GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4

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.
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.
 
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.
 
USA Today, Feb. 20
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.
 
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."

:|:doh:

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.

"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 :rolleyes:.
 
Washington Post, Feb. 20
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.
 
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?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 :ohmy::ohmy::ohmy:

Has Rick even talked about the economy yet? It's all vaginas and disabled kids being killed by Obama.
 
it's been interesting ... Santorum opening his mouth to talk about his crazy view on social issues was meant to win over the social conservatives who think Mitt's a liberal because he used to be pro-choice and vowed to be even more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy. but he's so batshit insane on this stuff that it might have just proved to everyone how utterly unelectable he is.
 
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.

Aren't we glad that pro-life folks are never caricatured in a bad light on this forum. :wink:
And back to my original sarcastic comment, there's more nuance to that too, if you think about it.

It is an astute observation, one that didn't occur to me at first glance. But therein lies the long term danger, societal acceptance of what once was taboo or abhorred. Not that taboos can't be morally wrong either, something you can personally speak to, but we should always be vigilant for signs we're headed down a dangerous pathway.
 
Has Rick even talked about the economy yet? It's all vaginas

Not much that I've heard of. Vaginas are predominant, and uterusus. Uteri. And only men can talk about those things. Women can and do have them, but we can't be included in the discussion of them. Maybe that will help the economy, women will be working and making money while men talk about our uteri. :shrug:

Oh yeah, that's right-radical feminists are brainwashing the women to think that work is fulfilling. So I don't think that will work.

We could knit sweater vests and sell them from home.
 
Here's the actual answer as stated by Bob Schieffer during his interview with Rick Santorum Sunday on Face the Nation.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Senator, I want to thank you very much for being with us this morning. I had hoped to ask you about some questions about the economy. But, frankly, you made so much news yesterday, out there on the campaign trail, I felt compelled to ask you about that. Thank you so much for being with us.

The media (i.e., the folks asking the questions) aren't asking about the economy, jobs, the debt or Iran (i.e., the real problems).
 
The media (i.e., the folks asking the questions) aren't asking about the economy, jobs, the debt or Iran (i.e., the real problems).

So it's the media's fault that Santorum is spending the majority of his time talking about social "issues"?
 
Here's the actual answer as stated by Bob Schieffer during his interview with Rick Santorum Sunday on Face the Nation.



The media (i.e., the folks asking the questions) aren't asking about the economy, jobs, the debt or Iran (i.e., the real problems).
That's absolutely part of the problem, but what drives more ratings? Again, news organizations are interested in viewers and money, because they're all corporations. When you have a libertarian policy on how media are run in this country, you end up with news organizations that have no accountability other than to make money. Maybe we should be looking at the greater issue: the news media structure as a whole. Maybe we shouldn't have corporations controlling our news outlets.

And it's not like Santorum is shying away from social issues.
 
Romney is talking about the economy:
First Read - Romney: Spending cuts slow economic growth

Speaking in Shelby Township, MI, the former Massachusetts governor took a question about the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission empaneled by President Obama to address the nation's deficit and debt issues. In his response, he said that addressing taxes and spending issues are essential.

"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy," he said in part of his response. "So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies."
 
Aren't we glad that pro-life folks are never caricatured in a bad light on this forum. :wink:

To be frank, you help that caricature as much as anyone, my friend. Most of the time, I think you're content to come in here and yank the chains of the liberals of the forum. I think you could add a lot more than that, if you really wanted to. :hug:


t is an astute observation, one that didn't occur to me at first glance. But therein lies the long term danger, societal acceptance of what once was taboo or abhorred. Not that taboos can't be morally wrong either, something you can personally speak to, but we should always be vigilant for signs we're headed down a dangerous pathway.
That's a fair point. Even a MSM digest like Time magazine seems to recognize the potential for this. They cited the same 90% study too.
 
CNN, Feb 21
Rick Santorum offered no apologies Tuesday for a controversial speech he gave in 2008 when he talked about the threat of Satan in America. “I’m a person of faith. I believe in good and evil,” Santorum said in response to questions from CNN.

Excerpts of Santorum’s speech were splashed across the conservative leaning Drudge Report for much of Tuesday. Santorum dismissed the Drudge article as “absurd...If they want to go ahead and dig up old speeches to a religious group they can go right ahead and do so. I'm going to stay on message. I'm going to talk about the things Americans want to talk about," Santorum said to CNN. When pressed further if he believed Satan was attacking America, as he said in his 2008 speech, Santorum insisted the subject is not on the minds of voters.
................
During his evening speech, the former Pennsylvania senator sounded confident about his chances in next Tuesday’s Arizona primary. “We’re not just here to debate. We’re here to win Arizona next Tuesday,” Santorum said in reference to Wednesday’s CNN Debate.
(Drudge is presumed to support Romney.) I'm sure the indignant "Voters don't want to hear about this" will satisfy many, as it did for Gingrich. I found the speech interesting as one reflection of how he views his own country.

from the transcript of Santorum's 2008 speech, at Ave Maria University (audio):
This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war. This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country--the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age. There is no one else to go after other than the United States and that has been the case now for almost two hundred years, once America's preeminence was sown by our great Founding Fathers.

He didn't have much success in the early days. Our foundation was very strong, in fact, is very strong. But over time, that great, acidic quality of time corrodes even the strongest foundations. And Satan has done so by attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.

He was successful. He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions. The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first successful was in academia. He understood pride of smart people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were, in fact, smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different. Pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it because they're smart. And so academia, a long time ago, fell.

And you say "what could be the impact of academia falling?" Well, I would have the argument that the other structures that I'm going to talk about here had root of their destruction because of academia. Because what academia does is educate the elites in our society, educates the leaders in our society, particularly at the college level. And they were the first to fall. And so what we saw this domino effect, once the colleges fell and those who were being education in our institutions, the next was the church. Now you’d say, ‘wait, the Catholic Church’? No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it. So they attacked mainline Protestantism, they attacked the Church, and what better way to go after smart people who also believe they’re pious to use both vanity and pride to also go after the Church.

After that, you start destroying the Church and you start destroying academia, the culture is where their next success was and I need not even go into the state of the popular culture today.
Whether its sensuality of vanity of the famous in America, they are peacocks on display and they have taken their poor behavior and made it fashionable. The corruption of culture, the corruption of manners, the corruption of decency is now on display whether it’s the NBA or whether it’s a rock concert or whether it’s on a movie set.

The fourth, and this was harder, now I know you’re going to challenge me on this one, but politics and government was the next to fall. You say, ‘you would think they would be the first to fall, as fallible as we are in politics,’ but people in political life get elected by ordinary folks from lots of places all over the country where the foundations of this country are still strong. So while we may certainly have had examples, the body politic held up fairly well up until the last couple of decades, but it is falling too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom