EPTRepublican nominations - Page 556
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10811 Posts
| ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
Santorum, the right man for America: 1952 Paul, the right man for America: 1822 Gingrich, ......... Obama, the right man for America: 1984. The book, not the year.  | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
On March 19 2012 03:22 Velr wrote: Prostitution is also illegal in many countries... That it isn't possible to ban that does not seem to worry many people... good for me that I live in the civilized world  + Show Spoiler + where prostitution is legal | ||
|
Fighter
Korea (South)1531 Posts
Fighter pauses for a moment. So, Santorum is only winning the areas that would vote Republican anyway? Santorum, does that tell you something maybe? | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On March 19 2012 03:22 Velr wrote: Prostitution is also illegal in many countries... That it isn't possible to ban it does not seem to worry many people... Ban is not synonymous with illegal... You like being a smartass? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21959 Posts
On March 19 2012 04:56 nam nam wrote: Ban is not synonymous with illegal... You like being a smartass? When you ban something it becomes illegal... i fail to see your point. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On March 19 2012 03:31 liberal wrote: Romney, the right man for America: 1982 Santorum, the right man for America: 1952 Paul, the right man for America: 1822 Gingrich, ......... Obama, the right man for America: 1984. The book, not the year. I really wish people would read 1984 before trying to draw parallels to it. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Republicans have, for the past decade at least, touted that they represent 'real' American values, and that America is, at it's core, a 'Christian' nation. My hope is that Santorum forces the GOP's hand and wins the nomination. Finally, they'll have a candidate that truly believes in the 'morals' and values they've been merely pretending to have, and force the GOP to look at how far off-course and out-of-step their party is with the rest of the country. I have a feeling it would require a colossal failure for the GOP to reform the xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, pious identity they've constructed. They only have themselves to blame at this point. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On March 19 2012 03:39 Fighter wrote: Fighter pauses for a moment. So, Santorum is only winning the areas that would vote Republican anyway? Santorum, does that tell you something maybe? Keep in mind, he's merely trying to win the GOP nomination right now -- and he has a point. Historically, his values have been much closer to what the GOP claims to represent (at least these days). | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On March 19 2012 12:05 DoubleReed wrote: Hey I have a question: isn't it true that Mitt Romney has pretty much given up any chance of re-election of his governor position? I mean he just flip-flopped on everything and alienated a decent amount of the lobbies that liked him. He couldn't possibly win a re-election now could he? Romney hasn't been a governor since 2006. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 19 2012 12:47 Omnipresent wrote: Romney hasn't been a governor since 2006. What you mean both Santorum and Romney can't win in their own states? Bah. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On March 19 2012 12:59 DoubleReed wrote: What you mean both Santorum and Romney can't win in their own states? Bah. Santorum got destroyed in his re-election bid, though he did serve 2 terms before Pennsylvanians kicked him out. Romney chose not to run for re-election. He was getting ready for a 2008 presidential run, but lost to McCain for the Republican nomination. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour." | ||
|
forgottendreams
United States1771 Posts
On March 19 2012 14:14 Jibba wrote: I wonder if he really knows his own people... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html lol wat, was not expecting that at all.... i mean 3.6x more likely? I'm not really a bible thu..... ummmm (trying to restrain oneself) but perhaps this is a way to avoid sinning sexually? | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On March 19 2012 15:27 forgottendreams wrote: lol wat, was not expecting that at all.... i mean 3.6x more likely? I'm not really a bible thu..... ummmm (trying to restrain oneself) but perhaps this is a way to avoid sinning sexually? No, reread: 3.6 more subscriptions per 1000 people. The point is that there is virtually no difference between people that claim to have "old-fashioned" values and everyone else when it comes to porn consumption. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
The more I think about it, the more diabolical I think Santorum is for taking a hard stance on porn. It's not like Mitt or Obama would have the balls to argue or defend porn. It's such a divisive topic that I can imagine Christians voting for "family values" even if they whack off to the most disgusting bootlegged porn in the privacy of their own home. Maybe Santorum is trying to lock up the "hypocrite" vote, LOL. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Washington, DC - It would be easy to dismiss Mitt Romney's Washington Post op-ed of this past week regarding US policy towards Iran as yet more self-serving blather in a political season already rife with it. No doubt, many who read the Republican presidential candidate's harsh criticism of President Obama's Iran policy were inclined to think so, and there were many obvious reasons why they should. First was the former Massachusetts governor's somewhat imaginative account of the reasons for the Iranians' release of the US embassy hostages some 30 years ago, on the day of President Reagan's inauguration. In Romney's telling, the Iranian government, having toyed with the "feckless" Jimmy Carter for 444 days, was so impressed with the transparently steely resolve of the incoming former state governor and movie actor that it preemptively capitulated, rather than incur his wrath. Precisely how the Iranians were so prescient, given that Reagan had uttered not a word of public criticism of his predecessor's policy on the hostages, is unexplained. Candidate Romney, though, sees himself in a role analogous to that of his Republican idol, himself also called to save the US from the depredations of Persia's rogue ayatollahs. Only now, rather than merely saving incarcerated diplomats, this latter-day Reagan has received a higher calling, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. How will he do it? Why, by showing "resolve". From his own account, he'd better show a lot of it, for if he doesn't, these "Islamic fanatics", the very ones who took our diplomats hostage, mind, will set about putting nuclear bombs into the hands of terrorists and otherwise trying mightily to annihilate Israel. Or so he would have us believe. Romney appears to espouse a fantasy held by many, particularly on the conservative right in the US, which holds that the foreign policy approach which, at least in their own romanticised and nostalgic view of recent history, caused the US to prevail in the Cold War with the Soviet Union is also the formula for US leadership and dominance in the multi-polar, post-cold war world which has followed. As one who is himself a believer in the vigorous, if judicious use of US power in the world, I can understand the appeal of such blandishments. The champions and purveyors of this line, however, could not be more mistaken. Source | ||
| ||
