View Full Version : Don't let Obama choose the GOP nominee
tailfins
03-05-2012, 11:51 AM
Obama apparently wants to run against Santorum.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/dont-let-obama-choose-our-nominee-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
revelarts
03-05-2012, 12:17 PM
This guy wants anyone but Ron Paul sounds like to me.
jimnyc
03-05-2012, 12:18 PM
This guy wants anyone but Ron Paul sounds like to me.
Maybe he's being realistic?
I'd want Santorum too, I mean, my god he could well be the Rep. nomination :|
I know I'm justa dosy liberal eurofag and y'all wont care and whatnot, but the idea that someone like Santorum can be taken seriously does America no favours in the international perspective.
jimnyc
03-05-2012, 12:52 PM
I'd want Santorum too, I mean, my god he could well be the Rep. nomination :|
I know I'm justa dosy liberal eurofag and y'all wont care and whatnot, but the idea that someone like Santorum can be taken seriously does America no favours in the international perspective.
Why? Because you disagree with issues that come from his faith?
Why? Because you disagree with issues that come from his faith?
Because of the manor in which he 'disagrees', like saying that if people are allowed to have homosexual sex in the privacy of their own home then that means we all have the right to adultery and incest etc. Or saying that 'man and man' is as much not a definition of marriage as 'man and dog' etc.
jimnyc
03-05-2012, 01:10 PM
Because of the manor in which he 'disagrees', like saying that if people are allowed to have homosexual sex in the privacy of their own home then that means we all have the right to adultery and incest etc. Or saying that 'man and man' is as much not a definition of marriage as 'man and dog' etc.
That confused me a bit... Can you link me to an article that discusses what you're talking about?
revelarts
03-05-2012, 01:16 PM
I can't quite figure Santorum, here he is with Arlen Specter in 1995 when he ran for congress as a FULL ON Pro Choice Republican. and Santorum seems OK with that. I'm not sure if something's changed his mind or if he was just "Being a Team Player" then. I don't get it.
Here are a few key takeaways from the 25 minute C-SPAN video (http://ronpaul2012.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=9b8827e2d9e8f8bf88bfe6fcb&id=ca96e90c7a&e=bd52c18223), with Santorum seen nodding and applauding at Specter’s side:
3:46 mark: “In 1996, I intend to win the other house — the White House — with ten commitments to America… including a woman’s right to choose…
13:22 mark: “Even though we have this historic opportunity for these achievements, there are those in our party who would lead us down a different path — and squander this unique moment in our nation’s history — by using our political capital — to pursue a radical social agenda — that would end a woman’s right to choose…
13:48 mark: “When Pat Robertson says there is no constitutional doctrine of separation between Church and State, I say he is wrong…
14:31 mark: “When Ralph Reed says a pro-choice Republican isn’t qualified to be our President, I say the Republican Party will not be intimidated or blackmailed by those kinds of threats.I, and millions of other pro-choice Republicans, will not be disenfranchised and made second class citizens.
15:33 mark: “… it is not Christian, or religious, or Judeo-Christian to bring God into politics; or to advocate intolerance and promote exclusion.
15:54 mark: “I want to take abortion out of politics. I want to keep the Republican Party focused on the vital economic and foreign policy issues — and leave moral issues such as abortion to the conscience of the individual. I believe abortion is an issue to be decided by women…
16:40 mark: “I pledge to lead the fight to strip the strident anti-choice language from the Republican National platform…”
maybe that will make Euro-libs feel better, He supported a candidate who wants to allow the killing of children too. Now he's a modern human.
That confused me a bit... Can you link me to an article that discusses what you're talking about?
The first bit (saying gay sex okay means incests okay) comes from an AP interview
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday."
http://articles.cnn.com/2003-04-22/politics/santorum.gays_1_statement-on-individual-lifestyles-senator-santorum-bigamy-and-adultery?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
The second part (definition of marriage) was from a USA today interview.
“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm
jimnyc
03-05-2012, 01:42 PM
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday."
As far as I can tell, he's right. He's not actually advocating those things, just showing how the slope works. For example, based on all of the reasoning given to say that gay marriage is normal and should receive equal rights, that reasoning should give polygamists the same rights. While his words are dumb, especially regarding incest, it's nothing more than addressing the slippery slope, which has already started.
“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality."
And he's 1000% correct here, IMO. And most Americans agree, the definition of marriage should remain the same as it's always been.
But like I said initially, you're "anti-Santorum" because of his beliefs stemming from his faith. Whether you like it or not, these 2 things will pale in comparison to the things that Americans really care about. Gays are a hot topic, but the economy, jobs, healthcare, foreign policy... These are the things that matter.
