I'm thinking the gay marriage groups had something to do with that. At least civil unions could happen under Romney. They would be in danger of being second class citizens under Santorum. They might just get killed under Gingrich. They would be okay with Ron Paul, assuming he hasn't flopped the other way.
I'm thinking the gay marriage groups had something to do with that. At least civil unions could happen under Romney. They would be in danger of being second class citizens under Santorum. They might just get killed under Gingrich. They would be okay with Ron Paul, assuming he hasn't flopped the other way.
More likely, it was because Santorum had no ground game in Maine and the state had less than 6000 votes in that actual primary.
I'm thinking the gay marriage groups had something to do with that. At least civil unions could happen under Romney. They would be in danger of being second class citizens under Santorum. They might just get killed under Gingrich. They would be okay with Ron Paul, assuming he hasn't flopped the other way.
Except that Ron Pauls outlook (as a polititian) is that it is not his place to decide...its the states. So under him, some states would totally legalize gay marriage while other would keep it banned. Although, he seems like a social conservaite to me, so I think is REAL opinion is that it should be banned.
Stagnant: "Leave it to the states" is generally code for "the more socially conservative option".
Its also the premise behind the 10th Amendment. The intention of the founders was clearly that the states be semi-sovereign and that the federal government would only have limited powers. This is why states are states and not provinces. A provincial governor for example is beholden to the President (as is the case for the governors of US territories). A state governor on the other hand is not beholden to the President. In other words a state governor is not below a federal official in any political ranking of authority, rather a state governor is at the top of the state's political structure which is separate from the national structure.
On issues of foreign policy I think Ron Paul is more than a few fries short of a happy meal, but he is dead right on issues concerning the rights of the states in the constitution and the limited power of the federal government.
On issues of foreign policy I think Ron Paul is more than a few fries short of a happy meal, but he is dead right on issues concerning the rights of the states in the constitution and the limited power of the federal government.
That has always been my opinion of him too. His domestic policy has a few holes in it (Cut NASA?! Cut the CDC?! WHAT!!?), but the thing that he REALLY loses me on is his foriegn policy. Then again, I am an interventionalist, so of course an isolationist is going to rub me the wrong way. But his idea of "States Rights", heck Yah! There are some things the states could handle substancially better than the Feds (Education, entitlements, etc)
That has always been my opinion of him too. His domestic policy has a few holes in it (Cut NASA?! Cut the CDC?! WHAT!!?), but the thing that he REALLY loses me on is his foriegn policy. Then again, I am an interventionalist, so of course an isolationist is going to rub me the wrong way. But his idea of "States Rights", heck Yah! There are some things the states could handle substancially better than the Feds (Education, entitlements, etc)
Indeed.
Many Democratic state citizens might also be happy to give up their irritating requirement to pay for poorer Republican state citizens via federal programs.
That has always been my opinion of him too. His domestic policy has a few holes in it (Cut NASA?! Cut the CDC?! WHAT!!?), but the thing that he REALLY loses me on is his foriegn policy. Then again, I am an interventionalist, so of course an isolationist is going to rub me the wrong way. But his idea of "States Rights", heck Yah! There are some things the states could handle substancially better than the Feds (Education, entitlements, etc)
Indeed.
Many Democratic state citizens might also be happy to give up their irritating requirement to pay for poorer Republican state citizens via federal programs.
Won't save you much money, the federal government will still be paying for you guys. (yes I can return fire)
That has always been my opinion of him too. His domestic policy has a few holes in it (Cut NASA?! Cut the CDC?! WHAT!!?), but the thing that he REALLY loses me on is his foriegn policy. Then again, I am an interventionalist, so of course an isolationist is going to rub me the wrong way. But his idea of "States Rights", heck Yah! There are some things the states could handle substancially better than the Feds (Education, entitlements, etc)
Indeed.
Many Democratic state citizens might also be happy to give up their irritating requirement to pay for poorer Republican state citizens via federal programs.
Well, then they can move to a friendlyer state is the idea. There are alot more states that vote republican than they do democrat.
Plus, most people on welfare are democrat. I dont understand why. I mean, its not like democrats refuse to cut entitlements even though they are slowly eating our budget alive.
It's probably because Democrats don't have a talking point that if you take government assistance you're a miserable worthless piece of shit failure/Hitler. That's another debate for another forum.
Can we just call it for Romney now? I feel that regardless of whatever upset Santorum caused, it'll pass (plus he only has three pledged delegates anyway). He's a fringe candidate that got lucky that the rest of the field is terrible.
Luke Gomez: It's probably because Democrats don't have a talking point that if you take government assistance you're a miserable worthless piece of shit failure/Hitler. That's another debate for another forum.
Can we just call it for Romney now? I feel that regardless of whatever upset Santorum caused, it'll pass (plus he only has three pledged delegates anyway). He's a fringe candidate that got lucky that the rest of the field is terrible.
