Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/21/1134767/-Ann-Romney-is-sick-of-you-people-not-understanding-how-hard-it-is-to-be-Ann-Romney?detail=hide


Ann Romney: WTF is wrong with you people?

Ann Romney is once again up on her gold-plated cross, and she's got another message for the ingrates out there who don't appreciate how hard it is to be her:

During an interview early this evening with Radio Iowa, Mrs. Romney directly addressed her fellow Republicans who’ve criticized her husband.
“Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring,” she said. “This is hard and, you know, it’s an important thing that we’re doing right now and it’s an important election and it is time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt’s qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country.”

Ann has told "you people" time and time again to leave Mitt alone, stop asking questions, and just be grateful that he's willing to run for president. Shut up and show a little appreciation for the Romneys and their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice—passing up constant $30 million-a-year job offers, even though "poor guy, he took no pay when he did the Olympics for three years and no pay when he was governor for four years."

She's tried to make women get it:

"Women, you need to wake up," she urged them. "Women have to ask themselves who's going to have and be there for you. I can promise you, I know, that Mitt will be there for you. He will stand up for you, he will hear your voices."

She's tried to make Latinos get it:

You’d better really look at your future and figure out who’s going to be the guy that’s going to make it better for you and your children, and there is only one answer. [...]

It really is a message that would resonate well if they could just get past some of their biases that have been there from the Democratic machines that have made us look like we don’t care about this community.

But no. You people just won't let up, with the mockery of the Romneys' car elevator; with the questions about all those millions stashed away in secret bank accounts; with the outright disgust at Ann's tales of woe about struggling to survive on Mitt's inherited stock portfolio.*

But you people—you women, you Latinos, you Democrats and now you Republicans—just don't get it. You're so mean and classless with all your questions and doubt and disgust. Heck, that's why Ann so astutely noted:

My horse has more style and more class in its hoof than they do in their whole deal.

Ugh. You people. You just have no idea how hard it is to be Ann. Just stop it.

No Michelle Obama, that's for sure. This may be a little harsh, overall. I sympathize with her that Presidential campaigning is a tough thing. This is the danger of getting out on the campaign trail and campaigning. People listen to what you say, fact-check and judge it.

*I like that link detailing what a pile of BS Ann's story about their poor college years was. Poor them, with only the 1960s equivalent of $377,000 in stock to live off of, so Ann never had to work. They definitely understand the struggles of folks who are unemployed.

I really wish she would just stay out. She comes off kinda like the "Leave Britney Alone guy"
Also stop asking questions? Isnt that the antithesis to what we are supposed to do? Just accept his "Qualifications" as enough to make him president?

Yeah, she has to have some one tell her she comes across to the population and stop these announcements

That's what she said!

Poor little mite.

I wonder if she gave eeh latino staff working at one of their homes this kind of pep talk.

It's so hard to get the quesidila munching masses to clean the toilet after a posh poop.

How are people like Mitt and his ilk 'there for women' when they want to erode rights on topics like abortion? Or maybe we need to go over some of the boneheaded remarks made about rape again (actually don't, we've had those threads).

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
How are people like Mitt and his ilk 'there for women' when they want to erode rights on topics like abortion? Or maybe we need to go over some of the boneheaded remarks made about rape again (actually don't, we've had those threads).

Well the question is over whether abortion is a right or not. So if you don't believe something is a right you can't be accused of denying it.

Well, the Supreme Court did rule that it does.

True, although as always its open to interpertation and can change.

 Grey Templar wrote:
True, although as always its open to interpertation and can change.

In the same sense that going 50mph in a 35mph zone is open to interpretation as speeding.

You are seriously comparing Abortion to going over the speed limit.


I say women do have a choice. Its made when you decide not to use a condom during intercourse.

Seems pretty appropriate here...

Sometimes you don't choose the intercourse. Sometimes (rarely) the condom breaks. Sometimes you're using an alternate method of contraception and (again, not often) it fails.

I still believe its immoral to have an abortion as it ends a human life. The above circumstances are unfortunate for sure, but we must draw a line in the sand.

The child can be put up for adoption if it is not wanted. There are plenty of people that can't have children that want them. to throw away their lives is criminal.

Since you can't get pregnant, your perspective on this is not optimal. You will never run the risk of pregnancy, the nine months of physical transformation, likely sickness and disability for at least part of it, and (albeit small) chance of death.

And whether it's a human life IS subject to debate. At least one person on this forum, who was an unwanted child, has spoken about how much that sucked growing up. Not all children are desired for adoption, sadly. Terminating the life of a conceptus, at least before a certain point, is NOT criminal in this country.

Given that its a cellular being from the moment of fertilization, I'll choose to say its human from that moment onward.

The fetus has a heartbeat within 18 days of fertilization. Which is before most women will even have a clue they are pregnant.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that its a cellular being from the moment of fertilization, I'll choose to say its human from that moment onward.