And Fwiw - I'm not a Santorum fan, never was, just giving my 2 cents on the issue.
jimnyc
03-05-2012, 01:49 PM
Also, Noir, do you "really" think the international community is going to care that much about Santorum's stance on gays and marriage, which has NO bearing on them really at all?
As far as I can tell, he's right. He's not actually advocating those things, just showing how the slope works. For example, based on all of the reasoning given to say that gay marriage is normal and should receive equal rights, that reasoning should give polygamists the same rights. While his words are dumb, especially regarding incest, it's nothing more than addressing the slippery slope, which has already started.
So do you think, in order to get us off this 'slippery slope' that gays should not be allowed to have consensual sex in their homes?
jimnyc
03-05-2012, 01:55 PM
So do you think, in order to get us off this 'slippery slope' that gays should not be allowed to have consensual sex in their homes?
Personally, I don't care, but I don't think the government should be sticking their noses into our bedrooms and saying "yes/no" to anything, and I think that's what he was pointing out.
Personally, I don't care, but I don't think the government should be sticking their noses into our bedrooms and saying "yes/no" to anything, and I think that's what he was pointing out.
No, thats not what he's saying, infact that's the *exact* opposite of what he's saying.
Rick says that if the courts let gays has sex then "anything" goes including incest, adultery etc.
And you're right it's not any of the states business, but Rick thinks it's his.
krisy
03-05-2012, 02:17 PM
Noir,this these gay issues are the farthest thing from most people's minds. These opinions in no way mean that he cannot do good things for this country. Obama isn't for gay marriage either,where's the press on that one?
Whats on the minds of people is getting the electric bill paid,the mortgage paid,and making sure there is enough left to put gas in the car,and who will make it affordable to put gas in the car. Are Israel and Iran going to war,and will the U.S. be involved? Will Obamacare be forced on us,or will someone repeal it?
tailfins
03-05-2012, 02:20 PM
Irrespective of his views, Santorum is a minor league player in politics. He just doesn't have the skills to compete. Santorum against Obama would be like the Chattanooga Lookouts playing the Atlanta Braves.
3343
jimnyc
03-05-2012, 02:20 PM
No, thats not what he's saying, infact that's the *exact* opposite of what he's saying.
Rick says that if the courts let gays has sex then "anything" goes including incest, adultery etc.
And you're right it's not any of the states business, but Rick thinks it's his.
He's playing devils advocate, he was not actually stating that incest and such should be allowed - but rather that decisions as such about gays "could" lead to worse.
jimnyc
03-05-2012, 02:22 PM
Noir,this these gay issues are the farthest thing from most people's minds. These opinions in no way mean that he cannot do good things for this country. Obama isn't for gay marriage either,where's the press on that one?
Whats on the minds of people is getting the electric bill paid,the mortgage paid,and making sure there is enough left to put gas in the car,and who will make it affordable to put gas in the car. Are Israel and Iran going to war,and will the U.S. be involved? Will Obamacare be forced on us,or will someone repeal it?
That's what I'm saying, contrary to what Noir said in his initial post, and whether Santorum gets elected or not, the international community isn't going to be swayed by gay issues. If they were, they would already have been doing so on current and past presidents.
Abbey Marie
03-05-2012, 04:16 PM
I don't give one rat's butt who the "international community" thinks we should elect as OUR President.
avatar4321
03-05-2012, 04:47 PM
He wont. We will.
And if it is Santorum, we could do much worse. In fact, I can get behind any of the Republican candidates. I trust them to different degrees. But they are all superior to Obama.
He's playing devils advocate, he was not actually stating that incest and such should be allowed - but rather that decisions as such about gays "could" lead to worse.
No, he's saying that the courts/state should *stop* gay people being able to consent to sex in their homes. When it's *none* of the states business.
And his tactic is an old one, allow x and soon you'll have y and z. Boring fear tactics, and the only possible conclusion being that if you don't want y and z you'll have to stop x.
Prance about it all you like, Rick believes that the state should. E in your bedroom, and that in order to save society from the 'slippery slope' that certain types of sex should be illegal, lawl.
jimnyc
03-05-2012, 05:01 PM
No, he's saying that the courts/state should *stop* gay people being able to consent to sex in their homes. When it's *none* of the states business.
And his tactic is an old one, allow x and soon you'll have y and z. Boring fear tactics, and the only possible conclusion being that if you don't want y and z you'll have to stop x.
Prance about it all you like, Rick believes that the state should. E in your bedroom, and that in order to save society from the 'slippery slope' that certain types of sex should be illegal, lawl.