Nobody does that, sure taking handouts is looked down upon in conservative society (well for the most part, if you are a victim of a natural disaster or something there is no shame in taking a handout though the people in Joplin mostly took care of themselves which was admirable), you are greatly exaggerating how handouts are seen in conservative society.
I wish we could call it for Romney but he needs to get past Santorum first. Unless Gingrich can conjure up another miraculous comeback he is done, Ron Paul never had a chance to begin with, so Santorum is the last person standing between Romeny and the nomination. I don't know how much faith you can put in polls at this point but multiple polls show Santorum ahead in Michigan which is supposed to be a given from Romney.
Now don't get me wrong, at the end of the day I don't think Santorum has a prayer but Romney needs to seal the deal before we can call it for him.
Seekster: I wish we could call it for Romney but he needs to get past Santorum first. Unless Gingrich can conjure up another miraculous comeback he is done, Ron Paul never had a chance to begin with, so Santorum is the last person standing between Romeny and the nomination. I don't know how much faith you can put in polls at this point but multiple polls show Santorum ahead in Michigan which is supposed to be a given from Romney.
Now don't get me wrong, at the end of the day I don't think Santorum has a prayer but Romney needs to seal the deal before we can call it for him.
Santorum has also won an equal number of states as Romney and is polling higher than Romney in several states, including Michigan, and some national polls. Santorum may be able to last until the convention if Newt drops out and a majority of self-described conservatives opt to him rather than Romney.
Seekster: I wish we could call it for Romney but he needs to get past Santorum first. Unless Gingrich can conjure up another miraculous comeback he is done, Ron Paul never had a chance to begin with, so Santorum is the last person standing between Romeny and the nomination. I don't know how much faith you can put in polls at this point but multiple polls show Santorum ahead in Michigan which is supposed to be a given from Romney.
Now don't get me wrong, at the end of the day I don't think Santorum has a prayer but Romney needs to seal the deal before we can call it for him.
Santorum has also won an equal number of states as Romney and is polling higher than Romney in several states, including Michigan, and some national polls. Santorum may be able to last until the convention if Newt drops out and a majority of self-described conservatives opt to him rather than Romney.
I am still betting Santorum will destroy himself, keep in mind that he hasnt had a lot of media focus until recently. I wouldnt be surprised if he implodes just like everyone before him except Romney. Still he is a much better anti-Romney compared to Gingrich.
Also the number of states isnt whats important, the number of delegates is what matters.
Seekster: I am still betting Santorum will destroy himself, keep in mind that he hasnt had a lot of media focus until recently. I wouldnt be surprised if he implodes just like everyone before him except Romney. Still he is a much better anti-Romney compared to Gingrich.
He didn't implode in the birth control fiasco and has been repeatedly been making the case that Romney can't win if the election hinges on Obama's healthcare law. He also maintain's the authenticity that Gingrich and Romney struggled to emote (i.e. the "would he be saying this if he wasn't running for president" test). His last rise was more crushed by a lack resources than by offensive attacks. He may be able to do what Obama did in 2008 and rack up wins in small states and competing in larger states to prevent a larger majority of delegates to go to Romney.
Seekster: Also the number of states isnt whats important, the number of delegates is what matters.
You and I know that's not entirely true, not until enough delegates are allotted until it is mathematically impossible to win the race (see Huckabee in 2008). Romney has only managed to win in states where he has a significant advantage (He lives in New Hampshire, Maine generally sides with a New Englander, the Mormons constitute a major voting block in Nevada) or where he has a massive money advantage (Florida and the huge number of expensive media markets). He may lose Michigan and Ohio to Santorum if current polling is any indication while winning Arizona and possibly Georgia (Gingrich still leads there).
Racking up states helps build momentum and attract fundraising. Being tied with the front runner in the number of victories greatly helps that. Plus, if Gingrich suddenly becomes rational enough to drop out of the race and endorses Santorum with his delegates, that will be enough to push Santorum into the lead.
Seekster: I am still betting Santorum will destroy himself, keep in mind that he hasnt had a lot of media focus until recently. I wouldnt be surprised if he implodes just like everyone before him except Romney. Still he is a much better anti-Romney compared to Gingrich.
He didn't implode in the birth control fiasco and has been repeatedly been making the case that Romney can't win if the election hinges on Obama's healthcare law. He also maintain's the authenticity that Gingrich and Romney struggled to emote (i.e. the "would he be saying this if he wasn't running for president" test). His last rise was more crushed by a lack resources than by offensive attacks. He may be able to do what Obama did in 2008 and rack up wins in small states and competing in larger states to prevent a larger majority of delegates to go to Romney.
Seekster: Also the number of states isnt whats important, the number of delegates is what matters.
You and I know that's not entirely true, not until enough delegates are allotted until it is mathematically impossible to win the race (see Huckabee in 2008). Romney has only managed to win in states where he has a significant advantage (He lives in New Hampshire, Maine generally sides with a New Englander, the Mormons constitute a major voting block in Nevada) or where he has a massive money advantage (Florida and the huge number of expensive media markets). He may lose Michigan and Ohio to Santorum if current polling is any indication while winning Arizona and possibly Georgia (Gingrich still leads there).
Racking up states helps build momentum and attract fundraising. Being tied with the front runner in the number of victories greatly helps that. Plus, if Gingrich suddenly becomes rational enough to drop out of the race and endorses Santorum with his delegates, that will be enough to push Santorum into the lead.
What last rise for Santorum? Iowa was a tie and Romney ended up getting the media credit for a victory there.
What birth control fiasco? You mean the recent one with the Catholic institutions?
It builds momentum sure...but at the end of the day its the delegates that matter. Tell me, where did Romney's momentum from winning Florida and Nevada go?
Seekster: What last rise for Santorum? Iowa was a tie and Romney ended up getting the media credit for a victory there.
Media rules for tie in a primary race: The underdog wins. That was the narrative coming out of Iowa: "Santorum lost by a hair to Romney" before the retallying and then "Santorum won Iowa" afterwords.
Seekster: What birth control fiasco? You mean the recent one with the Catholic institutions?
Yes. Much of the tape of him saying outright-crazy things about birth control and other social issues was reran in relation to that issue (still not entirely sure why it was such a big deal). Unlike Gingrich, he wasn't a big pull at debates, so he's been focusing on the stump speech, and now he's getting more attention on that.
Seekster: It builds momentum sure...but at the end of the day its the delegates that matter. Tell me, where did Romney's momentum from winning Florida and Nevada go?
Florida was a bitter-sweet victory. He had to sink a lot of money into advertising, almost exclusively negative, and his national polling soured in the weeks leading up to it. The bump he got out of Florida was small at best. It seemed less like a win for Romney and more like a loss to Gingrich, who had high expectations for Florida before a carpet bombing of extremely negative advertising.
Nevada was also not as big, even by your own admission a few pages back. Romney won thanks to the Mormon vote, but the victory was with less votes than 2008 even though the state was virtually uncontested (I expected Gingrich to fight there, but he opted for a focus on the south).
Romney also lost Colorado, which should have been solidly in his favor, and had to beat back Ron Paul of all people in Maine to avoid a repeat there. He's been playing defense the entire campaign and, in the process of tearing down his opponents, hasn't made the case for why he deserves their vote instead.
Seekster: What last rise for Santorum? Iowa was a tie and Romney ended up getting the media credit for a victory there.
Media rules for tie in a primary race: The underdog wins. That was the narrative coming out of Iowa: "Santorum lost by a hair to Romney" before the retallying and then "Santorum won Iowa" afterwords.
Seekster: What birth control fiasco? You mean the recent one with the Catholic institutions?
Yes. Much of the tape of him saying outright-crazy things about birth control and other social issues was reran in relation to that issue (still not entirely sure why it was such a big deal). Unlike Gingrich, he wasn't a big pull at debates, so he's been focusing on the stump speech, and now he's getting more attention on that.
Seekster: It builds momentum sure...but at the end of the day its the delegates that matter. Tell me, where did Romney's momentum from winning Florida and Nevada go?
Florida was a bitter-sweet victory. He had to sink a lot of money into advertising, almost exclusively negative, and his national polling soured in the weeks leading up to it. The bump he got out of Florida was small at best. It seemed less like a win for Romney and more like a loss to Gingrich, who had high expectations for Florida before a carpet bombing of extremely negative advertising.
Nevada was also not as big, even by your own admission a few pages back. Romney won thanks to the Mormon vote, but the victory was with less votes than 2008 even though the state was virtually uncontested (I expected Gingrich to fight there, but he opted for a focus on the south).
Romney also lost Colorado, which should have been solidly in his favor, and had to beat back Ron Paul of all people in Maine to avoid a repeat there. He's been playing defense the entire campaign and, in the process of tearing down his opponents, hasn't made the case for why he deserves their vote instead.
Yeah initially, then going into South Carolina it was all "Oh Romney is going for 3 in a row" until it came out that Santorum actually won. Not really a Santorum surge.
Santorum has said crazy things in relation to birthcontrol, like what?
Santorum was good enough in debates, his best moment was when he went on about how Gingrich and Romney fighting each other over stupid stuff wasnt helping anyone. We will see how he does in Arizona's debate because now he will be attacked.
I really think the negative ads in Florida are overstated. Were they a factor? Yeah sure of course they were, but carptet bombing? I would also point out that the ads against Gingrich wouldnt be effective unless there was something to the attacks which there was for the most part.
Florida and Nevada were still big wins for Romney in states that must be won in a General election. In anycase though this business of being reactionary to every state is annoying. How many times must the media be proven wrong before they will stop it? The answer to that question is the number of primaries which are competitive.
The Colorado loss was a surprise and really the only true upset Santorum has pulled (he was the only candidate to campaign in Missouri because there were no delegates in the primary and Minnesota is a midwestern state and Santorum does will in the Midwest for some reason.
People talk about Michigan like its Romney's home turf. I don't get why, sure his Dad was governor there but that was how long ago? As for Maine, I am surprised Paul didnt win Maine, all indications predicted a Paul win in Maine.
Seekster: What last rise for Santorum? Iowa was a tie and Romney ended up getting the media credit for a victory there.
Media rules for tie in a primary race: The underdog wins. That was the narrative coming out of Iowa: "Santorum lost by a hair to Romney" before the retallying and then "Santorum won Iowa" afterwords.
Seekster: What birth control fiasco? You mean the recent one with the Catholic institutions?
Yes. Much of the tape of him saying outright-crazy things about birth control and other social issues was reran in relation to that issue (still not entirely sure why it was such a big deal). Unlike Gingrich, he wasn't a big pull at debates, so he's been focusing on the stump speech, and now he's getting more attention on that.
Seekster: It builds momentum sure...but at the end of the day its the delegates that matter. Tell me, where did Romney's momentum from winning Florida and Nevada go?
Florida was a bitter-sweet victory. He had to sink a lot of money into advertising, almost exclusively negative, and his national polling soured in the weeks leading up to it. The bump he got out of Florida was small at best. It seemed less like a win for Romney and more like a loss to Gingrich, who had high expectations for Florida before a carpet bombing of extremely negative advertising.
Nevada was also not as big, even by your own admission a few pages back. Romney won thanks to the Mormon vote, but the victory was with less votes than 2008 even though the state was virtually uncontested (I expected Gingrich to fight there, but he opted for a focus on the south).
Romney also lost Colorado, which should have been solidly in his favor, and had to beat back Ron Paul of all people in Maine to avoid a repeat there. He's been playing defense the entire campaign and, in the process of tearing down his opponents, hasn't made the case for why he deserves their vote instead.
Santorum has said crazy things in relation to birthcontrol, like what?
Regarding BC:
"I don't think it works. I think it's harmful to women. I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. And I think we've very, very harmful longterm consequences to our society. Birth control to me enables that, and I don't think it's a healthy thing for our country."
and
"It's not OK, because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be," he says. "They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."
Women's rights groups have been shelling him since he said that in the interview with George Stephanopoulos
The Gentleman: Media rules for tie in a primary race: The underdog wins. That was the narrative coming out of Iowa: "Santorum lost by a hair to Romney" before the retallying and then "Santorum won Iowa" afterwords.
Yes. Much of the tape of him saying outright-crazy things about birth control and other social issues was reran in relation to that issue (still not entirely sure why it was such a big deal). Unlike Gingrich, he wasn't a big pull at debates, so he's been focusing on the stump speech, and now he's getting more attention on that.
Florida was a bitter-sweet victory. He had to sink a lot of money into advertising, almost exclusively negative, and his national polling soured in the weeks leading up to it. The bump he got out of Florida was small at best. It seemed less like a win for Romney and more like a loss to Gingrich, who had high expectations for Florida before a carpet bombing of extremely negative advertising.
Nevada was also not as big, even by your own admission a few pages back. Romney won thanks to the Mormon vote, but the victory was with less votes than 2008 even though the state was virtually uncontested (I expected Gingrich to fight there, but he opted for a focus on the south).
Romney also lost Colorado, which should have been solidly in his favor, and had to beat back Ron Paul of all people in Maine to avoid a repeat there. He's been playing defense the entire campaign and, in the process of tearing down his opponents, hasn't made the case for why he deserves their vote instead.
Santorum has said crazy things in relation to birthcontrol, like what?
Regarding BC:
"I don't think it works. I think it's harmful to women. I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. And I think we've very, very harmful longterm consequences to our society. Birth control to me enables that, and I don't think it's a healthy thing for our country."
and
"It's not OK, because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be," he says. "They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."
Women's rights groups have been shelling him since he said that in the interview with George Stephanopoulos
So... yeah.
Sorry were you going to post quotes from Santorum that make him sound crazy on birth control? If so then you must have posted the wrong quotes.
Santorum has said crazy things in relation to birthcontrol, like what?
Regarding BC:
"I don't think it works. I think it's harmful to women. I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. And I think we've very, very harmful longterm consequences to our society. Birth control to me enables that, and I don't think it's a healthy thing for our country."
and
"It's not OK, because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be," he says. "They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."
Women's rights groups have been shelling him since he said that in the interview with George Stephanopoulos
So... yeah.
Sorry were you going to post quotes from Santorum that make him sound crazy on birth control? If so then you must have posted the wrong quotes.
