Republican nominations - Page 525

On March 07 2012 01:20 Signet wrote:

Look for Romney to strongly consider Marco Rubio for VP to try to shore this up. He's the leading bet on Intrade at the moment.

The GOP will also do their best to keep Latino turnout low, namely via changing the voting ID requirements.

On March 07 2012 01:43 Saryph wrote:
Does picking Rubio automatically gain you the latino vote though? Rubio took a hit last week when the Blunt-Rubio amendment failed to pass the senate, and Romney has said SO many things in the past that are insulting to this group of voters, not to mention the republican party as a whole.

Hmmm interesting view, robert. Please explain your reasoning with some actual facts and evidence.

If you’re talking about his beliefs about him being a Christian, I would hardly call that archaic considering it is the one of the most popular beliefs around the world today.

Now the fact that he’s a christian shoudlnt really be a big issue for most peoples decision in this election considering that just about every president has been a christian…so why should it matter now? And religion shouldn’t be the focus issue…especially considering we have the 1st amendment to protect us. We should focus on issues like the economy, size of government, spending, etc…. which I belive rick satorum is the best candidate of our choices to get america back on track.

I’d be happy to hear your reasoning.

Here are some facts about his social issues:
1) He’s a homophobic. His stance on homosexuality is disgusting. How can one believe that sexuality determines whether you are a person or not. This also shows his bigotry in the sense that anyone that is against a person based on their sexuality should not be allowed to run for office.
2) He’s against the separation of Church and State. The separation of Church and State is what makes the United States unique. By eliminating that, we are no different than a sharia Muslim society. Also, with an official relationship of Church and State, that would hurt the chances of a Jewish, a Muslim, or Atheist to run for office. Do you not understand this concept? When Santorum made ill-advised jests at Kennedy’s speech, he not only mocked anyone that isn’t Christian, but showed his ignorance that Christianity is the only religion.
3) In 2001 he voted in support of loosening restrictions on cell-phone/wire-tapping. Do you want more big brother or less?
4)He wants to decrease spending on social programs, yet wants to increase funding toward the “War on Drugs” Why put more funds into a failed program? Sounds more like Obama’s attempt to fix the housing market if you ask me.
4) In 1996 he voted yes in favor of 75 million dollars in funds for schools to teach abstinence, yet he refuses to allow them to teach safe sex. It’s ignorant to teach students abstinence and not safe sex because we all know that kids are going to have sex. You aren’t going to change that, so why not put 75 million dollars in safe sex education, rather than no sex education.
5) Again, he voted yes on only giving schools federal funds if they allow public prayer. Prayer is private. It’s meant to be a private thing. The separation of Church and State allows this. He again shows that he wants to force a Christian agenda down the throats of those that aren’t Christian. Is it my fault that I’m an athiest, so I am not allowed to receive federal grants?
6) He believes that early childhood education should be left up to the parents. How is this possible? He must have a twisted view of education. How does a mother of 3 children also have to teach them if she’s working 60 hours a week to feed them? This twisted view of the average American family is insane. Home-schooling can work for those that have the time and money. The average american household cannot afford to do this.
7) Ironically, he’s a Christian, yet he supports torture of Guantanamo prisoners in which the CIA would not have to discuss their policies.
8) His views on immigration are also confusing. He supports workers as long as there are field workers (farmers etc), but they cannot get a “path to citizenship”, yet if you are a skilled worker, he will support you to no end. He also stated that immigrants do not deserve social security, nor do they deserve full benefits. What is the point of immigrating to our great nation, paying taxes and becoming a citizen if they cannot reap the full benefits?

Now, he’s not all bad. I agree with him on a few issues, the economic side of things. I guess you’d call me fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

I agree with repealing obama-care, but he needs to come up with an alternative plan. Health Care in the United States needs to be changed.
I agree with his concept of two tax brackets (10% and 28%), although on the other hand I think there should be many more tax brackets. I say this because it’s hard to determine at which point you will “sky-rocket” to 28% bracket. It wouldn’t be fair to make 99,000 and be in the 10%, and then make 100,000 and be pushed into the 28%. Clearly something needs to change with that.
I agree with his views on foreign policy.

With all of that said, my belief is that Santorum is a good man, with discrimination and hate in his mind. For one to label homosexuality as inferior, or to state that the “poor should just work harder”, or that when a child is raped and gets pregnant to “…right approach is to accept this horribly created —in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you” is disgusting. A child should never have to be forced to have a child via rape, nor should anyone, child or not!

