GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4 - Page 3 - 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 02-20-2012, 03:29 PM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
Yes, because every woman who discovers they are carrying a disabled child will rush to have an abortion.


to be fair, some sluts are going to wait until they are, like, 7 months pregnant and have time to get around to it. often, women are so ruled by emotions that they simply forget to have an abortion, and its not until Planned Parenthood reminds them of what an inconvenience babies are that they finally get around to killing it.

that's why men must be included in these decisions.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 04:22 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 04:10 AM
Let's not forget that pre-natal testing doesn't just cover identifying genetic issues like the various trisomies but also screens for gestational diabetes (deadly to mother and baby), low amniotic fluid (mandatory bedrest), etc which have are not at all problems associated with increased abortion rates but most certainly are necessary for the health and safe delivery of the baby.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 08:07 PM   #33
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:10 AM
USA Today, Feb. 20
Quote:
While most Republicans wish they had different choices in the party's presidential field, a nationwide USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds overwhelming resistance to the idea of an old-styled brokered convention that would pick some new contender as the nominee. By 66%-29%, the Republicans and Republican-leaning independents surveyed say it would be better if one of the four candidates now running managed to secure enough delegates to clinch the nomination. Most are happy to see their roller-coaster campaign continue: 57% say the battle isn't hurting the party.

Meanwhile, President Obama's standing against two potential Republican rivals has ebbed a bit. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney leads the president 50%-46% among registered voters, Romney's strongest showing against him to date. Obama edges former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum by a single percentage point, 49%-48%.

The poll, taken Thursday through Sunday, illustrates the battle between head-and-heart for many GOP voters: Santorum is the current favorite, leading Romney 50%-44% in a one-on-one contest...But Romney is seen as the stronger competitor against Obama and as the likely nominee. By nearly 2-1, 58%-32%, GOP partisans say Romney has a better chance of winning in November than Santorum does...There is undeniable dissatisfaction with the field. A 55% majority of Republicans say they wish someone else was running; 44% say they're pleased with the selection of candidates.

...At the moment, 38% of all Americans predict Obama definitely will win in November; 22% say the Republican will win. In the middle, 32% say November's outcome depends on whom the Republicans nominate. Republicans are especially inclined to believe their choice matters: a 43% plurality say the results in the general election depend on who gets nominated. Another 40% say the GOP definitely will win. Among Democrats, more than two-thirds predict an Obama victory.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 08:19 PM   #34
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: 19,272
Local Time: 03:10 AM
Quote:
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."

....

"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."


Quote:
Female voters are the most resistant to Santorum.
Gee, I wonder why that could be.

That latest article about the prenatal care and stuff-wow. It must be interesting to live in a world where you're THAT paranoid that seemingly every single thing a woman does at the hospital somehow has some sort of connection to the evil Planned Parenthood/abortion industry.

Quote:
"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."
And we're sure glad you're here to stop perpetuating the stereotype of middle America as a bunch of backwards-thinking ignorant Bible-thumpers .
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 02-20-2012, 08:33 PM   #35
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Washington Post, Feb. 20
Quote:
In a speech at a megachurch [in suburban Atlanta] Sunday night, former senator Rick Santorum used some of his direst imagery yet to describe what’s at stake in this year’s presidential election, drawing an extended World War II analogy that seemed to suggest that the United States faces a threat that is on par with what the world faced in the 1940s. The Republican candidate told more than 3000 supporters at the First Redeemer Church:
“Your country needs you. It’s not as clear a challenge. Obviously, World War II was pretty obvious. At some point, they knew. But remember, the Greatest Generation, for a year and a half, sat on the sidelines while Europe was under darkness, where our closest ally, Britain, was being bombed and leveled, while Japan was spreading its cancer all throughout Southeast Asia. America sat from 1940, when France fell, to December of ’41, and did almost nothing. Why? Because we’re a hopeful people. We think, ‘Well, you know, he’ll get better. You know, he’s a nice guy. I mean, it won’t be near as bad as what we think. This’ll be okay.’ Oh yeah, maybe he’s not the best guy, and after a while, you found out things about this guy over in Europe, and he’s not so good of a guy after all. But you know what? Why do we need to be involved? We’ll just take care of our own problems. Just get our families off to work and our kids off to school, and we’ll be okay. It’s sort of the optimistic spirit of America but sometimes, sometimes it’s not okay. It’s going to be harder for this generation to figure this out. There’s no cataclysmic event. It’s going to be hard. You understand it—you’re here. You wouldn’t be here if you didn’t get it. But what about the rest of America, do they understand what’s happening? Is anybody telling them what’s happening? Is anybody reminding us who we are, what made us great, and what these assaults are all about—to clear the way?”
The provocative comparison comes one day after Santorum created a stir when he told a tea party rally in Columbus, Ohio, that President Obama supports a “phony theology — not a theology based on the Bible.” Santorum has since clarified that he thinks Obama is a Christian and was not describing his religious beliefs as “phony.” A Santorum spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the latest remarks Sunday night.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 08:45 PM   #36
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: 19,272
Local Time: 03:10 AM
What...the hell...?

Quote:
Obviously, World War II was pretty obvious.
Redundant comment is redundant.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 02-20-2012, 09:31 PM   #37
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,731
Local Time: 01:10 AM
Ha!
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 11:06 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:10 AM
Quote:
We know, Bob, that ninety percent of Down syndrome children in America are aborted. So to suggest where does that come from? I have a child who has trisomy 18. Almost a hundred percent of trisomy 18 children are encouraged to be aborted. So, I know what I'm talking about here.
Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum have a person side to this issue but they also provide a view that is sorely missing today. That science and technology are not immune from moral decisions and I think it's time we, as a society, take a deep look at what we are doing with the information we gain from amniocentesis prenatal testing. Do we really want to go down the eugenics path again?