Maybe saying that Birth Control is "bad for the country" and "harmful to society" in a world where 1 in 4 Africans have AIDS as a result of anti-contraception propaganda from the Catholic Church doesn't come off as backwards in this day and age?
This is the last straw. The...LAST...F$%#@*&*...straw. I am so PO'ed over this, I would vote for anyone to remove Obama. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Donald Trump, Steven Colbert, A rock. ANYONE!
NameIsRobertPaulson: Maybe saying that Birth Control is "bad for the country" and "harmful to society" in a world where 1 in 4 Africans have AIDS as a result of anti-contraception propaganda from the Catholic Church doesn't come off as backwards in this day and age?
Well, while Rick is coming off on the extreme side, he does have a point. For starters, Obama has no right to force Catholic instituitons of any kind to go along with something that is against thier beliefs. There are PLENTY of other places to get cheap contraception, forceing the church to do it not only goes against thier beliefs, it is downright overkill.
Second, I kind of agree with him on birth control and contraception. Although, given the choice, I would rather they be more common because they are the lesser evil.
This is the last straw. The...LAST...F$%#@*&*...straw. I am so PO'ed over this, I would vote for anyone to remove Obama. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Donald Trump, Steven Colbert, A rock. ANYONE!
NameIsRobertPaulson: Maybe saying that Birth Control is "bad for the country" and "harmful to society" in a world where 1 in 4 Africans have AIDS as a result of anti-contraception propaganda from the Catholic Church doesn't come off as backwards in this day and age?
Well, while Rick is coming off on the extreme side, he does have a point. For starters, Obama has no right to force Catholic instituitons of any kind to go along with something that is against thier beliefs. There are PLENTY of other places to get cheap contraception, forceing the church to do it not only goes against thier beliefs, it is downright overkill.
Second, I kind of agree with him on birth control and contraception. Although, given the choice, I would rather they be more common because they are the lesser evil.
Santorum loses all credibility when he attacks Obama because he then goes and says gay marriage, abortion and contraception should be banned, in accordance with gods law.
This is the last straw. The...LAST...F$%#@*&*...straw. I am so PO'ed over this, I would vote for anyone to remove Obama. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Donald Trump, Steven Colbert, A rock. ANYONE!
NameIsRobertPaulson: Maybe saying that Birth Control is "bad for the country" and "harmful to society" in a world where 1 in 4 Africans have AIDS as a result of anti-contraception propaganda from the Catholic Church doesn't come off as backwards in this day and age?
Well, while Rick is coming off on the extreme side, he does have a point. For starters, Obama has no right to force Catholic instituitons of any kind to go along with something that is against thier beliefs. There are PLENTY of other places to get cheap contraception, forceing the church to do it not only goes against thier beliefs, it is downright overkill.
Second, I kind of agree with him on birth control and contraception. Although, given the choice, I would rather they be more common because they are the lesser evil.
Really? Because he won't a bio-security lab, which, while providing 300 jobs, would also be redundant because of the three S-5 Safety Labs in Virginia and Georgia? The country doesn't need another one, at the cost of $10,000,000.
THAT'S the last straw for you? Really?
And as far as Santorum goes, contraception saves millions more dollars than it costs, and keeps people safe. You will never stop teenagers from banging, might as well make sure they're safe. If your church doesn't like it, they don't need to endorse it. But it should always be an option for everyone.
This is the last straw. The...LAST...F$%#@*&*...straw. I am so PO'ed over this, I would vote for anyone to remove Obama. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Donald Trump, Steven Colbert, A rock. ANYONE!
Err... No offense, Boom, People who believe that this is really the "last straw" for you on Obama are like people who believe that Rick Santorum's anti-choice tendencies came about when he really started thinking about the issue. You almost certainly would've voted for a rock over Obama back in '09, shortly after his inauguration. Never mind that this is a quite frankly ludicrous thing to get all frothy over, especially as a small-government conservative.
Well, while Rick is coming off on the extreme side, he does have a point. For starters, Obama has no right to force Catholic instituitons of any kind to go along with something that is against thier beliefs.
"It is in my belief system that I am morally forced, by the will of the almighty creator Dickbutt, to never operate a business in a building that completely follows regulations. Therefore, I should be exempt from them on behalf of my religious beliefs."
Imagine a person who truly and genuinely had a religious belief entailing that. Would that give them a good reason to shrug off building regulations? What if their religious beliefs said something about paying employees no more than $3/hour, adjusted for inflation - would that give them a good reason to be able to ignore minimum wage? No! Of course not! That would be fucking stupid! The fact is, for some reason or other, employee health insurance has to cover contraception. Having a certain religion or religious belief cannot and should not provide exemption to universal and well-grounded legislature and regulation.
