GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4 - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-18-2012, 06:11 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I don't think contraception is intrinsically evil.

Nor do I believe contraception is intrinsically a right to be provided at no cost.

What kinda "extremist" does that make me?
I am much more concerned about the basic access to contraception, for example, from Santorum:

Quote:
One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-18-2012, 06:49 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 11:27 AM
I can't believe contraception is an issue for the GOP in 2012.

It boggles the mind.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-18-2012, 08:47 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I can't believe contraception is an issue for the GOP in 2012.

It boggles the mind.
It isn't.

The Obamacare Trifecta - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online

(a summary, I recommend reading the entire column)

Quote:
The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.

On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?

Consider the constitutional wreckage left by Obamacare:

First, its assault on the free exercise of religion.
Second, its assault on free enterprise.
Third, the assault on individual autonomy.

This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies, and the individual citizen — should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.
No wonder Democrats and their mouthpieces in the media would like to frame this as about contraception.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-18-2012, 09:17 PM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Sorry, blame the media isn't a strategy when the frontrunner for the GOP is against birth control. Krauthammer isn't in control of the GOP anymore.

But it probably isn't about birth control, at least not for married women. It's those sluts who's whoring around I dont think I should have to subsidize. Condoms are for sailors! And they're available at Walgreens, right next to the pap smears and mammograms.

On a more serious note -- what are other medications that employers should have the right to deny coverage out of religious freedom? Certainly it's not just about women's health and sexuality.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-18-2012, 11:18 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 10:27 AM
Quote:
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen.
Yes. Sexual unions must be absolutely perfect, because we all know life is supposed to be completely and totally perfect. Nothing but sunshine and rainbows and lollipops and la, la, la, la, la.

How rose-colored are those glasses he's got on, exactly?

Quote:
We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out?
So how does he explain couples who can't have children? Not "I don't want children", but, "I physically cannot produce children."? Does he think that "diminishes the bond" at all when they have sex, since clearly reproduction won't be a part of why they're doing it?

And more importantly, why the hell does he care what sex "means" to other couples to begin with? Why, WHY is this something he feels needs to be his business to begin with?

Quote:
And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure.
If sex were solely a reproductive action, my guess is it probably wouldn't involve any other feelings/sensations.

I don't know why I typed all this out, though. I feel like I'm talking (typing?) to a brick wall. What an idiot.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-19-2012, 02:18 AM   #21
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
On a more serious note--what are other medications that employers should have the right to deny coverage out of religious freedom?
Under the terms of Senator Blunt's proposed amendment, some examples might include blood transfusions (opposed by Jehovah's Witnesses), any form of mental health care (opposed by Scientologists), and pretty much everything is opposed by many Christian Scientists. There are also numerous smaller religious sects which oppose various forms of medical care, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, for various reasons. Blunt's bill also would allow health plans to decline coverage for specific services "contrary to" the "moral convictions" of the employer; it wouldn't even have to involve a religious belief as such. Well, at least he's consistent even if his timing is suspect.


Re: Santorum--to be fair, he has said repeatedly he wouldn't support banning contraception, and I don't see any highly compelling reason to doubt that; he has voted for federal funding for birth control services in the past. The oft-cited quote about "the dangers of contraception in this country" came from an interview with a Christian blogger, and his remarks did seem to be aimed primarily at that audience ("Many in the Christian faith have said..."). On the other hand, he also said "One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about..." (concerning "the dangers of contraception") and "these are important public policy issues" (ditto), so I don't find some skepticism unwarranted, either. It's quite possible to chip away at a right (and access to contraception is a right; see Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972) until it's effectively nonexistent for the majority, particularly when there's some sort of stigma associated with it.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-19-2012, 02:43 AM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland
Under the terms of Senator Blunt's proposed amendment, some examples might include blood transfusions (opposed by Jehovah's Witnesses), any form of mental health care (opposed by Scientologists), and pretty much everything is opposed by many Christian Scientists. There are also numerous smaller religious sects which oppose various forms of medical care, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, for various reasons.
hmm, well, all these things could well affect men, so I guess that has nothing to do with religious freedom. That's science and medicine.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-19-2012, 07:38 AM   #23
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,035
Local Time: 03:27 AM
From an Aussie/Kiwi perspective, the debate in this thread about contraception is actually mindboggling. I feel like I've walked into a time warp.
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is offline  
Old 02-19-2012, 08:52 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
It isn't.

The Obamacare Trifecta - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online

(a summary, I recommend reading the entire column)



No wonder Democrats and their mouthpieces in the media would like to frame this as about contraception.
But Krauthammer isn't framing the issue at all. . .
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-19-2012, 10:50 AM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 11:27 AM
What was lame about the So-called MSM is that they originally tried to spin this as a "religious freedom" issue and a bad move by Obama.

I don't think they realized that for the crowd now in control of the GOP it really was about birth control, and specifically about female sexuality.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-19-2012, 11:44 AM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 11:27 AM
More offensive crap from Santorum:

Quote:
"One of the things that you don't know about ObamaCare in one of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing," Santorum began telling about 400 people here. "Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and, therefore, less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society. That too is part of ObamaCare -- another hidden message as to what president Obama thinks of those who are less able than the elites who want to govern our country."
Obama wants to kill the disabled!
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-19-2012, 09:10 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
From an Aussie/Kiwi perspective, the debate in this thread about contraception is actually mindboggling. I feel like I've walked into a time warp.
It's mind-boggling to me, too, and I live in the States.

I don't get how we're still discussing this issue like we are in 2012. I don't get how people like Santorum can still exist in this day and age. Call me crazy, but my health is much more important to me than Santorum's warped religious views.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 09:00 AM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 11:27 AM
COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - Sporting his signature sweater vest and telling stories of his coal miner grandfather, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has struck a chord in the Rust Belt that is helping propel his once long-shot candidacy.

Although he is a millionaire, Santorum has found a common touch that has helped put him atop opinion polls in the industrial states of Michigan and Ohio and raised serious doubts about whether longtime front-runner Mitt Romney can win the Republican nomination to take on President Barack Obama in the November 6 election.

Santorum's portrayal of himself as the blue-collar Republican has managed to overshadow Romney's jobs message in a part of the country troubled by unemployment.

In conversations with nearly a dozen voters preparing to cast ballots for the former Pennsylvania senator in the Ohio and Michigan primaries, not one person volunteered that Santorum was the best candidate to revive American industry.

Instead, voters said they were coming to Santorum's side because his everyman style and Christian faith reminded them of themselves.

"He's basically down-to-earth," said Janice Thomas, 56, of Pickerington, Ohio, who is retired.

"Maybe I think he is more like me," said David Diyani, 58, a pastor at the Vineyard Church in Etna, Ohio. "I feel like I can relate to him."

Santorum's life, though, is far from ordinary.

He spent 12 years in the Senate, known as the "world's most exclusive club," and earned degrees in law and business. He purchased a luxury Audi sedan and earned hundreds of thousands of dollars as a consultant in recent years. Santorum's 2010 salary - $923,000 - placed him squarely within the top 1 percent of income earners in America.

Yet he can still draw a sharp contrast to Romney, a former Massachusetts governor whose fortune is estimated at up to $270 million and who often makes gaffes that show a lack of familiarity with ordinary Americans' struggles.

"I do my own taxes," Santorum said at the Detroit Economic Club on Thursday. "Heck, Romney paid half the taxes I did. He doesn't do his own taxes. Maybe I should hire an accountant in the future."

Santorum's previous criticism of the government bailout of the auto industry in 2009 might be a problem in Michigan where millions of people rely on the car companies. But Romney was a more vocal opponent of the rescue, leaving his rival's opposition to it largely overlooked.

A Detroit News poll, released last week, showed Santorum leading Romney 34 percent to 30 percent in Michigan, the state where Romney was born and where his father was governor. A Quinnipiac poll had Santorum leading Romney 36 percent to 29 percent in Ohio. Michigan's primary is on February 28 and Ohio votes on March 6.

GINGRICH DEFECTORS

Part of the Santorum surge can be accounted for by disaffected supporters of Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

"I decided to support him three weeks ago. Before that, I was for Gingrich," said Steve Izev, 34, of Westerville, Ohio. "The more popular he got, the more I liked him."

