Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm pretty sure that it is you that need to learn a thing or two. For example, the statement does not imply that she is an "adviser." But, you are by all means making an unwarranted inference from the language used.

He never actually calls her an adviser. You and others call her that, and then you leap from there to suggest that advisers need to be vetted.

Wherein you display your ignorance of the concept of "implication".

Nothing in his comments, however, fairly imply anything other than that his wife has been out "occasionally" on campaigns with him and on her own and she's interacted with women. She reports back what those women said they cared about, and it was predominantly the economy.

Wherein you display a charming naivete regarding words from a politician.

Whether YOU want to pretend that means something else is purely up to you. I can't stop you. You can leap to whatever unwarranted conclusions you like, and you can put whatever words you want to in his mouth.

And whether you wish to think politicians don't choose their words carefully is your business. Keep me out of it.

I haven't projected in the least. You have, of course, done just that when you made your so-called "inferences." I don't need to get over anything. This is a discussion of this issue, and you could likewise have never chimed in to counter my opinion You could have just had a drink, taken a deep breath and gotten over it. Apparently, your of the view that your opinions ought not be debated, and that once you've said your peace, we just need to take a deep breath and get over it.

I have no problem with my opinions being debated. I simply find your naive understanding (such as it is) of political speech unconvincing. Feel free to change my mind, with something more substantive than "NO U", next time. Words have connotations and denotations. Your continued refusal to acknowledge this fact impedes this conversation.

There has always been, since Roe v Wade, fluctuating limitations on abortions here and there. Roe v Wade never allowed unrestricted abortion anytime and anywhere. Third trimester abortions always could be limited or made illegal under state law, and second trimester abortions could have reasonable regulations that are narrowly tailored, and in the first trimester, abortion was pretty much unrestricted. That still remains. What we have is a tug-of-war at the margins, where States have more or less restrictions on and around 20 weeks.

Yes, I'm well aware of that, thanks. When such efforts are on the rise, it's fair to characterize that as an attempt to "roll back", it seems to me.

This isn't bickering, this is actually addressing the fucking issue. Address the irrelevant? Dude - I never even alleged that there wasn't an effort to roll back abortion rights. I was very clear on that. I referred to insurance coverage for contraception. Remember? You then jumped in with one of your silly "inferences" and tried to prove to me that there really was an effort to roll back abortion rights. Given that I never claimed there wasn't such an attempt to roll back abortion rights, your efforts were the epitome of introducing the irrelevant.

If you're this mad over an irrelevancy, you should log out and take a walk. Also, "NO U" argument spotted again.

You also chime in about the topic of the OP, start an argument with me about it, and then when I counter your statements you basically tell me to shut up.

Nice work.

Given the lack of insight you're bringing to the matter, shutting up would be a improvement of your discourse. I'm not obliged to accept weak reasoning from you, or anyone else. You have my permission to change my mind on this or any other matter, but quite frankly, you're entirely unconvincing, and so long as you deny that the word "report" was chosen for a significant reason, you will remain unconvincing, because spouses don't "report" to each other, they talk to each other. They tell each other things. In political language, a "report" has a functional implication. Your refusal to acknowledge the obvious does you no credit.

[macdoc]

re "remain childless comment"

Very different choices and in Romney Mormon world women often don't have either choice.

suggested article

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/29/mitt_an ... _prophecy/

I've very surprised Romney's "chosen one' role has not come up but then America is whacko on religious nonsense anyways so too many wouldn't find it strange...

[Warren Dew]

Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

I don't know-- the fight to roll back access to contraception and reproductive rights across the nation seems like an attack on women.

If you look at what's actually happening in that fight, the Democrats are doing much more to roll back reproductive rights than are the Republicans.

Obama is the one who signed the Stupak amendment into law, which will make abortion coverage illegal for most low income and many middle income women. Romney is the one who wants to repeal that.

There is a war on women, and it is the Democrats who are waging it. It's just sad they've obfuscated it successfully enough to dupe so many women.

[Svartalf]

You forget plenty of tourism Macdoc.. it's incredible the number of your Irish women who go spend an extended weekend or a week in the UK, similarly Iberians find Perpignan and Bayonne fascinating and Poles just love to visit Germany...

[macdoc]

MY Irish women??!!!!....I'm an Canadian and part time Australian.

[hadespussercats]

Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

I don't know-- the fight to roll back access to contraception and reproductive rights across the nation seems like an attack on women.

If you look at what's actually happening in that fight, the Democrats are doing much more to roll back reproductive rights than are the Republicans.

Obama is the one who signed the Stupak amendment into law, which will make abortion coverage illegal for most low income and many middle income women. Romney is the one who wants to repeal that.

There is a war on women, and it is the Democrats who are waging it. It's just sad they've obfuscated it successfully enough to dupe so many women.