The whole argument is just ridiculous on several levels. For example, the fact that a non-negligible portion of catholic men and women use birth control (the 98% figure was somewhat misleading, granted, but it still does offer an interesting figure nonetheless - sexually active catholic women who don't want to get pregnant are using birth control) means that it isn't necessarily the morality of the catholics which is being infringed upon, but the morality of a bunch of stuffy old men who probably haven't had sex in ages, who really need to stop getting involved in issues of female reproductive rights. I mean, seriously, Fox News did a panel on this and didn't even bother to find the one token woman you would expect from them on issues like this. Then there's this...
There are PLENTY of other places to get cheap contraception, forceing the church to do it not only goes against thier beliefs, it is downright overkill.
See, here's the thing: it doesn't go against the beliefs of anyone involved in any meaningful way. If someone being hired by an institution affiliated by the catholic church has a moral obligation to not use birth control, they probably won't get it from the insurance. The institutions pay for insurance. If they don't like it, nobody is forcing them to buy insurance in the first place.
But Frothy didn't just claim that it was violating the first-amendment rights of the church (which, while incorrect, in the grand scheme of things isn't that dumb). He (and others) claimed that it was a "war on religion", that the current administration was going to strip away our religious freedoms, and that we would end up faced with the return of the Guilloutine in a strange slippery slope from secular humanism to the french revolution! There is not a single part of that which is accurate, and almost all of it is fucking bullshit. I mean, for fuck's sake, the president even compromised on the issue! He was willing to take the responsibility for the actual purchase of the contraception out of the hands of the institutions. If that's a "war on religion", then my arguments in favor of legal abortion are a "war on fetuses" and Tyler Perry is running a "war on comedy" (hmm... that may actually have some merit).
The whole situation is almost irreparably stupid, and ignoring what Frothy actually said and implied is the only way that his supporters can get make even the slightest bit of sense out of his radical positions!
-------
Anyways, on the topic of Santorum "sinking himself"... In the primary? Come on. He's dropped bombs such as the belief that abortion is wrong even in the case of rape, and that women should accept this gift from god. He's spoken out against contraception, claiming that it's unnatural and against God's will. His entire "morality" platform is based on hardline fundamentalism of the Pat Robertson brand: the freedoms of those who aren't christian can go fuck themselves. Oh, it'll sink him like a fucking rock in the general election, but in the primary? The republican party probably does have enough socially-backward retards in it to get this guy through the season. I mean, come on! Look at this crap!
Second, I kind of agree with him on birth control and contraception. Although, given the choice, I would rather they be more common because they are the lesser evil.
"I don't think it works. I think it's harmful to women. I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. And I think we've very, very harmful longterm consequences to our society. Birth control to me enables that, and I don't think it's a healthy thing for our country."
and
"It's not OK, because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be," he says. "They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."
Sorry were you going to post quotes from Santorum that make him sound crazy on birth control? If so then you must have posted the wrong quotes.
You know, I really have to agree with what Thunderf00t said back in WDPLAC 21: "The threat of Islamic terrorism is, at best, almost negligible. The threat of fundamentalist christians getting their hands on the weapons needed to end the world and the reins to our educational system is very real and very present."
Stagnant: You know, I really have to agree with what Thunderf00t said back in WDPLAC 21: "The threat of Islamic terrorism is, at best, almost negligible. The threat of fundamentalist christians getting their hands on the weapons needed to end the world and the reins to our educational system is very real and very present."
I've just started to ignore Seekster when he he has one of his crazed religious fundamentalist moments. Much better for my forum health and that giant red palmprint that was almost permanently a fixture on my forehead has started to go away.
Well with the US economy picking up steam so expect UE to go up in the summer months as more people re-enter the labour market who have currently been leaving in droves due to unrelenting messges of hopelessness from the media. Also expect Seekster/Republicans to not get the nuance involved in this (UE is going up because more people are hopeful of getting work and re-entering the market instead of because people are losing their jobs) and complain vociferously about it going up.
Current Polling also has Obama beating Romney by a larger margin than he does Santorum though both are by more than 8 points which if it continues going into super tuesday then it deprives Romeny one of his only lines of attack against the frothy one (that being that he is the better candidate in the general) as most of the other ones would be directly shitting on the crazed religious fundies that make up the GOP base.
TheGuy(wantstobe): I've just started to ignore Seekster when he he has one of his crazed religious fundamentalist moments. Much better for my forum health and that giant red palmprint that was almost permanently a fixture on my forehead has started to go away.
I really should as well, but it's... it's just painful. Like, I disagree with Seekster on just about everything, but I can at least respect that, for the most part, he's rational and at least has some grounding in his positions. But seeing some of the ridiculous positions he seems all too eager to support... Ugh. :(
*tap, tap* Is this thing on? I know you are technically not supposed to do this on the internet, but screw it. Im 18, its a town of 50,000, and I know how to defend myself. I Am a resident of Manhattan, Kanas, where the NBAF was being built. I have driven by the construction multiple times. I could deal with them cutting NBAF if nothing had happened yet. BUT, they already have the foundation dug out, they already have all the material there. There has already been $5 Million spent on the project. And NOW, he wants to cut it? BULL!! Not only would this facility be helpful to America, It could be to the WORLD. Research in viruses has always led to more potent medication.