Quote:
But, Senator, do you not want any kind of prenatal testing? I mean would we just turn our back on science that this is something that expectant mothers should not go through, that it's best not to know about these things ahead of time? I mean is that what you're saying here?

RICK SANTORUM: No, I'm not saying. Look, people have the right to do it but to have the government force people to provide it free, just as to me, has a has is-- is a bit loaded. There are all sorts of prenatal testing which should be provided free. I have no problem with that if the-- if the insurance companies want to. I'm not for any of these things to be forced. Just let me-- just step back and say I don't believe any of these procedures, anything in insurance should be forced. So let me-- let me just start from there.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Okay.

RICK SANTORUM: But the idea of having, for example, sonograms and other types of prenatal care, absolutely, if-- if I think that is-- that is a wise thing to do. And If I was an employer, I would certainly encourage that. But not all prenatal testing, amniocenteses basically are used for the purposes of identifying children who are disabled and in most cases end up as a result with abortions. It's the bottom line.
These are very complicated, emotional issues and frankly I'm embarrassed that some of you so eagar to turn them into sound bite issues.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 11:15 PM   #39
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:10 AM
i am troubled by the fact that 90% of DS babies are aborted. i also know someone who has stated that had she known that her baby would have had DS she would have terminated. and she's glad every day that she didn't. she adores her son.

this also leads to troubling questions about, say, the gay gene. while it might never be so crude as to be boiled down to one gene, i am troubled by the reality that you could one day test for a baby's sexual orientation.

however, i don't think outlawing our even using the government to coerce women into not having something as basic and potentially life-saving as an amnio -- and, let's face it, the only people who wouldn't pay out of pocket for one of these would be poor women -- is not the way to go.

let women make their own decisions. i know these are complicated, emotional issues, but yet they aren't, really. if you trust women that is.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 11:22 PM   #40
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,731
Local Time: 01:10 AM
I hadn't heard that figure until I caught a bit of the nightly news tonight, and it shocked me. My first thought was "that can't be right." But I can't judge - I haven't been in those families' shoes.

Of course it's a complicated issue. Just because some of us choose to express our anger or frustration via sarcasm on the internet doesn't mean we don't have any deeper thoughts.
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 11:29 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,894
Local Time: 04:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
These are very complicated, emotional issues and frankly I'm embarrassed that some of you so eagar to turn them into sound bite issues.
This is very well phrased, if you're talking about the Republican Party.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 02-20-2012, 11:30 PM   #42
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: 19,272
Local Time: 03:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
let women make their own decisions. i know these are complicated, emotional issues, but yet they aren't, really. if you trust women that is.
Exactly.

Certainly I find the idea of aborting children simply because they don't fit some warped "perfect ideal" of what one wants their child to be is abhorrent. But I hope we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (...I swear I didn't mean that as a pun...) because of that potential scenario.

Plus, if the disability/illness/whatever is such where the chances of the baby surviving past birth are exceedingly slim, if not non-existent, I think a woman would want to know that sort of information so she can figure out which way she wants to go. Either option-the baby dying before it's born, or after it's born, would be heartbreaking, but it would be something she'd have to consider.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 02-21-2012, 12:13 AM   #43
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: 04:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum have a person side to this issue but they also provide a view that is sorely missing today. That science and technology are not immune from moral decisions and I think it's time we, as a society, take a deep look at what we are doing with the information we gain from amniocentesis prenatal testing. Do we really want to go down the eugenics path again?



These are very complicated, emotional issues and frankly I'm embarrassed that some of you so eagar to turn them into sound bite issues.
90%! I had no idea that so much of country is liberal. . .. Just a mere 10% is Christian and conservative. . .wow.

Serioulsy though, I agree that this emotional and complicated, which to me it means its not as simple as lets not fund the procedure. Again it strikes my hypocritcal. Let's be sure to fund procedures that we can use to convince people not to have abortions but lets not fund those that might possibly encourage them the other way.

This is an issue I've thought about--my wife is over 40 and we'd like to have another child. If that happens, we know that there's a greater liklihood that we could have a child with DS. For me, I couldn't imagine terminating a pregnancy based on just that information but then again I know nothing about the issues involving a Down's child or what might lead doctors to recommend and patients to agree to an abortion.

To me abortion is a serious, awful thing and I think most pro-choice people feel the same way. It's only the pro-life people's caricature of the pro-choice position based on a very small minority of people that treat abortion in a light and flippant way.

And back to my original sarcastic comment, there's more nuance to that too, if you think about it.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 07:16 AM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,594
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
90%! I had no idea that so much of country is liberal. . .. Just a mere 10% is Christian and conservative. . .wow.
Ha! Amazing the country has survived. Sarah and Rick have definitely proved they are the moral compass!!

It's a tough decision to make. A buddy of mine who is in his 40's and his wife just had a child two years ago (she was 39/40). We had discussed on the golf course of the possibilities of DS. He was torn on what to do, of course it's not ideal to have a child with a disability...but you don't want to just give up either as this might be there only chance at a child. He said there was no way she would give up the child unless it was a threat to it's own health or hers. And both of these people are liberal and atheist

Has Rick even talked about the economy yet? It's all vaginas and disabled kids being killed by Obama.
__________________
BEAL is offline  
Old 02-21-2012, 02:19 PM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:10 AM
debate in Arizona tomorrow, primary in one week.

polls say Romney is inching back up.
__________________

__________________
deep 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 04:10 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