That's your opinion. Either way, it means little here, and won't amount to jack shit as far as how the international community sees us. Look back to Bill Clinton, do you remember the outrage from around the world when he signed the "defense of marriage act"? Nope, you don't, cause there was none.
That's your opinion. Either way, it means little here, and won't amount to jack shit as far as how the international community sees us. Look back to Bill Clinton, do you remember the outrage from around the world when he signed the "defense of marriage act"? Nope, you don't, cause there was none.
Whats my opinion? Rick has stated that he thinks gays having sex should be illegal. No opinion.
As for that act, I was 6 when it was passed, so I wasn't much politically aware but regardless the world has changed in 15 years, just because there wasn't outraged then doesn't mean their houldnt be now.
jimnyc
03-05-2012, 05:13 PM
Whats my opinion? Rick has stated that he thinks gays having sex should be illegal. No opinion.
As for that act, I was 6 when it was passed, so I wasn't much politically aware but regardless the world has changed in 15 years, just because there wasn't outraged then doesn't mean their houldnt be now.
We have politicians now, as in Obama on down, who are against gay marriage, and many much more vocal than him. While there is anger in certain circles, international outrage there is not. Just as we worry about certain things from Iran, Israel, UK, Australia, Denmark, Saudi Arabia.... We have lot of things that concern us about those countries, and their elections, and their leaders - but I assure you, we don't give a shit about what these leaders and politicians thoughts are on gay sex or marriage.
And let's suppose he wins for a moment, do you really think our allies and other countries alike are going to deal with us differently because the man takes issue with homosexuality? We deal with this every election, just in a different name - abortion. And that literally has lives on the line. And it's also a big factor by politicians and who supports them. So EVERY president is usually on record as to which "side" they support. I don't think I've ever seen any type of backlash from the international community in regards to a US president siding with either. These things just don't impact relations.
gabosaurus
03-05-2012, 05:24 PM
I am sure Obama would love to face anyone but Romney. If Santorum gets the nomination, he will collect few electoral votes than Walter Mondale.
avatar4321
03-05-2012, 08:52 PM
I am sure Obama would love to face anyone but Romney. If Santorum gets the nomination, he will collect few electoral votes than Walter Mondale.
Sorry gabs, but regardless of whether it's Romney or Santorum, Obama is going down:)
tailfins
03-05-2012, 10:34 PM
Sorry gabs, but regardless of whether it's Romney or Santorum, Obama is going down:)
Don't kid yourself. This is a 50/50 proposition. A first class campaign will be necessary to beat B-HO.
PostmodernProphet
03-06-2012, 08:45 AM
Irrespective of his views, Santorum is a minor league player in politics. He just doesn't have the skills to compete. Santorum against Obama would be like the Chattanooga Lookouts playing the Atlanta Braves.
Obama's already shown he isn't qualified for the Bush leagues....
PostmodernProphet
03-06-2012, 08:46 AM
Don't kid yourself. This is a 50/50 proposition. A first class campaign will be necessary to beat B-HO.
actually, they only need one slogan to beat Obama......
"If you have any good ideas, why didn't you use them LAST January!"........
Abbey Marie
03-06-2012, 09:33 AM
One good teleprompter malfunction, and Obama is toast.
We have politicians now, as in Obama on down, who are against gay marriage, and many much more vocal than him. While there is anger in certain circles, international outrage there is not. Just as we worry about certain things from Iran, Israel, UK, Australia, Denmark, Saudi Arabia.... We have lot of things that concern us about those countries, and their elections, and their leaders - but I assure you, we don't give a shit about what these leaders and politicians thoughts are on gay sex or marriage.
And let's suppose he wins for a moment, do you really think our allies and other countries alike are going to deal with us differently because the man takes issue with homosexuality? We deal with this every election, just in a different name - abortion. And that literally has lives on the line. And it's also a big factor by politicians and who supports them. So EVERY president is usually on record as to which "side" they support. I don't think I've ever seen any type of backlash from the international community in regards to a US president siding with either. These things just don't impact relations.
Would you seriously vote for a man who think the justice branch in your country should be ruling on what kind of sex between adults is legal?
And by international outlook I don't mean the politicians and governments. Like I said I know ya's won't care, but it makes ya's look backward as hell when someone like Santorum is a mainstream politican and not some crazy nutter on the fringes of your politics.
Would you seriously vote for a man who think the justice branch in your country should be ruling on what kind of sex between adults is legal?
And by international outlook I don't mean the politicians and governments. Like I said I know ya's won't care, but it makes ya's look backward as hell when someone like Santorum is a mainstream politican and not some crazy nutter on the fringes of your politics.
and you Brits got a queen ... that aint backwards? Just askin ...
and you Brits got a queen ... that aint backwards? Just askin ...