My rage has nothing to do with Obama. I still think he is a good man...he is just a loasy president.
Now Stag, Robert. I would answer the rest of your post, But I have to go to school now. I will answer when I get back in about 5 hours...and most likely have even more to answer thanks to my NBAF rant.
This is the last straw. The...LAST...F$%#@*&*...straw. I am so PO'ed over this, I would vote for anyone to remove Obama. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Donald Trump, Steven Colbert, A rock. ANYONE!
Err... No offense, Boom, People who believe that this is really the "last straw" for you on Obama are like people who believe that Rick Santorum's anti-choice tendencies came about when he really started thinking about the issue. You almost certainly would've voted for a rock over Obama back in '09, shortly after his inauguration. Never mind that this is a quite frankly ludicrous thing to get all frothy over, especially as a small-government conservative.
Well, while Rick is coming off on the extreme side, he does have a point. For starters, Obama has no right to force Catholic instituitons of any kind to go along with something that is against thier beliefs.
"It is in my belief system that I am morally forced, by the will of the almighty creator Dickbutt, to never operate a business in a building that completely follows regulations. Therefore, I should be exempt from them on behalf of my religious beliefs."
Imagine a person who truly and genuinely had a religious belief entailing that. Would that give them a good reason to shrug off building regulations? What if their religious beliefs said something about paying employees no more than $3/hour, adjusted for inflation - would that give them a good reason to be able to ignore minimum wage? No! Of course not! That would be fucking stupid! The fact is, for some reason or other, employee health insurance has to cover contraception. Having a certain religion or religious belief cannot and should not provide exemption to universal and well-grounded legislature and regulation.
The whole argument is just ridiculous on several levels. For example, the fact that a non-negligible portion of catholic men and women use birth control (the 98% figure was somewhat misleading, granted, but it still does offer an interesting figure nonetheless - sexually active catholic women who don't want to get pregnant are using birth control) means that it isn't necessarily the morality of the catholics which is being infringed upon, but the morality of a bunch of stuffy old men who probably haven't had sex in ages, who really need to stop getting involved in issues of female reproductive rights. I mean, seriously, Fox News did a panel on this and didn't even bother to find the one token woman you would expect from them on issues like this. Then there's this...
There are PLENTY of other places to get cheap contraception, forceing the church to do it not only goes against thier beliefs, it is downright overkill.
See, here's the thing: it doesn't go against the beliefs of anyone involved in any meaningful way. If someone being hired by an institution affiliated by the catholic church has a moral obligation to not use birth control, they probably won't get it from the insurance. The institutions pay for insurance. If they don't like it, nobody is forcing them to buy insurance in the first place.
But Frothy didn't just claim that it was violating the first-amendment rights of the church (which, while incorrect, in the grand scheme of things isn't that dumb). He (and others) claimed that it was a "war on religion", that the current administration was going to strip away our religious freedoms, and that we would end up faced with the return of the Guilloutine in a strange slippery slope from secular humanism to the french revolution! There is not a single part of that which is accurate, and almost all of it is fucking bullshit. I mean, for fuck's sake, the president even compromised on the issue! He was willing to take the responsibility for the actual purchase of the contraception out of the hands of the institutions. If that's a "war on religion", then my arguments in favor of legal abortion are a "war on fetuses" and Tyler Perry is running a "war on comedy" (hmm... that may actually have some merit).
The whole situation is almost irreparably stupid, and ignoring what Frothy actually said and implied is the only way that his supporters can get make even the slightest bit of sense out of his radical positions!
-------
Anyways, on the topic of Santorum "sinking himself"... In the primary? Come on. He's dropped bombs such as the belief that abortion is wrong even in the case of rape, and that women should accept this gift from god. He's spoken out against contraception, claiming that it's unnatural and against God's will. His entire "morality" platform is based on hardline fundamentalism of the Pat Robertson brand: the freedoms of those who aren't christian can go fuck themselves. Oh, it'll sink him like a fucking rock in the general election, but in the primary? The republican party probably does have enough socially-backward retards in it to get this guy through the season. I mean, come on! Look at this crap!
Second, I kind of agree with him on birth control and contraception. Although, given the choice, I would rather they be more common because they are the lesser evil.
"I don't think it works. I think it's harmful to women. I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. And I think we've very, very harmful longterm consequences to our society. Birth control to me enables that, and I don't think it's a healthy thing for our country."
and
"It's not OK, because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be," he says. "They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."
Sorry were you going to post quotes from Santorum that make him sound crazy on birth control? If so then you must have posted the wrong quotes.
You know, I really have to agree with what Thunderf00t said back in WDPLAC 21: "The threat of Islamic terrorism is, at best, almost negligible. The threat of fundamentalist christians getting their hands on the weapons needed to end the world and the reins to our educational system is very real and very present."
Adorable, but even fundamentalist Christians are tame compared with fundamentalists Muslims. There is no Christian equivalent for Jihad, no crusades were just something made up by the Papacy a long time ago, I can assure you that if the Pope called a crusade today nobody would go, can you say the same for some Imam calling a jihad?
I was being a bit glib in my last post though so let me clarify a few things.
I consider myself a social conservative but even I find Santorum to be too far to the right. However I would not consider either of those quotes which you provided to be wrong. Ideally yes one should wait until they are ready to commit to one partner (or at least one partner at a time) for sex. That is my personal view mind you and I wont force it on anyone else. I would also agree with Santorum that our societies tolerance of casual sex has led to long term and immeasurable harm to the moral-fiber of our society so to speak. I do not however believe that government can or should try to do anything about it. You CAN legislate morality, but its very difficult to enforce such legislation and often it just turns the perpetrators of undesirable behavior into victims (sort of like banning talk of holocaust denial does).
I sincerely hope that Romney wins the nomination because I don't want to have to vote for Santorum, especially since he would lose. Yes I would have to vote for Santorum because I don't believe in not voting in Presidential elections and the only person the Democrats are running is Obama so my hands would be tied.
Stagnant: You know, I really have to agree with what Thunderf00t said back in WDPLAC 21: "The threat of Islamic terrorism is, at best, almost negligible. The threat of fundamentalist christians getting their hands on the weapons needed to end the world and the reins to our educational system is very real and very present."
I've just started to ignore Seekster when he he has one of his crazed religious fundamentalist moments. Much better for my forum health and that giant red palmprint that was almost permanently a fixture on my forehead has started to go away.
Well with the US economy picking up steam so expect UE to go up in the summer months as more people re-enter the labour market who have currently been leaving in droves due to unrelenting messges of hopelessness from the media. Also expect Seekster/Republicans to not get the nuance involved in this (UE is going up because more people are hopeful of getting work and re-entering the market instead of because people are losing their jobs) and complain vociferously about it going up.
Current Polling also has Obama beating Romney by a larger margin than he does Santorum though both are by more than 8 points which if it continues going into super tuesday then it deprives Romeny one of his only lines of attack against the frothy one (that being that he is the better candidate in the general) as most of the other ones would be directly shitting on the crazed religious fundies that make up the GOP base.
On the contrary, I have noticed the economic improvements and I hope they continue. However my disdain for Obama as President has more to do with his lack of leadership ability, his stance on certain issues, and of course Obamacare. Still I am not so petty as to deny credit when it is due. If the economy continues to improve I will give Obama his just credit. Rightly or wrongly a President is given credit or blame for the economy while he was in office. Now in the first year of a Presidency you can attribute the current state of the economy to the previous President but after that the economy belongs to the sitting President. It would be hypocritical of me to criticize Obama for the economy in 2010 and 2011 but withhold credit now. I have always said that if the unemployment figure goes below 8% I will give Obama credit for it and it is getting close. However unless Obama learns to be an effective leader and tacitly consents to the replacement of Obamacare (something he is unlikely to do) then I cannot bring myself to vote for him.
Yes the polls show that now but I will say to you what I said to Conservatives when the polls showed Obama losing. Yes the polls show that now and if the election were held tomorrow then that would likely happen, but the election is not tomorrow is it? Many things will happen between now and November and I daresay what the polls say now are insignificant, what they say in late October is slightly less so.
Polls aside though, if Santorum is the Nominee Obama will likely win (and hopefully the far right can take its head out of its arse then). If Romney is the nominee then it will be a contest but then the outcome will depend greatly on what happens between now and November. It is entirely possible that foreign policy will be a more prominent issue by then but we will see.
"I don't think it works. I think it's harmful to women. I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. And I think we've very, very harmful longterm consequences to our society. Birth control to me enables that, and I don't think it's a healthy thing for our country."
and
"It's not OK, because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be," he says. "They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."
Women's rights groups have been shelling him since he said that in the interview with George Stephanopoulos
So... yeah.
Sorry were you going to post quotes from Santorum that make him sound crazy on birth control? If so then you must have posted the wrong quotes.
Maybe saying that Birth Control is "bad for the country" and "harmful to society" in a world where 1 in 4 Africans have AIDS as a result of anti-contraception propaganda from the Catholic Church doesn't come off as backwards in this day and age?
Oh come now I doubt very much Santorum's comments drew much attention in Africa, besides its clear Santorum is talking about the United States ("our country"). Also its a bit disingenuous of you to imply (intentionally or unintentionally) that Africa's problems can be solved if only they had more access to contraception. Helped sure but it is tiring to hear people treat contraception as a sacred cow that is above criticism (sort of like the way Planned Parenthood is treated).
Nevada was already called for Romney. Paul placed third.