|
|
|
he's a total $#@!et.
give me romney or obama over him.
They existed, but at much lower levels. Risk compensation and moral hazard are real things.Originally Posted by mdmost
I agree "special interest groups" will "get policy considerations." I'm unaware of any special interest group that's pushing for outlawing contraception. If they are, I don't know what Santo could do for them. The next POTUS, if it's a Repub, will be "standard Repub" on abortion and related issues. Reinstate Mexico City, appoint judges that they think will be conservative (they'll probably all outsource the legwork to FedSoc, like W did), try to remove federal funds from PP (we'll see if they have the votes to break a filibuster, or if McC can whip the caucus into going for that on reconciliation), restore conscience exemptions, etc. Of the 4 candidates up there, despite the narrative, only Paul would likely be more aggressive on these issues, and take steps to make it easier for states to actually ban contraception (which they don't want to).
Maureen Dowd thinks he's on "a crusade" to take away her birth control, and that we shouldn't believe his denials:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion...5a242edb4.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152918/ro...ationally.aspx
Per latest Gallup, Santo in a statistical tie (Obama 49-48), and Romney ahead (Romney 50-Obama 46).
when the giant cat in the background of a picture of your family is the least creepy thing in the picture, you have a problem.
Maureen Dowd and birth control is an oxymoron. I doubt she'll ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, need it.
I didn't watch all of the last debate as ISU was playing and I'm supporting any R nominee. However, I didn't realize that 25% of the question's proposed were on contraception???
Seriously CNN??? Seriously? I know the argument is that they got FB or tweets on this $#@! and 'we were just asking what's important to voters".
I have no doubt there were questions tweeted like "What do you think of Lindsy Lohan's playboy photos?" "Do you like green M&Ms?" and endless other drivel.
Why is it CNN let this get dominated by $#@! like this when we have high unemployment, raising energy prices, huge debt and deficits, and countless foreign policy issues that Americans really need to understand the candidates stances on?
Of course it's because CNN doesn't want them talking about these things as it's a reminder of Obama's failure. Getting the moronic left in a fervor about Rick Santorum breaking into bed rooms and taking condoms at gun point is MUCH more productive to the left's agenda. Which is why these things should be on Fox and run by someone with an IQ over 45 and not some dimwitted reporter that's main qualification is good hair and the ability to read a teleprompter. (Sounds like another guy I've heard about...ironic).
We have the electorate we deserve.
No, it's because the right decided that it would be a great idea to host a summit on birth control and invite only men. When you pull a stunt like that, you should be prepared to face the music. This is an issue flyover country suburban moms care about, which I realize may be lost around here, given that 90% of the content generated is from white males.
"the right" didn't "hold a summit on birth control" and "invite only men." The House's gov't oversight panel held a hearing to respond to complaints about the Obama administration's attack on religious liberty. They had representatives from several religious groups, mostly men, and some lay people as well, which included women.
The lies you are regurgitating were concocted by defenders of a failed administration trying desperately to use this as a wedge issue to divert attention from their failures and divide and conquer the American public.
Why? Because I don't know enough about them to know I'd prefer them over Obama?
I'd prefer most anyone in the R party over Obama.
Keep on preaching that line brother. It's a great message that will resonate with suburban moms. I promise you. Oh no, it's religious liberty we're concerned about - it has nothing to do with your bodies. It must be lost upon you how bad the right is getting its collective ass kicked on this issue. Keep tilting at those windmills though, Don Quixote.
We're from the clergy. We're here to defend your religious liberties, women. Trust us on this one. We know what's best for you.
Last edited by naked_bongo; 02-24-2012 at 10:37 AM.
Thought this was, uh, "interesting"...
Rick Santorum winning more support from Republican women
By Amy Gardner, Published: February 23
Over the past several weeks, Republicans have watched squeamishly as presidential contender Rick Santorum has waded into multiple controversies that risk alienating half the 2012 electorate: women.
But in fact, Santorum has grown more popular among women while talking about his opposition to abortion, his disapproval of birth control and his view that the federal government shouldn’t pay for prenatal screenings. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows not only that Santorum is doing better among GOP women than he was a few weeks ago, but also that he is less unpopular — and also less well known — among Democratic and independent women than his Republican rivals Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich...
... All of the campaigns — and the White House — are paying close attention to this major voting bloc, exploring how women feel about hot-button social issues and economic matters. Santorum’s views on health issues do not appear to have hurt in the primary. Yet he and the other Republican candidates are acutely aware of the danger those issues could present this fall...
... The Post-ABC poll, conducted on the heels of a week of scrutiny of Santorum’s conservative views on a variety of women’s health issues, shows that his popularity among GOP women has moved up 13 points since January, with the biggest bump in the past week, so that 57 percent hold a favorable view. Santorum is now within reach of Romney on that score: Sixty-one percent of Republican women view Romney favorably. Romney has higher negative ratings among GOP women than Santorum does — 28 percent to 18 percent — and those negative ratings of Romney have grown over time.
... there is no evidence that Santorum’s position among women in either party has dropped in recent weeks. That is a surprise to some Republicans, who have watched uncomfortably as he has engaged in high-profile discussions about abortion, contraception and prenatal screening...
... Overall, Santorum’s — and the other Republicans’ — popularity among Democratic and independent women remains weak, according to the Post-ABC data, with Gingrich leading the pack with the highest negatives among both groups and Romney not far behind him. Santorum is viewed unfavorably by 40 percent of Democratic women and 36 percent of independent women; Romney by 55 percent of Democratic women and 43 percent of independent women; and Gingrich by 63 percent of Democratic women and 58 percent of independent women...
... The Post-ABC poll was conducted Feb. 15 to 19 among a random national sample of 1,012 adults. The margin of sampling error for the full poll is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z1
Yes, this exactly.
Santorum's numbers improved because he started going all right wing social issues crazy. He wants to talk about it. He thinks it helps him, maybe it does.
Why CNN is asking about it? The left knows that religious right is a huge turnoff in the general election so they are more than happy to let the GOP hang themselves with the comments they make now.
137 Republican women with a sampling error of 9.5 percentage points.
Naked bongo,
If people fall for your lies, y'all will win the issue. I guess I just respect women more than you, because I don't think they're that stupid. I guess y'all are desperate though since "Unemployment is over 8%, the debt is out of control, gas prices are strikingly high, the banks are still too big to fail, the EU has us on the brink of a financial crisis, the middle East is falling into the hands of Islamist regimes, we refuse to lead as the Iran situation spirals out of control, but at least we're making the Catholic Church give away the morning after pill for free" isn't exactly a list of accomplishments that will play .
Naked bongo,
If people fall for your lies, y'all will win the issue. I guess I just respect women more than you, because I don't think they're that stupid. I guess y'all are desperate though since "Unemployment is over 8%, the debt is out of control, gas prices are strikingly high, the banks are still too big to fail, the EU has us on the brink of a financial crisis, the middle East is falling into the hands of Islamist regimes, we refuse to lead as the Iran situation spirals out of control, but at least we're making the Catholic Church give away the morning after pill for free" isn't exactly a list of accomplishments that will play .
You do realize that there has been a push for "personhood" laws which would effectively ban contraceptives, right?
Well, they wouldn't ban most forms of contraceptives. And, it didn't even pass in Mississippi. Not really sure what Santorum could do about it, beyond appointing judges that would uphold it.
No, just the good ones.
You're being obtuse. You shouldn't be obtuse.
There are other things that those behind "personhood" bills want. I don't feel like being pedantic, and I'm very sure you know exactly what I'm talking about, so I'll leave it there.
he just out-stupided himself
DALLAS, Texas - Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Thursday that President Obama wants more young adults to go to college so they can undergo "indoctrination" to a secular world view.
In an hour-long interview with conservative television host Glenn Beck, Santorum also defended his record on abortion and his vote in favor of President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind education law.
On the president's efforts to boost college attendance, Santorum said, "I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely ... The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country."
He claimed that "62 percent of kids who go into college with a faith commitment leave without it," but declined to cite a source for the figure. And he floated the idea of requiring universities that receive public funds have "intellectual diversity" on campus.
Criticized by his Republican rivals for supporting the Bush education law, which increased government-mandated testing in schools, Santorum has said he voted for it as "part of the (GOP) team." He told Beck that as president, "I'll be the team leader, not the team member."
A champion of home-schooling, Santorum also expanded on his vision of dramatically reduced involvement in public education by both the states and the federal government, although he was more exact about eliminating the present system than his plan for replacing it.
He said, "Education should be the parental responsibility and the local community should be the one to be working with the parents to make sure that children get the best educational in environment for each child in America. The federal government needs to get out of education. The state government by and large needs to get out of education, other than making sure there are sufficient resources, particularly in poorer neighborhoods, to be able to help (have) some sort of equality of education in America ... to have the resources to have the best customized education."
Santorum also defended his anti-abortion rights record after the Huffington Post website recently reported on a 1995 Philadelphia Magazine story in which Santorum said he "was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress."
"No I wasn't," Santorum told Beck, chuckling. "I was in Congress in the 1990s and I had a 100-percent voting record in the 1990s ... When I first ran for Congress I was kind of an agnostic. I was a single male and not really interested in the issue, didn't really care. I was Catholic, but I had never really taken a public position on it."
Though discussions with his future father-in-law, a medical geneticist, he said he solidified his views. "I walked out of that meeting and said, 'Well, just from a standpoint of reason, I've got to be pro-life.' It was 1988 I think, or 1989."
Santorum was joined on the program by his wife, Karen, and a few of their seven children. Karen Santorum elaborated on her initial opposition to his presidential bid, citing the tough 2006 Senate race that he lost by 18 percentage points. Passage of Obama's health care initiative in 2010, he said, "put the fire in my belly."
"It's been challenging, I will tell you," she said, but expressed no regrets. "I think you'd have to be crazy to want it, to be honest with you. But at the same time for us, it's completely a spiritual thing. This is God's will," she said.
"For us it's all about making the world a better place and going after the issues and building America and making America more what our founding fathers wanted it to be," she said. "For me it has been a challenging year, but it's also been a very beautiful year."
I'm not being obtuse. I'm just being realistic. He'd be standard Republican on abortion/contraception/planned parenthood type issues. Of the 4 candidates, only Ron Paul wants to take steps that would help the states do the personhood amendment. The rest just want to appoint conservative judges, and make changes to federal funding. Obama's view on BAIPA was extreme too. As president, he's the same as any other Dem would be, and no more.
The Personhood Amendment did just pass the Oklahoma Senate, however.
So all the Bush Women, Michelle Malkin and Sarah Palin?
Uh huh.
Really doesn't matter, because he'll never be the nominee, let alone president. But Santorum is not nearly as center-right as you make him out to be. Which of course is why he won't be the nominee let alone president.
I've said it before and I will say it again
A christian accusing someone else of indoctrinating the youth is rich.
Hypocricy aside, any candidate stating that we need less college attendance in this country is woefully misunderstanding our place in the world economy and haas no business in the White House.
Jesus wept.
clueless sheep, you can't see $#@!.
i believe is the next verse....
If Santorum is the nominee, the main result is that it's going to save Democrat (Obama) contributors a lot of money and the House goes back to the Dems as well. Santorum will get the straight vote crowd but GOP participation will be way down. I would guess its a 58-42 landslide for the popular vote.
Agree he's not going to be the nominee. He blew the slim chance at that by sucking ass in the last debate. But the fact that you can't post anything substantive should tell you something. The media are always going to say anyone who believes in Jesus is a nutjob . . .
Don't fall for it.
Every available metric states the obvious - those with college degrees make way more over a lifetime than those with only a high school diploma. That's reason enough to support more kid going to college. But Rick has to go all bat$#@! and make this a liberal/atheist indoctrination issue. $#@!tard. I hope he wins te GOP nomination.On the president's efforts to boost college attendance, Santorum said, "I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely ... The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country."
"A Vote for Santorum is a vote for butt seks!"
I didn't think he was any worse at this debate than he has been at all of the others. His crazy replies just got more air time because there were less candidates to soak up questions.
That's because not everybody goes to college. College degrees would be worth less if everybody had one. We'd have people with college degrees working fast food. Somebody has to fill the low-salary positions.
I agree (somewhat) that we need fewer people going to college. It's a semantic argument, though. Hear me out.
What we need is people going to college who are serious about learning and educating themselves. If that number is a high percentage, great, then let's have them all go to college. The reality is that number is pretty low.
For many of those who go to college just to satisfy their parents' dreams (or party, what have you) they'll end up deep in debt from student loans and yet be just as uneducated as ever. Often, they would have been better off not attending college. A trade school or just a high school diploma would have been the better route.
College is also a great place for making connections you'll exploit throughout your career, i.e. "opening doors." These days, though, connections can be made online as well, especially in the computer industry.
Agreed.But Rick has to go all bat$#@! and make this a liberal/atheist indoctrination issue. $#@!tard.
Since he didn't say that, can I assume you are a Santorum fan?
the morbid side of me almost hopes he wins the nomination. i can only hope that the ensuing ass raping he'd receive would lead the GOP away from the religious right.
of course, they'd probably think they didn't pray hard enough and find an even bigger nut in 2016.
Santo ain't arguing this point though, which is one that I tend to agree with. College is not for everybody, and there is a need to provide trade skills that does not require college. Santo is arguing that college education and the academic university environment is tilted to liberal philosophy and what we call liberal politics, and further that Obama wants children to go to college so that they can be subjected to liberal brainwashing and to be converted to atheists. The guy is a $#@!ing nutcase, not for the former which is obviously true, the University absolutely is tilted toward liberalism. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.
He talks about young adults losing their faith as they matriculate through the university on one hand, and on the other he talks about parental responsibility. Here is a clue $#@!wad, if a child lose their faith when they leave move out from under your roof, the parents have nobody to blame but themselves. They did not prepare their child for the world that surrounds them. The answer is not to hide in the basement with picture books of Jesus riding dinosaurs and call it science, the answer is for parents who want to instill faith-based values in their children to do their $#@!ing job and raise their children to be able to engage with the world around them while being confident in their core values. Newsflash, that don't have $#@! to do with Obama or the federal government.
Maybe Santorum should push for collegiate home schooling. I'm sure corporations would line up to hire those degree holders. Gagree that college isn't for everyone. The problem is our public school system doesn't prepare kids for the next level of their lives if they don't go to college, outside of vocational magnets. We have this flawed notion that every kid should go to college. Then we build curriculum around that notion while at the same time having to swim upstream against kids who don't want to be there and parents who don't instill the importance of an education in their children.
Do the Republicans even have a plan for public education that offers a better solution that simply doing school vouchers?
Last edited by mdmost; 02-24-2012 at 06:20 PM.
Agreed.
I just wanted to counter the "more kids should go to college" view. My intention was not to defend Santorum's view in any way.
Paul would like to, over time, phase out the Dept. of Education. Let the parents select and pay for the school their children will attend.
Disagree? It's a different issue and we can discuss it in some other thread if anyone would like to do so.
I disagree with vouchers as the sole way to fix the problems that plague public education. I think it's a very lazy solution. That's simply subtracting funds from public schools while doing nothing to deal with the systemic problems with our schools. Another issue with vouchers I have is how much are you giving the average student for their voucher? Is it going to be a full ride to a private school? Is it a flat rate and their parents come up with the leftover balance? Private schools aren't cheap so those in poor areas still get screwed.
OK. I'm confused as to why you replied to me.
eliminating Dept. of Education : providing school vouchers :: apples : oranges
I was responding to your "let the parents select and pay for the school their children will attend". I assumed you were meaning with vouchers. And yes I disagree with eliminating the Dept of Education. Is the plan to eliminate the federal funding that schools get as a part of DOE guidelines and programs?
Posting Permissions
Home ..
Advertise ..
ShaggyShop ..
PanchoChat
Football ..
Basketball ..
Baseball ..
Other Sports ..
RC Didn't Offer ..
Gamboool
Varsity ..
Hole in the Wall ..
PCL ..
Einstein's ..
Nasty's ..
GM Steakhouse ..
NSAA
Bada Bing ..
Can you help me with this? ..
Shagslist ..
Cloak Room ..
Classics ..
Bellmont
Reply With Quote