I'm no fan of the royal family, but I wouldn't say it's backwards in the same way.
LuvRPgrl
03-06-2012, 12:17 PM
I'd want Santorum too, I mean, my god he could well be the Rep. nomination :|
I know I'm justa dosy liberal eurofag and y'all wont care and whatnot, but the idea that someone like Santorum can be taken seriously does America no favours in the international perspective.A
APparently millions of Americans disagree with you.
Hey, wasnt it about 1946 when America bailed ;you guys out after your country declared bankruptcy,
how is that euro doing?
how any countries over there are on the verge of economic collapse?
wasnt that France that had wide scaling rioting, not protesting, BUT ACTUAL RIOTS, partly because of the unemployment problem?
How many did that guy in Norway on that island? He was able to slowly and casually stroll around shooting people because he knew, due to the gun laws, that nobody was armed.
Get a clue, we are AMERICANS because we WANT TO BE DIFFERENT AND BETTER THAN YOU EUROS
hen
If it wasnt for us, you all would be giving alliance to herr hitler, and even at that, when the war was over, it was the US that bailed all of europe out of abject poverty and starvation.
Isnt it still the US that people flock to , to get their freedom?
KEEP ON HATING IN THE NAME OF PEACE BROU
I'm no fan of the royal family, but I wouldn't say it's backwards in the same way.
So it's backwards but a different backwards ... got it! Just kiddin around by the way.
LuvRPgrl
03-06-2012, 12:28 PM
I'd want Santorum too, I mean, my god he could well be the Rep. nomination :|
I know I'm justa dosy liberal eurofag and y'all wont care and whatnot, but the idea that someone like Santorum can be taken seriously does America no favours in the international perspective.
RATHER arrogant of you to assume the international community views things the same way you liberal euros do.
are these countries pro homo
all of southern and central america
any muslim country
china
japan
russian
east european
any african country?
LuvRPgrl
03-06-2012, 12:43 PM
I am sure Obama would love to face anyone but Romney. If Santorum gets the nomination, he will collect few electoral votes than Walter Mondale.
Santorum is beating obama in head to head contest polls in ALL OF THE SWING STATES.
IT is the midwest that will decide this election
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Penn, Mich, Mo,
and of course florida.
JIMMY CARTER'S advisors thought R Regean was the best person to run against.
How did that work out for you guys?
The parrallels of obama and carter are staggering, including they are both inept, and terrible leaders.
A
APparently millions of Americans disagree with you.
Hey, wasnt it about 1946 when America bailed ;you guys out after your country declared bankruptcy,
how is that euro doing?
how any countries over there are on the verge of economic collapse?
wasnt that France that had wide scaling rioting, not protesting, BUT ACTUAL RIOTS, partly because of the unemployment problem?
How many did that guy in Norway on that island? He was able to slowly and casually stroll around shooting people because he knew, due to the gun laws, that nobody was armed.
Get a clue, we are AMERICANS because we WANT TO BE DIFFERENT AND BETTER THAN YOU EUROS
hen
If it wasnt for us, you all would be giving alliance to herr hitler, and even at that, when the war was over, it was the US that bailed all of europe out of abject poverty and starvation.
Isnt it still the US that people flock to , to get their freedom?
KEEP ON HATING IN THE NAME OF PEACE BROU
...there are times when the internet leaves you speechless, this is such a time.
LuvRPgrl
03-06-2012, 12:47 PM
...there are times when the internet leaves you speechless, this is such a time.
Thanks soo much !
tailfins
03-06-2012, 01:29 PM
Santorum is beating obama in head to head contest polls in ALL OF THE SWING STATES.
IT is the midwest that will decide this election
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Penn, Mich, Mo,
and of course florida.
JIMMY CARTER'S advisors thought R Regean was the best person to run against.
How did that work out for you guys?
The parrallels of obama and carter are staggering, including they are both inept, and terrible leaders.
The circumstances are more of a driver than which candidate. If the nominee isn't settled soon, that nominee won't have time to focus on a general election campaign. We are running out of time to select a nominee. If no one has clinched the nomination this Spring, the chances of defeating Obama go way down.
LuvRPgrl
03-06-2012, 07:37 PM
The circumstances are more of a driver than which candidate. If the nominee isn't settled soon, that nominee won't have time to focus on a general election campaign. We are running out of time to select a nominee. If no one has clinched the nomination this Spring, the chances of defeating Obama go way down.
clinton and obama were fighting it out and mccain already had his nomination wrapped up, but apparently it didnt hurt obamas election hopes.
same thing with carter and regean
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.