Which candidate has your intrests at heart?

[tonorator]

wow, i'm wondering if i should remain as a registered republican ...

 

clinton 76%

obama 76%

paul 70%

 

cool site.

[Azazello1313]

I'm not so sure an amendment to the constitution would be needed. You'd just need legislation passed to ban abortion by the congress and signed by the President, and then a Supreme Court stacked with pro-life judges to back up that legislation as constitutional, right?

 

right now the precedent of roe v. wade says that the constitution guarantees the right to have an abortion. any standard legislation that said otherwise would therefore be "unconstitutional" under roe. there are two ways of changing that, 1) constitutional amendment, and 2) the supreme court overruling itself. judicial appointments is the one area where the president has some influence in that process, but that influence is severely limited....one, he can only appoint a new justice when an on old one either dies or chooses to step down, and two they are not in any way bound by how a president thinks the might rule, and in fact they are often very unpredictable as to how they will go on abortion or any other particular legal question. justices always exhibit a healthy respect for stare decisis as well, which is something else that would have to be overcome for roe to be overturned. they don't overrule themselves very often.

 

so, yeah, the president has very little power over what happens to the legality of abortion. and even if he had absolute power on that issue, it still seems silly to me that both political party orthodoxies place such supreme importance on a small issue most people have conflicted feelings about in the first place.

[TheShiznit]

right now the precedent of roe v. wade says that the constitution guarantees the right to have an abortion. any standard legislation that said otherwise would therefore be "unconstitutional" under roe. there are two ways of changing that, 1) constitutional amendment, and 2) the supreme court overruling itself. judicial appointments is the one area where the president has some influence in that process, but that influence is severely limited....one, he can only appoint a new justice when an on old one either dies or chooses to step down, and two they are not in any way bound by how a president thinks the might rule, and in fact they are often very unpredictable as to how they will go on abortion or any other particular legal question. justices always exhibit a healthy respect for stare decisis as well, which is something else that would have to be overcome for roe to be overturned. they don't overrule themselves very often.

 

so, yeah, the president has very little power over what happens to the legality of abortion. and even if he had absolute power on that issue, it still seems silly to me that both political party orthodoxies place such supreme importance on a small issue most people have conflicted feelings about in the first place.

 

Sandra Day O'Connor was supposed to be the savior of the pro-life crowd and she promptly sided with precedent in Webster and Planned Parenthood. Ask republicans how they feel about Blackmun?

[Bill Swerski]

it still seems silly to me that both political party orthodoxies place such supreme importance on a small issue most people have conflicted feelings about in the first place.

 

+1

[Azazello1313]

Sandra Day O'Connor was supposed to be the savior of the pro-life crowd and she promptly sided with precedent in Webster and Planned Parenthood. Ask republicans how they feel about Blackmun?

 

not to mention souter.

[DemonKnight]

Gravel @ 87%

 

I dont know jack about this guy. Apparently he is pro drug decriminalization.

[McNasty]

Ron Paul 80%

Obama and Mike Gravel 64%

[Egret]

Gravel 76%

Hillary 71%

Obama 70%

 

So, Democrats want to cut taxes and have a balanced budget? I'm guessing that because I put that highly. I also want more funding for education, so that skewed my answers. That and Republicans generally aren't in favor of gay marriage. I don't give a flip what's going ton in your bedroom or who you marry.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Egret

[Perchoutofwater]

Romney 80%

Huckabee 79%

McCain 69%

Paul 65%

Obama 58%

Clinton 47%

 

I really wasn't that suprised with the results, as the two most conservative candidates have the highest percentage, and the two most liberalcandidates have my lowest percentage. The only real suprise to me was that McCain ranked higher than Paul, which I guess would be true, if I believed a what McCain says he is for he was actually for.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Romney 80%

Huckabee 79%

McCain 69%

Paul 65%

Obama 58%

Clinton 47%

 

I really wasn't that suprised with the results, as the two most conservative candidates have the highest percentage, and the two most liberalcandidates have my lowest percentage. The only real suprise to me was that McCain ranked higher than Paul, which I guess would be true, if I believed a what McCain says he is for he was actually for.

 

And do you think Romney, who is constantly reinventing himself, really is for what he says?

[whomper]

H8Tank 77%

[Bill Swerski]

And do you think Romney, who is constantly reinventing himself, really is for what he says?

 

Yeah, and I'm sure that your boy Obama is so much more geniune.

 

Most people don't care about somebody flip-flopping on abortion because it's a peripheral issue that only a few very vocal people feel strongly about. Otherwise, Romney wouldn't be 2nd in delegates and consistently getting 20-30% of the vote in a three-man race. Nor would George H. W. Bush (another former pro-choice guy) have served two terms as VP under the vehemently anti-abortion Reagan and a term as President himself under the same platform.