Nonetheless, his views ostracize many minority groups, in favor for his “family friendly” views. Just because you are a homosexual-athiest, does not mean you are a bad person. I will not vote for a many that is as ignorant as he his. He discriminates and justifies his hate on the Bible through a religion that has done this for centuries. If anyone did proper research on Christianity, they would see that the combination of Church and State has never worked, and for him to say that our country is in shambles because it is separated is pure ignorance. I guess the “dark ages” weren’t that dark.

I hope this explains my position, just because something is popular, does not mean it is right. 50 years ago people believed that blacks should not be allowed to vote. Clearly that was wrong.

Basing your voting on economy and size of government alone is a pity because there are 3 other candidates that have extremely similar economic plans (ron paul, newt, bachman) To vote for Santorum means that you aren’t just voting based on his economic views, but rather his social views, which inherently means you believe that homosexuality is wrong etc. Those are ignorant, archaic views.

1) He’s a homophobic. His stance on homosexuality is disgusting. How can one believe that sexuality determines whether you are a person or not. This also shows his bigotry in the sense that anyone that is against a person based on their sexuality should not be allowed to run for office.

2) He’s against the separation of Church and State.

4)He wants to decrease spending on social programs, yet wants to increase funding toward the “War on Drugs”

n 1996 he voted yes in favor of 75 million dollars in funds for schools to teach abstinence, yet he refuses to allow them to teach safe sex.

Again, he voted yes on only giving schools federal funds if they allow public prayer. Prayer is private. It’s meant to be a private thing. The separation of Church and State allows this. He again shows that he wants to force a Christian agenda down the throats of those that aren’t Christian. Is it my fault that I’m an athiest, so I am not allowed to receive federal grants?

He believes that early childhood education should be left up to the parents.

Ironically, he’s a Christian, yet he supports torture of Guantanamo prisoners in which the CIA would not have to discuss their policies.

He also stated that immigrants do not deserve social security, nor do they deserve full benefits. What is the point of immigrating to our great nation, paying taxes and becoming a citizen if they cannot reap the full benefits?

“…right approach is to accept this horribly created —in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you”

Just because you are a homosexual-athiest, does not mean you are a bad person.

If anyone did proper research on Christianity, they would see that the combination of Church and State has never worked, and for him to say that our country is in shambles because it is separated is pure ignorance. I guess the “dark ages” weren’t that dark.

To vote for Santorum means that you aren’t just voting based on his economic views, but rather his social views, which inherently means you believe that homosexuality is wrong etc. Those are ignorant, archaic views.

it worked for over 1,000 years in europe. furthermore, the invention of a secular state is a relatively new one. almost every single society that has ever existed was religious and had no clear separation between religion and politics. now, you and i may say that a separation leads to a more preferable society, but to claim that they "don't work" is flat out wrong. the dark ages quote is very funny because most modern historians don't refer to them as the "dark ages" anymore, precisely because they weren't that "dark".

as far as I know, Santorum has never said that a person who is homosexual is not a person... do you have any reasons why you believe he is a homophobe? and how does his being allowed to run for office make him a bigot? we don't outlaw people from running for elections for personal opinions that they may or may not hold.

he is against the idea that there must be a complete and total wall between a person's faith and their role in government. his criticism of Kennedy was based on the idea that a person's faith should not inform and affect their decisions as policy makers. he believes that a person's faith should.

he is a social conservative, yes. i don't see how this makes him ignorant, discriminatory or racist though.

do you have any sources that quote him saying that he would outlaw schools from teaching safe sex?

Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care. A YES vote would:
Increase funding and access to family planning services
Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives
Reference: Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services; Bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-75 on Mar 17, 2005

Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education.
Vote to retain a provision of the Budget Act that funds abstinence education to help reduce teenage pregnancy, using $75 million of the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant Program.
Reference: Bill S 1956 ; vote number 1996-231 on Jul 23, 1996

i fail to see how allowing public prayer prevents you from being an atheist or forces you to be a Christian.

Opposes early childhood education in public schools. He was quoted in the Des Moines Register last August as saying:
“It is a parent’s responsibility to educate their children. It is not the government’s job. We have sort of lost focus here a little bit. Of course, the government wants their hands on your children as fast as they can. That is why I opposed all these early starts and pre-early starts, and early-early starts. They want your children from the womb so they can indoctrinate your children as to what they want them to be. I am against that.”
Supports home-schooling and said that if he becomes president, he would continue home-schooling his own children in the White House
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/romney-santorum-paul-gingrich-where-they-stand-now-on-education/2012/03/05/gIQAHeZ2tR_blog.html

Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.
Amendment to provide for congressional oversight of certain Central Intelligence Agency programs. The underlying bill S. 3930 authorizes trial by military commission for violations of the law of war. The amendment requires quarterly reports describing all CIA detention facilities; the name of each detainee; their suspected activities; & each interrogation technique authorized for use and guidelines on the use of each such technique.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
I question the need for a very lengthy, detailed report every 3 months. We will probably see those reports leaked to the press.
This amendment would spread out for the world--and especially for al-Qaida and its related organizations--precisely what interrogation techniques are going to be used.
If we lay out, in an unclassified version, a description of the techniques by the Attorney General, that description will be in al-Qaida and Hezbollah and all of the other terrorist organizations' playbook. They will train their assets that: This is what you must be expected to do, and Allah wants you to resist these techniques.
We are passing this bill so that we can detain people. If we catch someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, we have no way to hold him, no way to ask him the questions and get the information we need, because the uncertainty has brought the program to a close. It is vitally important to our security, and unfortunately this amendment would imperil it.
Reference: Rockefeller Amendment; Bill S.AMDT.5095 to S.3930 ; vote number 2006-256 on Sep 28, 2006
source: http://www.issues2000.org/International/Rick_Santorum_Homeland_Security.htm

Basically, if you're on a work visa, he doesn't support the “fast” pass toward becoming a citizen. He wants to make it more of a challenge to become a US citizen.

How can one force a 14 year old child to have a baby? It's her choice. One shouldn't have to go through that. It's not a “gift by God” it's hell. It's insane to have a baby. Who is going to raise this baby? I guess the 14 year old should go out and get a job according to him

His viewpoints make him out to be a person full of hate and disgust toward the homosexual minority crowd. If you do not fit the Bible' standard, he thinks you are scum.

It didn't work. It was a stalemate. The romans forced the Germanians into Christianity over time. It was all political.

On March 07 2012 07:08 zalz wrote:


I wouldn't define a 1000 year stagnation of human society as "working."

The explosion of human progress in the last 300 years compared to the 5000 before that is so insanely different that you really cannot attack the secular society.

The difference is literally horse cart to rocket ship.


Dark ages isn't used much, but that doesn't change the history. Human progress actually receded with many basic technologies like aquaducts dissapearing from human society. Things fell into disrepair and people simply didn't understand how it could be repaired.

For most of the years that followed the fall of the Roman empire, most countries in Europe didn't even have standing armies.

On March 07 2012 07:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:

i think it depends on what you mean by "working". if you mean that society stood, people lived, advancements were made, the world didn't end, then yes, they worked. if you mean "worked well", then we can argue that they didn't.

in no way was i trying to attack secular government. i appreciate greatly the benefits of living in a relatively secular society, however, i will not try to claim that a non-secular government can't work. it can work. it can't work how i want it to, but that doesn't mean it can't work.

human progress receded in some areas, was greatly advanced in others. it wasn't a very nice time to live, but classical greece wouldn't have been that nice a time to live in according to modern day standards either.

On March 07 2012 08:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The Jurassic Park theme music is playing at the Newt Gingrich party.

On March 07 2012 07:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:

he is against the idea that there must be a complete and total wall between a person's faith and their role in government. his criticism of Kennedy was based on the idea that a person's faith should not inform and affect their decisions as policy makers. he believes that a person's faith should.

According to his own standards on the campaign trail today, Mitt Romney was once a “radical” on energy issues.

In 2003, as governor of Massachusetts, he supported “investing in cleaning technologies” for an old coal plant in the commonwealth responsible for dozens of deaths, saying “I will not create jobs … that kill people.”

Also that year, Romney set up a $15 million green energy trust fund for renewable energy in order to create a “major economic springboard for the commonwealth.”

And in 2005, before deciding to pull out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Romney called cap and trade “good business.” That was back when the Economist magazine named him a “climate friendly” Republican.

Today, Romney says “we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet,” explaining that his new energy policy is to “aggressively develop our oil, our gas, our coal.”