j44 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 I think you might be thinking of Santorum. To my knowledge, Christie and Romney haven't really said anything insulting. That's not true. Like I said, see California as an example. It's a liberal state, which voted against changing the constitution of the state to adopt gay marriage. New York and Massachusettes are the only states I can think of that are supportive of gay marriage, and Republicans don't win those states anyways, regardless of the issues. Unless of course you're running against Carter or Mondale. I think he'd be interested if Romney wins the nomination. But even then, it's probably a 50 - 50 that he actually accepts. I'd love to see Rubio, but I don't think he's interested either. He wants to stay in the senate a little longer, and probably has his own presidential aspirations. 1. I fixed your post. lol 2. I can't think of a better for a junior senator to help his presidential aspirations than by being VP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Given that Obama is most likely to win if Santorum is his opponent or regardless of the GOP nominee? Some nominees will be more embarrassing, and even damaging to the GOP than others. One the balance of what's available now, Romney is the least harmful choice that's destined for a fall. And maybe Shady's got a point. Things can still change, right up to the last few days before the election. Anything can happen, given the right "sound bite". Hence Romney better keep his mouth shut, and pray nothing bad about him gets found out ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Romney is the closest thing to a moderate the Republican party has got in the race. Unfortunately, this moderation is instead described as being a "flip-flopper". As for Santorum... gah, dunno if the GOP could possibly pick anyone worse. Freaking religious zealot is the last person I would ever vote for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Some nominees will be more embarrassing, and even damaging to the GOP than others. One the balance of what's available now, Romney is the least harmful choice that's destined for a fall. And maybe Shady's got a point. Things can still change, right up to the last few days before the election. Anything can happen, given the right "sound bite". Hence Romney better keep his mouth shut, and pray nothing bad about him gets found out ... Theres already enough stuff out there to make it nearly impossible to win the general. He might win the primary though theres a particularly bad crop of candidates this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 The religious right is doing its part to Spread Santorum, by endorsing Rick Santorum as their choice for Republican nominee.For the "real deal' on "Spreading Santorum" see this site (link). Also see thread (link) on topic.The anybody-but-Mitt wing of the Republican party has floundered around looking for their savior. Rick Perry! No, wait! Herman Cain! Oops! Newt! So I guess it was just Rick's turn.Rick has had one such "turn" before. Rommey's appeal is to the center of the Republican Party and voters, such as myself, that can vote for either party though I am a registered Democrat. Overall Romney is a bigger threat to Obama.The last polls I saw for South Carolina showed Newt polling strong and Santorum plummeting, so this endorsement is probably not off to a good start.If Gingrich weren't such as f*****g hypocrit and Nixonian/Mulroneyian to boot, he would have been a better candidate. But there are two applicable expressions: How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood; and If if and buts were candies and nuts we'd have a great Christmas In other word, Gingrich is too deeply flawed to be a good candidate anywhere but, maybe, South Carolina. And that is not a swing state; it will go Republican no matter who the nominee is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/11/16/368369/romney-flashback-homosexuality-is-perverse-and-reprehensible/?mobile=nc Speaking last fall to a Mormon Church gathering, Mitt Romney, then on the verge of launching a bid for a US Senate seat, expressed dismay at reports of homosexual behavior in the group and denounced homosexuality as “perverse,” according to several people present at the meeting. Romney’s alleged comments on homosexual practices were part of a 20-minute address he delivered on November 14 to the Cambridge University Ward, which numbers about 250 to 300 single Mormons. “He said he was appalled at the incidence of homosexuals in the congregation,” said Rick Rawlins, a 32-year-old Mormon who had previously served as a counselor to the ward’s bishop. “He went on to say that he found homosexuality both perverse and reprehensible.” Romney denied the veracity of the comments but, as the Globe noted, the account was confirmed by three other attendees So out of 300 people, 3 people confirmed it? Anyways, that's still not the same thing as actually saying something, in public, on camera. It's vastly different than Santorum. What you're describing regarding Romney is hearsey. It will always be a woman's right here, no old men will get to decide this for them, I disagree with you No, there's no such thing as a right to kill. You're on the wrong side of history my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 No, there's no such thing as a right to kill. You're on the wrong side of history my friend. No there isn't. There's also no right for you to force someone to be pregnant against their will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewTeddy Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Can you kill something that is not alive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 The "Personhood Pledge" states that life begins at the moment of conception. Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich (as well as the losers) signed it. Romney is the only holdout. Gingrich later clarified his position: he would not protect a fertilized egg until it is successfully implanted. Newt's view is that protecting an egg prior to implantation is an untenable position because it creates a whole slew of ethical and legal problems, and ignores the medical reality that the majority of fertilized eggs fail to implant even without any interference. That position enraged pro-lifers. Newt's a dick, but I think he deserves some respect for having the intelligence to recognize the problem with granting rights at the moment of conception, and the integrity to say so. Rick either doesn't recognize the problem, or he's lying to somebody. Rick says he's "not coming for your contraceptives", but he's a signatory to the Personhood Pledge who has vowed to protect life from the moment of conception. That basically means banning every form of contraception except the condom. Hormonal contraceptives and the IUD can prevent fertilized eggs from implanting, which is murder in Santorum's world. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 There's also no right for you to force someone to be pregnant against their will. I agree. Can you kill something that is not alive? What's not alive? An unborn baby? Have you seen a 3D ultrasound? Have you seen and heard the heartbeat? You're arguing against science my friend. Trust science, it's good for you in the long run. That being said, I'm all for contraception, I'm all for birth control, and I'm all for terminating a pregnancy up to a point. Anyways, I don't want this to be about abortion, because it could go on and on for pages and pages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 What's not alive? An unborn baby? Have you seen a 3D ultrasound? Have you seen and heard the heartbeat? You're arguing against science my friend. Sorry, but that isn't science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Sorry, but that isn't science. What isn't science? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 What isn't science? Just because something looks like something else, doesn't mean it is that. Also, there are many things that are alive, yet we kill them all of the time. Does the fetus posses consciousness? At what stage does this happen, if it does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Just because something looks like something else, doesn't mean it is that. Also, there are many things that are alive, yet we kill them all of the time. Does the fetus posses consciousness? At what stage does this happen, if it does? I'm not sure what you're getting at? This has nothing to do with anything looking like something. It's science. At a certain stage, an unborn baby has a heartbeat, and an active brain, etc. That's science. You can argue against it all you want. You can deny it if you will. But you may as well be suggesting the earth is flat, and that the sun revolves around it. The unborn baby's heart beats at 153 beats per minute. That's science. Deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 At a certain stage, an unborn baby has a heartbeat, and an active brain, etc. To what level? Is it a life of its own? Is it ia sentient life? Does it posses consciousness? Will? The unborn baby's heart beats at 153 beats per minute. That's science. Deal with it. That's utterly meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Hey, have you ever seen sperm in a microscope? They wiggle and swim like mad, clearly alive. The Pope clearly took science class, which is why every sperm is sacred. Now that we can clone cells, every single cell is sacred since it is capable of becoming a human and being a poster on this very forum. That is why you should never cut your hair or fingernails. It is murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 That is why you should never cut your hair or fingernails. It is murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 To what level? Is it a life of its own? Is it ia sentient life? Does it posses consciousness? Will? Of course "it" does....do you think this magic only happens in birth canals located in Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Of course "it" does....do you think this magic only happens in birth canals located in Canada? A fetus (or lump of cells as it is known locally)is not located in the birth canal in Canada, maybe American women have different anatomies. We also have a different viewpoint on when "it" is considered human, it is more or less when the fetus is viable outside the womb. That is what informs our admittedly socialist pinko approach to womens choice on abortion. I am sorry that it makes you and other so angry, but it is not going to change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Of course "it" does....do you think this magic only happens in birth canals located in Canada? You gotta love the science deniers! Luckily, even our justice systems recognize that when a pregnant woman is murdered, the perp can be charged with the taking of two lives. It's only a smaller and smaller percentage of knuckle-draggers that still hold on to the 1960s version of an unborn baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 A fetus (or lump of cells as it is known locally)is not located in the birth canal in Canada, maybe American women have different anatomies. See Canadian definition of "personhood" We also have a different viewpoint on when "it" is considered human, it is more or less when the fetus is viable outside the womb. That is what informs our admittedly socialist pinko approach to womens choice on abortion. I know, that's why the birth canal is magic. Kinda like an "Underground Railroad" for "fetuses". I am sorry that it makes you and other so angry, but it is not going to change. It doesn't make me angry at all. Killing babies is perfectly legal in Canada! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 We also have a different viewpoint No, it's not about different viewpoints. It's about some people that accept actual science, and others that deny it for convenience. You're on the wrong side of history my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 You gotta love the science deniers! Luckily, even our justice systems recognize that when a pregnant woman is murdered, the perp can be charged with the taking of two lives. It's only a smaller and smaller percentage of knuckle-draggers that still hold on to the 1960s version of an unborn baby. There will never be restrictions on abortion in Canada.. maybe the U.S.. which is where you should probably move to since you'd like it more there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 It doesn't make me angry at all. Killing babies is perfectly legal in Canada! Sadly we're one of only a small number of nations that allow an abortion all the way up to the day of delivery. It's pretty barbaric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 There will never be restrictions on abortion in Canada I disagree. Even in Canada there's strong support amoung all Canadians that late term abortions should be restricted in some way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.