The fetus has a heartbeat within 18 days of fertilization. Which is before most women will even have a clue they are pregnant.

A chicken also has a heatbeat. Do you eat meat? We choose to end nonhuman lives for our own convenience and enjoyment every day.

A conceptus may have a heartbeat early, but it won't have any brain activity for much longer. A person is only a person if they have thoughts, feelings, memories, etc. When a person becomes so brain-damaged that they are what we call "brain dead", they are normally not considered to be alive anymore, in the sense that the person is GONE. Only the unfeeling, unthinking corpus remains. A fetus prior to brain activity is even LESS alive, because there has never been a personality. The face (if it has one yet) has never been identified with a personality, a name, a human being relating to other human beings. An animal is much more of a person than a fetus. And again, we kill animals for food and even for fun.

Now this is not to say that abortion should be considered easy or convenient. For virtually every woman who gets one, it's a very difficult decision. Many women who support abortion rights would not choose to get one themselves, but recognize the necessity of its legality. A guy standing on the sidelines, who will never be forced with that consequence on their own body, is hardly in a position to render absolute judgements. Abortion is an issue on which the nation is genuinely divided, but most people are clear that it's a necessary option, which must be protected. If you only poll women; the people directly at risk if it were criminalized again, the right has overwhelming support. If men could get pregnant, I have no doubt whatsoever that it wouldn't even be a debate.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Since you can't get pregnant, your perspective on this is not optimal. You will never run the risk of pregnancy, the nine months of physical transformation, likely sickness and disability for at least part of it, and (albeit small) chance of death.

And whether it's a human life IS subject to debate. At least one person on this forum, who was an unwanted child, has spoken about how much that sucked growing up. Not all children are desired for adoption, sadly. Terminating the life of a conceptus, at least before a certain point, is NOT criminal in this country.

Exactly, Adoption is a lengthy and expensive process. They will want to make sure the child they have will be at very low risk for many phyisical and mental problems. They willl most liekly want someone with their body type and skin color.
And they dont want someone who has a pre-disposition to diseases.

 Mannahnin wrote:

.... A guy standing on the sidelines, who will never be forced with that consequence on their own body, is hardly in a position to render absolute judgements.

Balogny...why should a man have to sit on the sidelines while the woman carrying his child decides to kill his baby. Baby killing is wrong period...and I wonder how you can consider yourself a moral person while justifying it.

GG

I consider you an immoral person for judging others, despite the commandments of your god. I also don't believe it's actually a baby until it has brain activity.

Anyway, can we get the thread back on topic? None of this is about Ann Romney or the difficulties the Romneys are facing on the campaign.

Assuming that it actually isn't a thinking being until it has a developed brain,

Whats to say the meare fact that it will be a human if left alone doesn't give it the right to live.


And then we have that Abortions are almost always conducted well after measurable brain activity has begun.

Why is it that if you kill a 1 hour old baby its murder. But kill it a month earlier and its an abortion, especially considering that a month ago it could easily survive being born premature with nominal medical attention.

Grey Templar, given the demonstrably false* statements you have just made, any further posts along those lines will be treated as trolling. Please return to the topic.

*EEG activity begins around the 25th week of pregnancy. The majority of abortions are performed less than 8 weeks in, and 95% before 16 weeks.

It costs more to fund unwanted pregnancies and children than it does for a woman to have a pill a day or a single medical treatment to end a pregnancy.

I suppose you are happy to pay the massive tax increases required to fund the policy of forcing your (and I'm going to say it here as to be honest I am tired of it, WRONG) views on everyone else?

 generalgrog wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

.... A guy standing on the sidelines, who will never be forced with that consequence on their own body, is hardly in a position to render absolute judgements.

Balogny...why should a man have to sit on the sidelines while the woman carrying his child decides to kill his baby. Baby killing is wrong period...and I wonder how you can consider yourself a moral person while justifying it.

GG

GG, Do you eat Eggs?
That is baby killing. Some Eggs may get fertilized before they are taken from their mothers.

Guys, can we please get back on topic?

 Mannahnin wrote:
Guys, can we please get back on topic?

Please respect Mannys request..it's his thread afterall.


GG

Thanks, GG. If you want to refer to me familiarly, you can call me Ragnar.

Ok, this woman is about as out of touch with reality as her husband and the apparent majority of American (or indeed most nationalities) politicians.

I don't see why anyone in their right mind would vote for him and it makes me feel very tired with the world where people like him are not only in with a shot of ruling one of the most powerful countries in the world, but that many such people already are.

From the look of it, very few are voting for him.
He has been kinda arrogant lately, thinking he is already president.
If i remember correctly, a few time he has said "When im president....."
To many that comes off as arrogance.

I wouldn't hit him too hard on that one. Candidates need to project confidence, and talking as if they expect to win is part of that.