Election 2012 - Who to vote for?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
To quote a great political philosopher:

“Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.”
Click to expand...
The NEW boss will not count among his friends Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis, Tony Rezko and Rashid Khalidi. Slight difference, I am sure… :doh2: Rob
 
Mickey said:
There is something more going on than just ignorance. You would think that the economy alone would be enough to end his reign. In fact, prior to his first election…any one event… “reverend” Wright…or Soros…or Ayers…or his complete inexperience and voting record in the senate…etc…would have been enough to end the hopes of any other candidate----democrat or republican. Yet he is like teflon! Nothing sticks! It is like a veil of blindness and apathy that has covered the people. America needs to wake up!

I believe prayer is the only way.
Click to expand...
  1. If the government’s check/handout keeps coming in, the apathetic or lazy will stay the course, regardless. Get more eating from the trough, and you assure more votes. Generally the people who stand to lose the most and who have the most going for them are the ones that are ready to boot Obama. The rest probably don’t see there life change much from President to President, save for the size of the handout.
  2. Abortion is always considered “not a major issue,” but as I have always said, with the far left and feminist types, it is always THE NUMBER ONE issue. They’ll bankrupt the country, swear fealty to a King, and enlist us all into prison camps before they’d vote for someone who could threaten the right to abortion. Go spend a few minutes in conversation with them , or browse message boards like babycenter.com some time. Don’t tell me abortion is not a big issue - it is the be all and end all for the far left, AND the far right to be honest.
 
RACJ said:
The NEW boss will not count among his friends Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis, Tony Rezko and Rashid Khalidi. Slight difference, I am sure… :doh2: Rob
Click to expand...
You really think there’ll be a new boss? Maybe; only maybe.
 
estesbob said:
Mitt Romney is Not Soft on Pro-Life, Abortion Issues
lifenews.com/2012/03/23/mitt-romney-is-not-soft-on-pro-life-abortion-issues/
**
Pro-family advocates defend Romney’s record on life, marriage**

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pro-family-advocates-defend-romneys-record-on-life-marriage/

’Evangelicals for Mitt’ Defends Romney Against Allegations of ‘Spotty’ Abortion Record

christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-for-mitt-defend-gop-candidate-against-allegations-of-spotty-abortion-record-75370/
**
Planned Parenthood highlights Romney’s record on women in new ad
By Rose Gordon Sala - Wed May 30, 2012 11:17 AM EDT**

leanforward.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11956160-planned-parenthood-highlights-romneys-record-on-women-in-new-ad?lite

Romney Gains Support From Florida Pro-Life Advocates

lifenews.com/2012/01/30/romney-gains-support-from-florida-pro-life-advocates/

NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE ENDORSES GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY **
nrlpac.org/
**
Deja Vu: The Latest Attacks from Santorum
Posted on April 3, 2012

Is Mitt Romney really pro-life? Of course he is! Duh.

dailykos.com/story/2012/04/13/1083127/-Is-Mitt-Romney-really-pro-life-Of-course-he-is-Duh

Former Vatican ambassador defends Romney’s change on abortion

catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-vatican-ambassador-defends-romneys-change-of-heart-on-abortion/

Mitt Romney is Pro-Life.
“I am firmly pro-life.”(1)
For more explanation:
Prolife Principles: Why Critics are Wrong about Mitt Romney
“Setting the Record Straight” section:
Abortion Copays
“Morning After” Pills
Info found on other sites:
Mitt Romney Central: Abortion and Stem Cell Research

whyromney.com/ontheissues.php
Click to expand...
Touche!

You see, I don’t believe Mitt Romney’s 2004 pro-life “conversion” was sincere. I believe that it was politically motivated and calculated. It’s not that I hate the man or hate members of the Mormon cult, it is just that I am inherently suspicious of politicians to begin with, especially ones that flip-flop as often as Mitt Romney does.

I find it very hard to believe that after spending most of his political career being “personally pro-choice” (and doing such a good job publicly defending “pro-choice”) that he suddenly became aware of the “science of life” only in 2004. That’s the type of ignorance that strikes me as either grossly incompetent (especially considering the office he is running for now) or politically motivated. And while he may genuinely not have been educated on the issue up until 2004, I find that hard to believe given his public statements on abortion up until 2004.

I find his “conversion” even harder to swallow given his public actions since 2004, one of the most glaring examples of which was the 2005 flip-flop on the question of whether or not Catholic Hospitals in Massachusetts should be forced to administer the Morning After Pill. You remember that one don’t you, estesbob? It happened AFTER Romney’s conversion, it demonstrated his lack of courage and trustworthiness on the issue, and it prefigured the current problems we face with Obamacare. In case you forgot about Romney’s 2005 Morning After Flip-Flop, here is what happened:

In July, 2005, Romney vetoed a proposed state law to make the Morning After Pill available to rape victims treated at Massachusetts hospitals, including private hospitals. Great, right. Immediately, pro-choice groups attacked Romney. Romney responded to them and justified his veto by insisting that during his gubernatorial campaign he promised not to change the state’s abortion laws (remember this for later), and this one did, and therefore he vetoed it. The Legislature then overrode Romney’s veto. The law, as passed over Romney’s veto, required all hospitals to dispense the pill to rape victims - no exceptions for Catholic hospitals. So it looked like at this point that the pro-abortion Legislature had won. The only problem for the pro-abortion Legislature, was that in December 2005, Romney’s public health commissioner determined that a preexisting statute saying private hospitals could not be forced to provide abortions or contraception gave Catholics and other privately run hospitals the right to opt-out of the new law on religious or moral grounds. That law gave Romney a major loophole to exploit, and many now believed that this ruling by Romney’s public health commisssioner would turn the tables back against the new law of the pro-choice Legislature. But what happened next would become a common theme with Romney: he Flip-Flopped under widespread criticism, including some from his own lieutenant governor, and days later Romney reversed course. Romney directed his Department of Public Health to scrap the old rules that exempted the Catholic institutions from the the new law, writing: “I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view.”

I think C.J. Doyle, the executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, summed up Romney best when he said, “the initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama Administration but from the Romney administration…President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.”
 
eightandsand said:
Touche!

You see, I don’t believe Mitt Romney’s 2004 pro-life “conversion” was sincere. I believe that it was politically motivated and calculated. It’s not that I hate the man or hate members of the Mormon cult, it is just that I am inherently suspicious of politicians to begin with, especially ones that flip-flop as often as Mitt Romney does.

I find it very hard to believe that after spending most of his political career being “personally pro-choice” (and doing such a good job publicly defending “pro-choice”) that he suddenly became aware of the “science of life” only in 2004. That’s the type of ignorance that strikes me as either grossly incompetent (especially considering the office he is running for now) or politically motivated. And while he may genuinely not have been educated on the issue up until 2004, I find that hard to believe given his public statements on abortion up until 2004.

I find his “conversion” even harder to swallow given his public actions since 2004, one of the most glaring examples of which was the 2005 flip-flop on the question of whether or not Catholic Hospitals in Massachusetts should be forced to administer the Morning After Pill. You remember that one don’t you, estesbob? It happened AFTER Romney’s conversion, it demonstrated his lack of courage and trustworthiness on the issue, and it prefigured the current problems we face with Obamacare. In case you forgot about Romney’s 2005 Morning After Flip-Flop, here is what happened:

In July, 2005, Romney vetoed a proposed state law to make the Morning After Pill available to rape victims treated at Massachusetts hospitals, including private hospitals. Great, right. Immediately, pro-choice groups attacked Romney. Romney responded to them and justified his veto by insisting that during his gubernatorial campaign he promised not to change the state’s abortion laws (remember this for later), and this one did, and therefore he vetoed it. The Legislature then overrode Romney’s veto. The law, as passed over Romney’s veto, required all hospitals to dispense the pill to rape victims - no exceptions for Catholic hospitals. So it looked like at this point that the pro-abortion Legislature had won. The only problem for the pro-abortion Legislature, was that in December 2005, Romney’s public health commissioner determined that a preexisting statute saying private hospitals could not be forced to provide abortions or contraception gave Catholics and other privately run hospitals the right to opt-out of the new law on religious or moral grounds. That law gave Romney a major loophole to exploit, and many now believed that this ruling by Romney’s public health commisssioner would turn the tables back against the new law of the pro-choice Legislature. But what happened next would become a common theme with Romney: he Flip-Flopped under widespread criticism, including some from his own lieutenant governor, and days later Romney reversed course. Romney directed his Department of Public Health to scrap the old rules that exempted the Catholic institutions from the the new law, writing: “I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view.”

I think C.J. Doyle, the executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, summed up Romney best when he said, “the initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama Administration but from the Romney administration…President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.”
Click to expand...
Exactly my thoughts. But hey, doing something to help the cause of life even if it isn’t sincere is much better than being sincere in destroying life and promoting the culture of death.🤷
 
Nec5 said:
I’m not surprised you did not engage the substance of either article since you back an amorphous candidate schooled in deception.
Click to expand...
I read the Alan Keyes article. There was no substance. 🤷

The man is a nutter. He’s a good Catholic, and I’m sure he is a nice guy…but he’s a nutter.
 
Nec5 said:
I’m not surprised you did not engage the substance of either article since you back an amorphous candidate schooled in deception.
Click to expand...
I started to read the other article. I got this far…
In reality, the leaderships of both fraudulent parties support essentially the same methodology, and that methodology could be summarized thus:* Centralize everything, globalize everything, control everything, grow government power, reduce the effectiveness of the citizenry, turn the public against each other, rob them while they’re distracted.* If an American does not understand this dynamic and how it is used to dominate the ebb and flow of our culture, then that American knows nothing.* He is lost…
Click to expand...
…and realized he’s a nutter too. I can’t believe people buy into that rubbish. 🤷

I think it is a form of elitism because y’all think you know something that the rest of us (“the Borg” or “Matrix”) don’t know. You don’t. It’s no different than the 9/11 conspiracy nutters.
 
rlg94086 said:
I read the Alan Keyes article. There was no substance. 🤷

The man is a nutter. He’s a good Catholic, and I’m sure he is a nice guy…but he’s a nutter.
Click to expand...
Soooo, he’s a good Catholic, just an insane one?
 
Romney, of course. Obama is the most pro-abortion President. To hold Romney’s religion against him is not just. To be knowingly unjust is at least somewhat sinful. However, to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason, is unthinkable. It is sad to see so many young people so ill informed, and bereft of historical knowledge. If they knew more, they would better discern how radical Obama is.
 
Whether he is or is not “the most pro-abortion President,” he is undeniably the most anti-traditional-family President ever, in the sense that he supports fornication above marriage and supports same-sex “marriage.” I find this rather ironic, since from a personal standpoint he’s quite the family man, but in his policies, he is not! And there are a number of “pro-choice” voters among the public who are not necessarily in favor of voting out the essential traditional structures of society.

This is a core issue for me. (That is, even if he opposed abortion, etc., I would still find him unacceptable, since there is in fact an alternative candidate.) A society that loses its prime social supports is in grave danger. The divorce rate and out-of-wedlock births/single-parent homes has been destructive enough: promoting sex apart from the married unit (via massive availability of contraception for the young & unmarried & not likely to get married in the near future) is a way of contributing to the social destruction of a society.

The State cannot form individuals. That belongs to the intact family unit. The fact that he has a blind spot about this and his policies are leading in the other direction is a severe failure in moral and political leadership.
 
No news article posted in the frst post.

This is a campaigning thread for anti-life candidates. Why does the moderator allow the rules to be broken when promoting anti-life candidates?
 
From a Pro-Life perspective…

Neither candidate is acceptible.

Mitt Romney has never legislated any Pro-Life measure. He has legislated plenty of anti-life measures, even after his so-called conversion.

Barak Obama is blatantly anti-life.

It’s win-win for monsters at planned parenthood.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Soooo, he’s a good Catholic, just an insane one?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say he is insane…just a nutter, when it comes to politics. There are plenty of them out there. Pat Buchanan also comes to mind. Both those gentlemen can say some very insightful things at times, and then they veer off into conspiracy territory.
 
Though some may wish to suppress this info, there are still candidates out there who are pro-life…

The Pro Life Vote:
Pro-Life - Republican Party - Dr. Ron Paul

Pro-Life - Constitution Party - Virgil Goode

Pro-Life - Democrat Party - Randall Terry

Pro-Life? - Libertarian Party - Gary Johnson
(Questionable Pro-Life credentials)

Or you could stick with the two anti-life candidates this poll presents (which contains no source articles and is clearly campaigning for anti-life candidates, which is in violation of the rules).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top