Santorum's rise in the polls is also fueled by the same phenomenon that successively lifted Texas Governor Rick Perry, former pizza magnate Herman Cain, and Gingrich to the front of the pack: He is not Romney.

In a Pew Research Center poll released last Monday, 50 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning respondents nationwide said Romney was not a strong conservative.

"They are the 'anybody-but-Romney' people. They are the 'un-Romney' people," said Bill Ballenger, editor of the "Inside Michigan Politics" newsletter. "There is no reason in Michigan that they should be for Santorum. They don't really know who he is really."

A political climate featuring renewed debate over religious freedom, contraception and gay rights has benefited the devoutly Catholic Santorum among evangelical Republicans.

In the Inside Michigan Poll, Michigan voters who said social issues were most important to them chose Santorum over Romney by 64 percent to 19 percent.

Faith is never far from the Santorum campaign. At a phone bank for Santorum in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, the Ten Commandments were nailed to the wall. Paintings of Jesus and Mary hung in a back room.

Supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement praise Santorum for his frequent references to the U.S. Constitution. Santorum campaigns with a pocket-sized version that he removes from his coat for emphasis on the campaign trail.

In a MRG/Inside Michigan Poll released on Wednesday, Santorum bettered Romney among Tea Party supporters by 51 percent to 22 percent.

Female voters are the most resistant to Santorum. In Michigan polls, where Santorum leads Romney among a number of groups, the two are neck and neck in support among women.

In recent weeks, Santorum has drawn controversy with comments about working women and women in the military.

On the campaign trail, Santorum stokes voters' outrage that they are underappreciated by people in power.

"You are not being talked to as adults," Santorum told a Tea Party rally in Columbus on Saturday. "You are being treated as mindless, fly-over-country rubes who don't need to know the truth."

"We used to be called the Silent Majority," said Terry McGiffin, 69, a retired management trainer from Westerville, Ohio, describing Santorum's supporters.

Many supporters confess a lack of familiarity with Santorum's policy prescriptions but say they find him to be the Republican field's most likable entrant.

"I don't know a lot about him," said Gary Henson, 32, the owner of a medical supply company in Columbus. "I like his demeanor. I like his personality."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 10:23 AM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 11:27 AM
So now he's honestly going to imply that Obama doesn't care about disabled children, even that he wants to eliminate them somehow?

I don't think there's any man without Earth either. That's a head scratcher. Paranoid much?

abcnews.com


Rick Santorum sought to clarify and contextualize his charge that President Obama operated under a “phony theology,” saying today that he was not suggesting the president was not a Christian. Santorum said he was condemning Obama’s “world view” not his religion.

“I accept the fact that the president is a Christian,” Santorum said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “But when you have a world view that elevates the earth above man and says we can’t take those resources because its going to harm the Earth, it’s just all an attempt to centralize power and give more power to the government.”

Santorum said that while Obama believes “man is here to serve the Earth,” he believes “Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective.”

The rising GOP presidential candidate also said that Obama is promoting abortion by forcing insurance companies to provide co-pay-free pre-natal testing under the new health care law.

Santorum said that because the “purpose” of the test is to “identify deformities,” it leads to more abortions because more often than not doctors recommend that parents terminate the pregnancy if the child is disabled.

“Almost 100 percent of Trisomy 18 children are encouraged to be aborted, so I know what I’m talking about,” Santorum, whose daughter has the genetic and often fatal disorder Trisomy 18, said after a heated exchange with host Bob Schieffer.

Scheiffer asked Santorum if he thought the Obama policy discriminated against people with disabilities by trying to prevent them from being born.

“I think the president has a very bad record on abortion and children who are disabled in the womb and are a continuation of that,” the former Pennsylvania senator said.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 03:08 PM   #30
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 08:27 AM
Yes, because every woman who discovers they are carrying a disabled child will rush to have an abortion.

No way would they take that information and then use the remainder of their pregnancy to determine how best to care for and live with a child with whatever disability they have. Because don't you know, every woman just really wants to abort everything in sight.

Does Santorum think it's better for families to be surprised with that information instead of having the benefit of time to help deal with the information?
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com