The war exists, though-- or, to use a less weighted phrase, the backlash against strides made in woman's equality in healthcare, equal pay, abortion rights, and so forth, exists. I am aware the Democrats don't have a clean bill on this issue, but I doubt their efforts amount to more than what Republicans have been attempting.

It's not good, no matter who's doing the fighting.

Still, I could stand to look into the particulars of the Stupak amendment more thoroughly. Sounds like yet another dumb appeasement move by Obama to placate opponents who never will be placated. But I could be wrong.

[Svartalf]

MY Irish women??!!!!....I'm an Canadian and part time Australian.

They are yours because you introduced them to this conversation, the same as all the new world belongs to one Amerigo Vespucci for putting it on the map.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm pretty sure that it is you that need to learn a thing or two. For example, the statement does not imply that she is an "adviser." But, you are by all means making an unwarranted inference from the language used.

He never actually calls her an adviser. You and others call her that, and then you leap from there to suggest that advisers need to be vetted.

Wherein you display your ignorance of the concept of "implication".

Negative. You display your willingness to infer connections that don't exist.

Nothing in his comments, however, fairly imply anything other than that his wife has been out "occasionally" on campaigns with him and on her own and she's interacted with women. She reports back what those women said they cared about, and it was predominantly the economy.

Wherein you display a charming naivete regarding words from a politician.

Wherein you display a willingness to invent anything that satisfies your preconceived notions.

Whether YOU want to pretend that means something else is purely up to you. I can't stop you. You can leap to whatever unwarranted conclusions you like, and you can put whatever words you want to in his mouth.

And whether you wish to think politicians don't choose their words carefully is your business. Keep me out of it.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. That depends on whether the politician has prepared their words. They sometimes speak off the cuff, and sometimes they don't.

I haven't projected in the least. You have, of course, done just that when you made your so-called "inferences." I don't need to get over anything. This is a discussion of this issue, and you could likewise have never chimed in to counter my opinion You could have just had a drink, taken a deep breath and gotten over it. Apparently, your of the view that your opinions ought not be debated, and that once you've said your peace, we just need to take a deep breath and get over it.

I have no problem with my opinions being debated. I simply find your naive understanding (such as it is) of political speech unconvincing. Feel free to change my mind, with something more substantive than "NO U", next time. Words have connotations and denotations. Your continued refusal to acknowledge this fact impedes this conversation.

Likewise, Thump. I find your "understanding" to be essentially a lack thereof. You have a conclusion you want to reach, and you decide to "interpret" words to fit that conclusion.

Of course words have connotations and denotations. If you'd follow them, and if you had any desire to even try to know what they were, you'd know you can't logically reach the conclusions you do. What it amounts to is that you ignore the connotations and denotations and simply invent your own meanings and infer your own imagined intents. You're free to do so, of course. But please don't pretend it is some sort of keen insight. It's unbecoming.

There has always been, since Roe v Wade, fluctuating limitations on abortions here and there. Roe v Wade never allowed unrestricted abortion anytime and anywhere. Third trimester abortions always could be limited or made illegal under state law, and second trimester abortions could have reasonable regulations that are narrowly tailored, and in the first trimester, abortion was pretty much unrestricted. That still remains. What we have is a tug-of-war at the margins, where States have more or less restrictions on and around 20 weeks.

Yes, I'm well aware of that, thanks. When such efforts are on the rise, it's fair to characterize that as an attempt to "roll back", it seems to me.

And, if you bothered to read the words actually used by people, instead of just inventing things, you'd know that I never suggested or implied that there wasn't an attempt to roll back abortion rights. In fact, I specifically and expressly stated that there were such attempts. So, what the hell are you even talking about? This is a prime example of what you did in the case of Romney's words - instead of reading and understanding the words actually written, you go off on your own tangent.

This isn't bickering, this is actually addressing the fucking issue. Address the irrelevant? Dude - I never even alleged that there wasn't an effort to roll back abortion rights. I was very clear on that. I referred to insurance coverage for contraception. Remember? You then jumped in with one of your silly "inferences" and tried to prove to me that there really was an effort to roll back abortion rights. Given that I never claimed there wasn't such an attempt to roll back abortion rights, your efforts were the epitome of introducing the irrelevant.

If you're this mad over an irrelevancy, you should log out and take a walk. Also, "NO U" argument spotted again.

Actually, what I just did was prove that you were talking out of your ass. But, sure, hand wave it away. That's your only option at this point.

You also chime in about the topic of the OP, start an argument with me about it, and then when I counter your statements you basically tell me to shut up.

Nice work.

