GOP Nominee 2012 - who will it be?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Coincidental that we’re in the same territory at the same time,’’ said Palin :lol: , a likely Republican presidential candidate. “But more power to Mitt…and best of luck to him.’’
What does she hope to accomplish with this?

“Hopefully, we will see kids on field trips again, and we will get them to read those Constitutions and really absorb what’s in there.’’

Read one while you're on the road, and if you see Cain, hand him one too...
 
I can't get excited about any of the current crop. But if Huck enters, I'm there.
 
SP won't get much media attention because it's wall to wall coverage of the tornadoes. She's really going to be ticked off at those tornadoes.

But I'm so glad she's made herself available to teach all the people who live where all that history actually happened. Because of course we're all still so ignorant. What would we do without her.

If she tried to hand me a copy of the Constitution I'd tell her to stick it :wink:
 
Really? His recent lying and flip flopping doesn't turn you off?

I find him to be an obvious hypocrite, but he does have a down home likability...
He's a lot more respectable than a guy who *voted twice against a bill requiring doctors to attempt to save the lives of newborn babies, and on a third occasion, prevented it from even being voted on.

But then again, so are all the GOP candidates, including Palin.

*He later said he voted against it because there was no clause that stated that the bill was "not to be construed to protect anything but babies born alive". But the fact is that that the bill did indeed include that clause.
 
Nice substance there.

Well instead of answering a question you turned it around to "Republicans are more respectable than Democrats because they are pro-life." That's not substance.



And on top of that you still don't understand the nuance behind that bill you speak of...
 
Well instead of answering a question you turned it around to "Republicans are more respectable than Democrats because they are pro-life." That's not substance.

Before you wrote this, I changed the "no substance" comment.


And on top of that you still don't understand the nuance behind that bill you speak of...

Oh, the nuance of the bill. Please explain the nuance of the bill to me; maybe you will convince me to give Obama a pass for voting against the bill that requires doctors to try to save the lives of newborn babies.
 
Well instead of answering a question you turned it around to "Republicans are more respectable than Democrats because they are pro-life." That's not substance.



And on top of that you still don't understand the nuance behind that bill you speak of...

If you think my point was that "Republicans are more respectable than Democrats because they are pro-life", then you don't understand something that is far more blatant than nuance. I'm not talking about pro-choice vs. pro-life. That bill was not about unborn babies; it was specifically about babies that had been born alive after a botched abortion. Even the most radical pro-choicers would admit that a newborn baby is a living breathing human being.

The kind of person I don't respect is someone who would vote against requiring doctors to try to save the life of a newborn baby.
 
Oh, the nuance of the bill. Please explain the nuance of the bill to me; maybe you will convince me to give Obama a pass for voting against the bill that requires doctors to try to save the lives of newborn babies.

It's not the time or place, we talked about this bill years ago. I'm not going to let you turn yet another thread into this topic.

The kind of person I don't respect is someone who would vote against requiring doctors to try to save the life of a newborn baby.

Yet you are for those that have repeatedly voted for denying medical rights to certain groups, those that want to force women to carry to term if raped or life is in danger, and those that call themselves Christian yet want money and privelage to dictate if they get medical care.
 
Yes can we not make this another abortion thread?



Sarah Palin, left, posed with celebrity look-alike impersonator Cecilia Thompson during a tour of Boston's North End neighborhood today.

609palin-thumb-609x404-43183.jpg


By Michael Levenson and John R. Ellement, Globe Staff

Even as she insisted that she was not trying to undermine Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign announcement today, Sarah Palin sharply criticized Romney’s universal health care law while touring historic sites on Romney’s home turf in Massachusetts

“In my opinion, any mandate coming from government is not a good thing,” Palin told reporters during a visit to the Bunker Hill Monument in Charlestown. The law will be one of the reasons that it “will be a big challenge” for Romney to appeal to Tea Party supporters.

