I wouldn’t do that in a million years. It’s risking the platform. 

Not to mention St. Peter at the pearly gates. He won’t be scratching his head over that like everyone else seems to.

There’s Paul Zummo with his facts again.

Hey now!
     Jim Demint is endorsing Ron Paul tomorrow. This race is between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul…and Ron Paul is barely hanging on. Newt, Jon and Rick Perry are barely viable. They will be turning in their concession speeches soon. 

Lets be pragmatic…the average voter wants to vote for a ‘winner’.(Why? Because people like winning over people with principles.) That means the votes go to Mitt, even if he is unprincipled.  So Ron Paul…anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? (He’s a righteous dude!)

You’re right, nothing like that happened before Roe v Wade. That’s because the federal government wasn’t involved in abortion before then, on any level. Now they are, and they need to get out of it just like they need to get out of a lot of things. They don’t need to be involved in abortion, pro or con. I’ll stand by that from now on. After all, its not like we don’t have a mountain of evidence that the federal government fucks up everything it involves itself with.

It’s PTSD from seeing this shit happen time and time again with RINOs like Romney wanting to reach across the aisle to get things done to the American people. Not necessarily just with judicial appointments but also legislatively. I see nothing irrational about it.

We’ve had one Republican who made decent judicial appointments on average in the last seventy years. One. And his name was George W. Bush.  And he even almost fucked up with the Harriet Myers debacle.

Even Reagan made shitty fucking appointments, with the exception of Scalia. The only other good ones was Thomas by Bush Sr., and one by Nixon.

The rest of them? Sorry, but where Democrats have a history of appointing liberal progressives, Republicans on balance have a history of appointing moderates who aren’t really that much better than the liberals when you stop to think about it. Not on a lot of issues anyway.

And there’s absolutely no reason to believe for one second that Romney would appoint anything but moderates.

And bear in mind this is my most important issue. More important than the economy. More important than national security. Actually to be blunt I don’t give much of a fuck about anything else, other than the debt and deficit. 

Unfortunately the odds are that we are going to nominate Romney. And the odds are I’m going to be staying home on election day.

Yeah its easy for people to get on their high horse, I guarantee you if they had a beloved family member impregnated as a result of a brutal rape they’d at least think twice about it. If they had any fucking compassion they would anyway. This hardcore stubbornness on this issue is what actually keeps anything from getting done, and its both sides.

We’re going to get to the point that there’s going to be a movement for two different and competing constitutional amendments, one being a pro-life amendment, and one being a pro-choice amendment. When push comes to shove, my money is on the pro-choice amendment, and that’s where my vote will go too.

And that’s really a fucking shame, because actually, believe  it or not, I’m more pro-life in sentiment. But goddammit you have to be reasonable and most of these pro-life people just throw reason completely out the window when it comes to what should be recognized as sensible exceptions, even compassionate ones. I just can’t ever support that.

Geez, you are so on the money with this one.    All the bellyaching about Romney, but they trash Santorum with more fervor, and then wonder what happened?

Sometimes, the liberals don’t have to lift a finger at all … the damage is usually done by the general.

(What were the chants after the McCain loss/debacle?  ”Never again.” yeah, right).

I think there is a point to pointing out where legislating morality is only a bandaid (and a rather sorry one at that) over what generally ills society.

The feds should get out of the abortion issue — to poach from Thomas Sowell, the smaller community is the best judge of what the locals want, so keeping legislation as localized as possible usually serves the people better.  Abortion is by its nature a very individual thing, no matter what the folks at PP or the pro-life people say.  At the very least we should kick the legality of the issue back to as localized a status as possible in order to serve the will of the people better.  They will probably best decide what is right for them.

Besides, it would take away the framework of funding, which will in turn recalibrate how individuals in society function in regards to the consequences, which will likely create an environment where abortion becomes more rare.  It takes more time, but is a surer method than just passing out decrees one way or the other, no?

DeMint isn’t endorsing anybody yet.  It’s State Senator Tom Davis that will be endorsing Paul.   

Let us not forget John Paul The Great and Maggie Thatcher!

Those two are who I were referring to in part when I said a handful of foreign allies, though I guess technically speaking it might be going a bit far to call John Paul an ally. Also, the Polish guy.  Sorry, sometimes I’m bad with names.

We do what we need to do. We definitely do not want four more years of Obama. Even Romney is better than that. But let’s hope for the best.

I doubt it could have been maintained by force of arms or terror even. The internal contradictions would have eventually destroyed without us doing much other than remaining strong.

Only the NORKs and Cuba remain. The rest have gone the Fascist road. Cuba is dying, and the Chinks are all that stand between the NORKs and oblivion.

If it’s an amendment, unless you are a member of the legislature or the convention called by the state, you won’t get a vote.

Your position is also quite contradictory. I don’t expect you see it, and I’m not going to try to convince you against you will. I’ve already seen that you’re pretty much immune to reason. I guess it’s that diet of honkers you like so much.

His help for Snarlin’ Arlen haunted him, and that’s why he lost with the margin he did. The surprise is that it wasn’t larger.

If you’re talking about getting rid of Roe the Supreme Court is the best chance there is. I don’t see a constitutional amendment as being very likely, to put it lightly. There just isn’t enough people that want to see either a Pro-Choice or a Pro-Life Amendment. And yes, I know its the legislatures that vote on that, but how likely is it they are going to sway too far from the prevailing sentiment of their populations?

Can you honestly see traditional swing states like Ohio or Florida going along with the kind of Pro-Life Amendment language the Pro-Life crowd would demand? It’s just not going to happen any more than you’re going to see the Mississippi legislature endorse a Pro-Choice amendment.

Moreover, even in the unlikely event one or the other passed, its shelf life would probably be just a little bit longer than the 18th Amendment. To put it bluntly, the issue would be far from settled law in all but name.