 

Wake me up when Romney decides that he wants to raise taxes, wants massive government entitlements, and wants a free-for-all fu@kfest on the border.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Yeah, and I'm sure that your boy Obama is so much more geniune.

 

Most people don't care about somebody flip-flopping on abortion because it's a peripheral issue that only a few very vocal people feel strongly about. Otherwise, Romney wouldn't be 2nd in delegates and consistently getting 20-30% of the vote in a three-man race. Nor would George H. W. Bush (another former pro-choice guy) have served two terms as VP under the vehemently anti-abortion Reagan and a term as President himself under the same platform.

 

Wake me up when Romney decides that he wants to raise taxes, wants massive government entitlements, and wants a free-for-all fu@kfest on the border.

 

Nudge nudge wake up...Universal Healthcare in MA down? Oh yeah, no new taxes for Romney. Just "user fees".

Edited February 6, 2008 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[bushwacked]

Yeah, and I'm sure that your boy Obama is so much more geniune.

 

I don't know how genuine Obama or Romney is...I do find it odd that Romney has a reputation as a flip flopper. I thought that card would only be played on those with an extensive congressional voting record.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

flippity floppity

[Bill Swerski]

Nudge nudge wake up...Universal Healthcare in MA down?

 

Forcing people to purchase health insurance (if not already covered) through the private sector is a lot different than Obama/Hillary's plan of the Federal government taking over the entire healthcare system. Romney has also said that, if elected, he had no plans to implement the same program on the national scale and that he'd leave it up to the states to decide what works best for them individually.

 

Nice try, though.

[Bill Swerski]

I don't know how genuine Obama or Romney is...I do find it odd that Romney has a reputation as a flip flopper. I thought that card would only be played on those with an extensive congressional voting record.

 

Then it certainly can't be played on Obama, who has only been a U.S. Congressman for three years.

[tonorator]

Forcing people to purchase health insurance (if not already covered) through the private sector is a lot different than Obama/Hillary's plan of the Federal government taking over the entire healthcare system. Romney has also said that, if elected, he had no plans to implement the same program on the national scale and that he'd leave it up to the states to decide what works best for them individually.

 

Nice try, though.

 

if you actually reviewed their plans, they are not for the fed taking over. hillary is for the fed providing mandatory coverage for those who cannot afford it and obama is not for mandating anything. he wants to work to bring down the costs because he fears the financial burden a mandate would place on the people and the government. don't you watch the debates?

 

and it's funny how we are so afrad of all the costs of providing health care to everyone while we can sit back and spend billions and billions in iraq trying to build up their country and infrastructure.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Yeah, and I'm sure that your boy Obama is so much more geniune.

 

Most people don't care about somebody flip-flopping on abortion because it's a peripheral issue that only a few very vocal people feel strongly about. Otherwise, Romney wouldn't be 2nd in delegates and consistently getting 20-30% of the vote in a three-man race. Nor would George H. W. Bush (another former pro-choice guy) have served two terms as VP under the vehemently anti-abortion Reagan and a term as President himself under the same platform.

 

Wake me up when Romney decides that he wants to raise taxes, wants massive government entitlements, and wants a free-for-all fu@kfest on the border.

 

I can't believe I missed this the first time around.

 

Racist

 

[Bill Swerski]

if you actually reviewed their plans, ]they are not for the fed taking over. hillary is for the fed providing mandatory coverage for those who cannot afford it and obama is not for mandating anything. he wants to work to bring down the costs because he fears the financial burden a mandate would place on the people and the government.

 

Both plans involve massive tax hikes and price-fixing. And neither has a solution for how the additional 50 million or so people will send demand and prices through the roof, and also limit access because of the increased demand.

 

Can't say that I completely agree with what Romney did in MA, but at least he recognizes that doing it on a national scale would be a bad idea.

 

don't you watch the debates?

 

What's the point? Am I supposed to believe what Hillary is telling me?

 

and it's funny how we are so afrad of all the costs of providing health care to everyone while we can sit back and spend billions and billions in iraq trying to build up their country and infrastructure.

 

I agree with you there, but we're not going to be spending that much on Iraq 5 or 10 years from now. The price of health care, however, will continue to increase over time and free healthcare for everybody isn't exactly going to deter illegal immigration.

[bushwacked]

and it's funny how we are so afrad of all the costs of providing health care to everyone while we can sit back and spend billions and billions in iraq trying to build up their country and infrastructure.

 

 

+492,000,000,000

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Obama's healthcare plan.

[The Irish Doggy]

69% Huckabee

66% McCain

63% Romney

61% Obama

54% Clinton

 

I don't trust Hucakabee, but the rest doesn't surprise me.

[SuperBalla]

Speaking of government spending...when does our tax refund come in that will stimulate us?

[Azazello1313]

Wake me up when Romney decides that he wants to raise taxes, wants massive government entitlements, and wants a free-for-all fu@kfest on the border.

 

as to the first two, well, he did both. as to the latter, read this.