Given the lack of insight you're bringing to the matter, shutting up would be a improvement of your discourse. I'm not obliged to accept weak reasoning from you, or anyone else. You have my permission to change my mind on this or any other matter, but quite frankly, you're entirely unconvincing, and so long as you deny that the word "report" was chosen for a significant reason, you will remain unconvincing, because spouses don't "report" to each other, they talk to each other. They tell each other things. In political language, a "report" has a functional implication. Your refusal to acknowledge the obvious does you no credit.

My lack of insight? That's rich.

Change your mind? You're too intellectually dishonest to honestly change your mind when you've been proven wrong. Your abortion/rollback argument is a good example. You invent an argument I never made and knock it down, and then you tell me that my arguments are weak reasoning? It is enough to make a cat laugh.

Go quote another piece of material and invent your own meaning for it. Call it "implication" and "inference" and then pretend you have half a brain. It seems to keep you happy, and if that works for you, then maybe ignorance truly is bliss.

[Tyrannical]

Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

I don't know-- the fight to roll back access to contraception and reproductive rights across the nation seems like an attack on women.

Women's rights haven't exactly been good for society, and women's reproductive rights are causing a demographic catastrophe by lowering the birth rate to the point that in the future retirees will be unable to be taken care of.

[hadespussercats]

Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

I don't know-- the fight to roll back access to contraception and reproductive rights across the nation seems like an attack on women.

Women's rights haven't exactly been good for society, and women's reproductive rights are causing a demographic catastrophe by lowering the birth rate to the point that in the future retirees will be unable to be taken care of.

Send 'em out on an ice floe. If we still have ice floes.

[Coito ergo sum]

Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

I don't know-- the fight to roll back access to contraception and reproductive rights across the nation seems like an attack on women.

Women's rights haven't exactly been good for society, and women's reproductive rights are causing a demographic catastrophe by lowering the birth rate to the point that in the future retirees will be unable to be taken care of.

Send 'em out on an ice floe. If we still have ice floes.

[Tyrannical]

Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

I don't know-- the fight to roll back access to contraception and reproductive rights across the nation seems like an attack on women.

Women's rights haven't exactly been good for society, and women's reproductive rights are causing a demographic catastrophe by lowering the birth rate to the point that in the future retirees will be unable to be taken care of.

Send 'em out on an ice floe. If we still have ice floes.

What has women's rights really accomplished

Inability of a single worker to provide for their family due to labor competition.
Ballooning welfare costs
Destruction of the family unit through divorce and out of wedlock births
Single mother "children" do markedly worse academical and are more anti-social and are thus less able to support a modern society
Demographic childbirth crisis that will doom millions of elderly

Judge the tree by the fruit it bears, giving women the right to vote is the source of much of society's ills.

[Coito ergo sum]

Including the "war on women" invented by the Democrat party. It's all crap. It's just a big pile of shit.

I don't know-- the fight to roll back access to contraception and reproductive rights across the nation seems like an attack on women.

Women's rights haven't exactly been good for society, and women's reproductive rights are causing a demographic catastrophe by lowering the birth rate to the point that in the future retirees will be unable to be taken care of.

Send 'em out on an ice floe. If we still have ice floes.

What has women's rights really accomplished

I suppose women having the equal right to vote, express their opinions, practice their religion, own property, enter into contracts, control their reproductive organs, say no to sex (or yes) as they see fit and not have an implied consent to access from their husband, the right to divorce freely, the right to be free from battery from their husbands, the right to equal protection of the laws, the right to hold public office, and other examples of the right to equal dignity under the law. Other than that, not much, I suppose.

[Tyrannical]

I suppose women having the equal right to vote, express their opinions, practice their religion, own property, enter into contracts, control their reproductive organs, say no to sex (or yes) as they see fit and not have an implied consent to access from their husband, the right to divorce freely, the right to be free from battery from their husbands, the right to equal protection of the laws, the right to hold public office, and other examples of the right to equal dignity under the law. Other than that, not much, I suppose.

Has that benefited society as a whole?

The future demographic crisis alone is enough reason to take back those rights before a societal collapse. By far the most important job in any civilization falls to women, to bear and rear the future generation, and women have neglected this.

[Coito ergo sum]

I suppose women having the equal right to vote, express their opinions, practice their religion, own property, enter into contracts, control their reproductive organs, say no to sex (or yes) as they see fit and not have an implied consent to access from their husband, the right to divorce freely, the right to be free from battery from their husbands, the right to equal protection of the laws, the right to hold public office, and other examples of the right to equal dignity under the law. Other than that, not much, I suppose.

Has that benefited society as a whole?

Since women represent 52% of the population, or thereabouts, I would say that a good argument can be made that it has. Moreover, I'm not a communist, and benefiting the individual is as important as benefiting society as a whole.

The future demographic crisis alone is enough reason to take back those rights before a societal collapse. By far the most important job in any civilization falls to women, to bear and rear the future generation, and women have neglected this.

An individual's rights exist by virtue of their birth, they are not granted by the State.