“It’s tough for a lot of us independent Americans to accept [the mandate] because we have great faith in the private sector and our own families and our own business men and women making decisions for ourselves, not any level of government telling us what to do,’’ said Palin, who is a potential challenger to Romney for the Republican presidential nomination.

Earlier today, Palin jokingly tapped her first surrogate of the 2012 campaign – Cecilia Thompson, a Sarah Palin impersonator from the North Shore.

During a stop at the Old North Church in the North End this morning, Palin and Thompson briefly hugged and then the former Alaskan governor told Thompson what to do next.

“Now you go talk to all these reporters,’’ Palin said, laughing. “And you speak for me.’’

The impostor encounter took place as Palin toured the Freedom Trail with her 10-year-old daughter, Piper, her parents – and a contingent of reporters who have been following the potential GOP candidate during her One Nation tour.

At the Old North Church, Palin also encountered a group of fifth-graders from Waltham on a field trip who greeted her like a rock star, offering shouts of “we love you’’ as they jostled to have Palin sign their shirts, hats, or whatever else they could offer. :yuck:

Palin also offered them signed copies of the US Constitution, which she is handing out to those she crosses paths with today in Boston.
 
Yes, cause the private sector of insurance is doing such a great job of taking care of it's customers. But they're making a ton of $$$, so it's best not to mess with capitalism.
 
It's not the time or place, we talked about this bill years ago. I'm not going to let you turn yet another thread into this topic.

You and I talked about this bill? I don't remember talking about the bill on here. I may have, but I don't remember it.

This thread is about the GOP candidates. People here are stating reasons they don't like the GOP candidates. I simply stated the main reason I would vote for any of them over their opposition, Obama.
 
You and I talked about this bill? I don't remember talking about the bill on here. I may have, but I don't remember it.

This thread is about the GOP candidates. People here are stating reasons they don't like the GOP candidates. I simply stated the main reason I would vote for any of them over their opposition, Obama.

I think judging anyone based on one issue is dangerous, especially this one.

The majority of Republicans know(or at least should know) it's just a talking point, no Republican will come into office and change our country's law on this. Ask yourself why it didn't happen when Republicans had majority lead? Politicians know there is no legal and practical way to force women to carry full term in certain circumstances therefore it can't be overturned.

If I were you I would try and find a Republican that has a real plan on how to reduce the number of abortions and support them. Otherwise I feel like you might be wasting a vote.
 
I think judging anyone based on one issue is dangerous, especially this one.

I'm not judging him based solely on this one issue. But it is my main issue with the man.

Ask yourself why it didn't happen when Republicans had majority lead?

I have asked myself this question. I am aware that it's mainly been all talk from these politicians, and it angers me. I actually don't even consider myself a Republican, but a conservative.

There have been a few leaders who have made real effort to combat abortion, but not too many.

If I were you I would try and find a Republican that has a real plan on how to reduce the number of abortions and support them. Otherwise I feel like you might be wasting a vote.

I feel my vote is not wasted, because the little they do is better than nothing.
 
Abortion is really your main issue, 80s? That's depressing as hell.

You're right. Abortion is depressing as hell. And if you thought a fetus is a human life, as prolifers do, you'd agree about the seriousness of it. That's why it is my main issue when casting my vote for president.

But once again, Illinois Senate Bill 1095 wasn't even about abortion.
 
But once again, Illinois Senate Bill 1095 wasn't even about abortion.

You're right, but social conservatives tried to turn it into one.

It was a poorly written bill that doctor's didn't want because it put too much liability in their hands and it neglected giving rights after the resuscitation.
 
You're right, but social conservatives tried to turn it into one.

It was Obama who turned it into an argument about abortion. Obama said he voted against it because it didn't include a clause that stated that it was not referring to unborn babies. But it did include the clause.

It was a poorly written bill that doctor's didn't want because it put too much liability in their hands and it neglected giving rights after the resuscitation.

Doctors have liability on their hands every time they perform a procedure. But they have taken an oath to try to save lives. Why would that oath not cover the lives of newborn babies?

What rights did it neglect to give after the resuscitation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom