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

[yolland]

Continued...

[deep]

is this the 'win one for the gipper' thread ??

[Moonlit_Angel]

Bringing this post I was typing up over from the last thread-went to hit "post" and realized the thread had closed :

Originally Posted by INDY500

Well, what ruins this joke for some I suppose is the fact that abstinence remains the cheapest AND most effective form of birth control with the added bonus of STD prevention. Buzzkill I know.

Yes, it does. But people in committed relationships, or married couples, are going to want to have sex, for reasons that have nothing to do with getting pregnant and having kids, and will want to naturally have protection so they have less chance of an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. Buzzkill, I know.

Nothing wrong with discussing and supporting the idea of abstinence. It just should be discussed as AN option among many, not THE sole option.

Originally Posted by INDY500

Now if we could find a pill for Humorless Liberal Syndrome.

Don't need one. We're perfectly capable of figuring out what's funny. The Republican primary has been a total laugh riot for us.

Originally Posted by cobl04

One of those people unfortunately writes for one of (maybe it is the biggest, not sure) the biggest daily metropolitan newspapers in Australia.

Presidential hopefuls marry family with politics | Daily Telegraph Miranda Devine Blog

She seems to be suggesting that a lengthy, heterosexual marriage is the only quality worth having if you're a prospective president.

Course, she also hints at the "Stepford wife" thing, too. Yes, most of these people have been married to one woman and one woman only, and that's great, it's a nice thing to see. But their families seem to project a "We're so perfect, and you all should be perfect like us" image.

And if they have found the person they love and want to spend their lives with, I don't understand, then, why they have such trouble with the idea of letting other people get that chance. Like stated, you would think conservatives would be PRO-gay marriage. For all the conservatives bellyaching about how marriage is becoming less and less common, it seems strange that their actions are just adding to the amount of people not being married.

Originally Posted by cobl04

So, and again excuse my total ignorance on the subject... but are you all hoping that the republican party eventually ceases to exist? Or becomes such a minority that a democratic party will always win? Or are there republican politicians out there capable of doing the job who won't send the country back to the "good old days"?

If the GOP continues on with the sort of attitude it has now, especially on social issues, I think it could well die eventually anyway, as the younger generations come up and realize that this sort of attitude is very unappealing and outdated. Add in that the GOP's main base tends to be old, white people (men especially), and that kind of hurts its chances, since you have to appeal to a WHOLE lot of other people beyond that group if you want any shot at winning anything (course, so long as money and corporate interests have the stronghold they do, maybe the diversity of the people who support you doesn't matter as much after all).

No, I don't want the party to die out-I do think there are still reasonable conservatives out there. Conservatives who don't freak so much about social issues, and who come up with economic ideas other than "tax cuts for the rich! Trickle down theory!" If those people can start coming up and running, I'd be more than happy to listen to what they had to say, and could even find common ground with them, maybe even vote for one if I think their ideas are worthy and smart enough. I don't think it's good for a democracy to have one party continuously win power, especially since the Democrats have their own share of problems, too (some of which involve Democrats whose views are so conservative they might as well call themselves GOP candidates-that party's record on things like gay rights and such isn't exactly perfect and ideal, either).

What should ultimately happen, though, I think, is that more political options should be available out there besides just the two parties. The Democrats, the Republicans, the Greens, you name it, if it's a legitimate political party, it should have its equal time in the spotlight to be heard. So far the battle for control is just between two big choices, and both of them have left their bases, and independents, very disillusioned over the years. I think we deserve better than that as a nation.

I also think the bases need to open up and be a little more realistic, too. Not everything gets solved overnight, some of your ideas and thoughts do come off as kooky to the other side, and the president has other people to think of besides just you. He or she should do what is best for the nation as a whole, not what is best for a select group of people.

[deep]

Originally Posted by INDY500
Well, what ruins this joke for some I suppose is the fact that abstinence remains the cheapest AND most effective form of birth control

abstinence is second best,
the cheapest AND most effective form of birth control, is being a regular Rush Limbaugh listener.

[Irvine511]

Perhaps it was a sophisticated argument for more oral sex? No one needs birth control for that.

I'm all for it, so long as hetero guys make sure they give as good as they get.

[deep]

Romney's struggles fuel talk of brokered convention | Reuters

Romney is the best financed and organized of the Republican candidates and long has been considered the likely nominee. But the former Massachusetts governor and private equity executive has failed so far to take control of the race.

Who would Republicans turn to if not Romney or Santorum? Think of two popular governors, Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Chris Christie of New Jersey, or former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, or even U.S. congressman Paul Ryan, author of a budget plan popular with Republicans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpmHjr2bQus

[INDY500]

To quote Dusty Springfield:
Thinkin' and a-prayin', wishin' and a-hopin'

[anitram]

From the last thread:

Well, what ruins this joke for some I suppose is the fact that abstinence remains the cheapest AND most effective form of birth control with the added bonus of STD prevention. Buzzkill I know.

We should all be abstinent.

Because certainly when I look around at families today who have 1 or 2, maybe 3 children and don't wish to have more (unlike say, my grandparents' generation of good Catholics all of whom had 6+), or at childless couples by choice, or at young professionals who live together before marriage or without marriage and responsibly choose to have children when they are prepared for them - emotionally, mentally, financially - my feeling is that it would be much, much better if they all used abstinence. What with its high rate of efficacy, since everybody is able to hold down their natural biological urges, we'd all be better off.

If you are and adult in a happy, healthy, committed relationships with a person that you love deeply and with whom you share your life - good and bad - whether consecrated by marriage, civil union, cohabitation or otherwise, there is nothing wrong with wanting to have sex with them. It is normal and it is healthy and to suggest to these people that Rick Santorum knows better and that abstinence is the best (and of course this means only women holding their legs closed, because we all get pregnant by way of immaculate conception) because condoms and pills are somehow intrinsically evil is deeply offensive.

[anitram]

This guy is like the gift that keeps on giving:

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.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by anitram

If you are and adult in a happy, healthy, committed relationships with a person that you love deeply and with whom you share your life - good and bad - whether consecrated by marriage, civil union, cohabitation or otherwise, there is nothing wrong with wanting to have sex with them. It is normal and it is healthy and to suggest to these people that Rick Santorum knows better and that abstinence is the best (and of course this means only women holding their legs closed, because we all get pregnant by way of immaculate conception) because condoms and pills are somehow intrinsically evil is deeply offensive.

Thank you.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Wow-how very Christian of you Rick

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — White House candidate Rick Santorum on Saturday questioned President Barack Obama's Christian values and attacked GOP rival Mitt Romney's Olympics leadership as he courted tea party activists and evangelical voters in Ohio, "ground zero" in the 2012 nomination fight.

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator known for his social conservative policies, said that Obama's agenda is "not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology."

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by anitram

It is normal and it is healthy and to suggest to these people that Rick Santorum knows better and that abstinence is the best (and of course this means only women holding their legs closed, because we all get pregnant by way of immaculate conception) because condoms and pills are somehow intrinsically evil is deeply offensive.

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?

[PhilsFan]

You don't get to deny it as health care because of religion. If you can find a legitimate reason, then let's talk.

This is not a Christian nation. Period.

[yolland]

I don't recall anitram saying contraception is intrinsically a right to be covered at no cost. However, both a federal district court (Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., 2001) and the EEOC (2000) have already ruled that for employers (with ≥15 employees) to exclude prescription contraceptives from otherwise comprehensive health benefit plans--i.e., plans including coverage of prescription drugs and devices generally--violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discriminating against women by singling out prescription contraceptives for denial of coverage. (The Bush Administration made no attempt to challenge these decisions.) If anything, the new policy constitutes a concession to religious groups.

I don't think it helps opponents of the new policy to downplay Foster Friess' monumentally ill-timed "humor." Even Santorum had the common sense to say that it was "a bad joke, a stupid joke, and not reflective of me or my record on this issue."

[Mrs. Garrison]

i can haz chocloate cream in my mouth

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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:

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.

[Irvine511]

I can't believe contraception is an issue for the GOP in 2012.

It boggles the mind.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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)

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.

[Irvine511]

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.

[Moonlit_Angel]

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?

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?

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.