Republican convention

  • Thread starter Thread starter bellasbane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“illicit regime”?

Really?

please don’t tell me you are a birther.

uggh
 
CaptFun responds in RED
AnaTurin said:
I’m telling you that Mitt Romney is NOT pro life. Insider info? Or did you read his sister’s story in today’s paper?

I would actually go so far as to say that OBAMA is more pro life than Mitt Romney, WHOA! I gotta hear THIS! Whatever comes next has got to be …remarkable!

because I believe he was sincere when he told the Pope that he wants to do whatever he can to reduce the number of abortions (the demand for abortions). :hmmm: That’s … goin’ pret-ty far there. I’ll grant you God didn’t strike the Pres down on the spot - but did “the one” forget that he has actual “power” now to DO much of what he “wants to do”?

You just reminded me of how four years ago, when campaigning, Obama and Hilary Clinton were in a breathtaking “promise contest” asserting what they’d "like to do " if only they had power. :sad_yes:

They*** forgot*** (somehow) that they were EACH Senators from SUBSTANTIAL states and in the majority PARTY! COULD they have such little clout with their own colleagues that their planet saving legislation bills (that surely they’d authored yes?) were dying because they could not get the eye of Harry Reid?

BUT (for Barack) power CAME! And there never has been such a Presidency for pro-lifers. It is nothing if not rememberable.

And the conversion (and it would be a conversion Ana) you believe in - well - the Lord did it for (to?) St. Paul. But … I dunno. Y’know?

Mitt Romney? For all we know, he is still secretly committed to his promise to protect a woman’s right to choose that he made when he was running for office in Massachusetts.
That (promise) is accurate. Or was. The secret commitments of our two “choices” (right NOW) are a little more speculative with me.

Not to mention the fact that Mitt Romney isn’t even a Christian, so his concept of “pro-life” could mean any number of things. (he wants all babies to live forever on planet Kolob?) whatever.
Click to expand...
There may not be such an “isn’t even Christian” gap as you suppose. The President disingeniously (at BEST) is causing Catholic organizations to participate in what the Church teaches are mortal sins - HHS mandate. We haven’t seen this sort of blatant anti-Catholicism since Millard Fillmore joined the Know-Nothings! And Fillmore was a rather harmless EX-President by then!

Looks like you like the President better. And for pro-life reasons (you say).

Well, BHO’s partial birth abortion defending stuff, and the*** not even supporting the “born alive” protection bill - he was the ONLY one who opposed it,*** made him pretty much the point man for America’s most shameful industry.

Romney was not my guy. He is now. Your speculations notwithstanding about Romney; the empirical evidence of Obama’s - shall we call them “accomplishments”? - do not make this a close call for me.

Romney’s promise to nominate strict constitutionalist judges - versus what I KNOW Obama will do and has done is enough right there. The right SCOTUS decision and abortion could be GONE instead of entrenched forever.

Romney’s PARTY platform is pro-life. I am anti-cloning, anti**-embryonic stem cell research (kills babies), and pro Personhood Amendment. Romney* SAYS *** he is too. I know Obama isn’t. And wasn’t. And I THINK it might be too late for that amazing road-to-Damascus conversion of Obama to sway me now.

But I’m REEEEAL OPEN to it! :yup: A 180 degree REVERSAL of the anti-life declarations and directives Obama made in his first WEEK as President would be a nice start. Like his affirmation of the Roe v Wade decision on January 22, 2009 - the very ANNIVERSARY of that Satanic triumph - and the reversal of the Mexico City policy a day later causing taxpayers including pro-lifers like me to have to send $457 million OUT of the country to pro-abortion organizations!

I’m as mad as YOU were at Mitt … at … this person we have in*** POWER NOW!*** < That was for him, not you Ana. :rotfl: - your planet Kolob thing*** just*** hit me! Lightening up now.

Obama dresses nice. Hollywood for him would be a “change we need.” :clapping: :tiphat:

Mitt may be a “maybe” - but pro-lifers for babies aren’t singin’ hosannas 'bout plans of Obama’s!

lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/ < Mitt is 4 years “behind” EVEN if you’re RIGHT about the Planet Kolob plot Ana. :gopray2: - make it STOP! (Abortion)
 
“That’s … goin’ pret-ty far there. I’ll grant you God didn’t strike the Pres down on the spot - but did “the one” forget that he has actual “power” now to DO much of what he “wants to do”?”

Ah, Capt, look at the numbers. The numbers of abortions have GONE DOWN under Obama.

Bush proclaimed from the rooftops how prolife he was, but as is typical with Republicans, when HE had the “actual power” abortion remained quite legal. 8 years mind you.

And …ahem… Bush was FAR more conservative than Romney could ever pretend to be.

So, when Democrats are in office, actual abortion numbers go down. (which prolifers should be happy about) But when Republicans are in office, the number of abortions goes up.

Riddle me that.
 
ok, so this is your normal way to refer to the Presidency as a “regime”?
 
Abyssinia – Code pink are ridiculous. Dressing up in female genitalia costumes and dancing

:tsktsk: When a*** well-BRED lady*** simply* sips* her tea sedately - as proper to the*** dignity ***such apparel predicates! :curtsey::kiss4you:

youtube.com/watch?v=8Oh15BNNHgk ** < STUPIDEST** speech I’ve*** ever heard! *** :sad_yes: (Yet uplifting somehow !) :eek:
 
AnaTurin said:
“That’s … goin’ pret-ty far there. I’ll grant you God didn’t strike the Pres down on the spot - but did “the one” forget that he has actual “power” now to DO much of what he “wants to do”?”

Ah, Capt, look at the numbers. The numbers of abortions have GONE DOWN under Obama.

Bush proclaimed from the rooftops how prolife he was, but as is typical with Republicans, when HE had the “actual power” abortion remained quite legal. 8 years mind you.

And …ahem… Bush was FAR more conservative than Romney could ever pretend to be.

So, when Democrats are in office, actual abortion numbers go down. (which prolifers should be happy about) But when Republicans are in office, the number of abortions goes up.

Riddle me that.
Click to expand...
As the number of aborted female babies in the 70’s and 80’s are not around to conceive the abortion totals decline in the out years. In addition, the questionable reporting accuracy of the numbers and finally……wait for it…… the time lag between implementing a policy and its effect. Subsequent administrations reap the harvest of what the previous administration sows. In shot if the economy is Bush’s fault, the reduced abortions must be because of his efforts.
 
Speaking as a political atheist.
No matter which WWF wrestler is in the White House they will continue the policies while giving YOU the illusion that “your man” is on the job. Our economy will continue to sink, we will continue our empire building which inches the world ever closer to nuclear catastrophe, our rights will continue to decay all in the name of “keeping us safe”.
But hey, our party won!

As for Clint Eastwood…:rolleyes:
Time for Clint to mount his Hoveround, get back to Hollyweird so he can watch old Rawhide reruns.
We can deal with that kind of bull.
:cool:
 
AnaTurin said:
Not to mention the fact that Mitt Romney isn’t even a Christian, so his concept of “pro-life” could mean any number of things. (he wants all babies to live forever on planet Kolob?) whatever.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting point. Many don’t consider a fetus a human being until a brain is formed. Catholics and other Christians believe a human being begins when a soul is implanted, that is, at conception. So, yes, definitions vary.
 
ringil said:
I believe it will be close, but I really don’t see Romney winning.

I’m not trying to be a jerk here. I just really don’t believe he has captured the American consciousness. He needs that “spark”. It’s just not there.

I support Obama and I see him winning a second term. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong.

In any case I will either eat humble pie like a grown up or I will goat a bit on Nov. 7th. when I log onto CAF.
Click to expand...
I think the phrase is “gloat,” and it makes me very sad that any Catholic would want to gloat about this President being re-elected, knowing how pro-abortion he really is.
 
Et_Cetera said:
Too much.
Click to expand...
It’s in the PARTY PLATFORM Et Cetera. And it’s the Democrat Party’s “third rail,” you don’t touch abortion rights and stay in the party.

Over 25 million female babies aborted since 1973. yes, it’s too much.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
I think the phrase is “gloat,” and it makes me very sad that any Catholic would want to gloat about this President being re-elected, knowing how pro-abortion he really is.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure the conservatives on this Forum will be gloating if Romney wins, and will rub it in to the liberals here. I can’t see any real changes to America regardless which man wins the White House.
 
stevegravy said:
As the number of aborted female babies in the 70’s and 80’s are not around to conceive the abortion totals decline in the out years. In addition, the questionable reporting accuracy of the numbers and finally……wait for it…… the time lag between implementing a policy and its effect. Subsequent administrations reap the harvest of what the previous administration sows. In shot if the economy is Bush’s fault, the reduced abortions must be because of his efforts.
Click to expand...
Funny, the most recent data on file at the CDC and at the census was 2008. The most recent data at Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute was 2007. Last I checked, The current illicit regime didn’t start till 2009.

And, yes, the abortion rate went down from 27.4 per thousand in 1990 to 19.4 per thousand in 2007, but I don’t see what that has to do with Obama one way our the other.
 
AnaTurin said:
I’m telling you that Mitt Romney is NOT pro life.

**I would actually go so far as to say that OBAMA is more pro life than Mitt Romney, because I believe he was sincere when he told the Pope that he wants to do whatever he can to reduce the number of abortions (the demand for abortions). **

Mitt Romney? For all we know, he is still secretly committed to his promise to protect a woman’s right to choose that he made when he was running for office in Massachusetts.

Not to mention the fact that Mitt Romney isn’t even a Christian, so his concept of “pro-life” could mean any number of things. (he wants all babies to live forever on planet Kolob?) whatever.
Click to expand...
You have GOT to be kidding me! Obama voted AGAINST giving a baby born alive during a botched abortion even basic medical care! How is that pro-life?? He supports Planned Parenthood and appointed a pro-abortion Catholic as Secretary of Health (HA!) and Human Services! you have GOT to be kidding.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
I’m pretty sure the conservatives on this Forum will be gloating if Romney wins, and will rub it in to the liberals here. I can’t see any real changes to America regardless which man wins the White House.
Click to expand...
No, my dear Matt, we are not going to “goat” or gloat, we are just going to get on with the business of fixing our nation. The sooner we put this episode behind us, the better. There’s a lot of work still left to do, especially getting rid of Obamacare and overturning his executive orders (completely unconstitutional).
 
AnaTurin said:
I would actually go so far as to say that OBAMA is more pro life than Mitt Romney, because I believe he was sincere when he told the Pope that he wants to do whatever he can to reduce the number of abortions (the demand for abortions).
Click to expand...
If he were against abortion he would not hold the postions he holds. Why would he want to reduce abortions if abortion is ok to perform?
 
fix said:
If he was against abortion he would not hold the psoitions he holds. Why would he want to reduce abortions if abortion is ok to perform?
Click to expand...
Exactly. That was a LIE. Add it to all the others he’s told but it’s a long, long list.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
It’s in the PARTY PLATFORM Et Cetera. And it’s the Democrat Party’s “third rail,” you don’t touch abortion rights and stay in the party.

Over 25 million female babies aborted since 1973. yes, it’s too much.
Click to expand...
since 1973…and we have lived under all Democratic administrations since that time right? Because they are the only pro-abortion party so they must have had the majority all this time, so nothing could be done to change anything.

:hmmm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top