily or permanently living outside where s/he grew up.

Now, here’s what might help you. They are probably working outside the US, but have kept their legal residence in the US that means they do keep their right to vote every 4 years.The exception is Colorado where their Sec of State has taken the right of service people don’t get to vote. That means the Navy, Air Force,& Marines that are in Afghanistan don’t get their votes counted. Thanks TPers

Yes, because in an envrionment of open discussion, where real-world issues any president might face daily are freely discussed, Republicans are unable to make sensible arguments.

We get it. The current crop of Republican aspirants to the presidency are broadly and deeply inept. The debate format has merely highlighted the fact.

What a subject to ask the candidates. Wasted precious moments. George Staphanopoulos should have known better than to ask this non-sencical  question. Also the Gay Marriage subject is really old old old.

Celibate. So glad I made the decision. 99 problems but contraceptive ain’t one.

This turned up in my news feed for some reason. I read it. Found the comments more interesting than the story. That’s because it doesn’t matter if it’s Romney, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Obama, or Clinton. They’re all liars, they’re all going to push for key legislation until they get what they want, and they only say what people want to hear regardless of whether or not it’s how they actually feel.
    There’s very little I feel is rational about the way this country runs. One of the more persistent questions I think about, though, is why on earth would anyone here actually believe their votes count, when the only people we have to choose from are exactly the same?

Why not just read this, instead?  http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/crime_and_courts/beezow-doo-doo-zopittybop-bop-bop-arrested/article_1f44cf88-387e-11e1-9aff-0019bb2963f4.html

The personhood laws are very problematic and way to vague but the fact is that the main function of birth control pills is to prevent the egg from dropping and being fertilized. “can also prevent a fertilized egg from lodging in the wall” was a side effect. Making it still true that the common forms of contraceptive work by preventing the egg from being fertilized. But it makes a good point for why the proposed laws are problematic. The point pertaining to this article is that very few conservatives including these candidates want to outlaw contraceptives. The point you have brought to the table goes very well to why the personhood laws are misguided but do not prove conservatives want to outlaw contraceptives. Perhaps a bit less bias on your part would go a long way. It colors the way you see the facts you dig up and add them to what is really going on. Facts are tricky and often used to demonize when they should not be. Thanks for the links.

Until yesterday, I had no idea this was an issue.  I have learned some things since.  I think Romney was sincerely dumbfounded.  If he knew about it, he would not have dodged the question.  Why would he?
 
Romney didn’t avoid a direct answer.  In the end, he said No, he didn’t agree with it and that ”Contraception was working just fine, leave it alone.”  Sounds pretty direct to me. 

I had no idea Santorum was out there talking about this.  I think Stephanopoulos meant to ask Santorum, and accidentally gave the question to Romney.  Romney has never talked about this issue.  I think he called the question silly.  And it was. 

Well Romney didn’t recognize the legal presedent and the constitutional issue and I personally think more of him because of it.  If this is an issue in Missouri, then let Missouri deal with it.  Our country has bigger problems. 

GS started the question by refering to Santorum , so I doubt he meant to ask him. I’m guessing this was about the “person at conception” laws being entertained but I may be mistaken. Santorum is Catholic and maybe there’s a separate contraception issue.
Although Romney did say he’d oppose it, he never did directly answer the initial question which was about the Constitutional right to privacy and how that prevents states from passing any law they want to.
The question may seem silly superficially it’s not really about contreception. It’s about the consititution and where the line is between a states rights and what SCOTUS has established. It’s pretty relevant in light of certain social issues that are being stressed.

So a man with a degree from Havard law wanting to be president doesn’t recognize the constitutional issue and you think more of him for it? Okay. I agree our country has larger issues to deal with but it is mainly conservative groups that keep pushing their social agenda. They want to overturn existing law, as Romeny said he would. They want to amend the Constitution in order to deny certain American citizens true equality, for something that doesn’t harm them or anyone in any way. I doubt that Romeny gives a sincere crap about either of those issues but he finds it nessecary to promote them because he’s pandering to the religious conservative base.

I like your comment “The founders said what they meant and meant what they said” and that it’s just liberals that think the constitution should be changed.  I agree, we should definitely act exactly as the founders did and revert back to a nation ruled by white land owners.  How did we ever let those liberals give colored people and women the right to vote.

The passage of time has and always will bring about a better understanding of what it means to have liberty in this country, and we will have to modify the constitution accordingly.  I think you were right about the founders meaning what they said, but that doesn’t mean they were 100% right.  I’m sick of people looking up at them and the constitution like it’s coming down from god on a stone tablet.  Times change, and the delusion of America being the great invincible and infallible nation is disappearing.  Look at how our last two presidents specifically have trampled the constitution and the bill of rights.  To want change does not imply liberalism.  To want change is what created this country, and a country is never a finished product.

The moderators were clearly trying to contrast the opinions of the candidates—this one focusing on Santorum. I don’t see what’s so hard to grasp about this. Just because a candidate shows outward frustrated with a question and an audience of SUPPORTERS boos the moderator doesn’t mean he’s being wronged. Romney gave a bewildered response to an objectively straightforward, if inconvenient, question.

I don’t disagree that change is inevitable but I strongly disagree with the tone of your statement. Slavery and the rule of “White land owners” is nowhere embedded in our constitution. What the constitution was intended to do was to protect the liberty of man from the tyranny of unchecked power.

Slavery was common place throughout the world when the constitution was written, and the constitution provided the principles with which the battle against slavery was fought. I am in no way going to defend slavery in this country or our history of second class citizenship in this country but I will state that it was not provided for in our constitution but rather the constitution offered us tools with which we could fight against these injustices.

There is a prescribed method for change embedded in our constitution, we discard these at our own peril as the over riding principle of our constitution more so than anything else was to protect the common man and his liberty from an overreaching and oppressive government.

If you teabaggers don’t care about birth control, then why are you so intent on banning it, along with abortion rights & gay marriage?  You *say* you want small goverment, then you invade our bedrooms & even our very bodies!

Right, as if the right doesn’t routinely whip up their moron base with their sexually prudery issues?

Here’s the problem on contraception:  If one finds its use to be contrary to their conscience and they are a health care worker or health insurance provider, the government says they will have to dispense it or pay for it, their conscience be darned.  
What’s next?  One child policy, just like China.  An OB may be required to deliver a baby, then throw it in a bucket to die, their conscience be darned.  
Obama and Sebelius are communist.