Republican Primary

[LovePatience]

Fired up: (adjective) " to be excited or enthusiastic about something" Example: “the basketball team was fired up before their playoff game.” Or, " The Santorum supporters were fired up about his chances in the next primary."

Hate: (noun) " a feeling of intense hostility " Example: " I could see the hate in the eyes of the man who confronted his tormenters."

Hostility: a hostile (very unfriendly) disposition; a state of deep-seated ill-will. “Hoping that someone fails” before someone even starts. rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2009/01/16/limbaugh_i_hope_obama_fails Opposing a policy because you want to “break” someone as Rep. De Mint put it with the debt fiasco. politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/Health_reform_foes_plan_Obamas_Waterloo.html Refusing to support a GOP candidate because they are simply associated with a person. That’s hate right there. Hate doesn’t have to result in violence, but then Obama has received over 400% more death threats than any other president.

I would say creating jobs is “doing a positive thing on poverty.” And given that more jobs have been created in Texas then anywhere else, that Texas - run by Republicans - is doing something positive about poverty. What would you consider doing a positive thing? Handing out foodstamps and welfare? Making people more dependent?

Reducing poverty = increasing the number of people who go from poverty to middle class or reducing the severity of poverty. The graphic below is an example:

No, what you’re doing is disengenuous and I’m calling you on it. You’re taking justices appionted in the early 70’s by presidents who were elected before abortion became a national issue and giving that as proof that the Republican party of today or even of 1992 is not authentically pro-life. Conversely, you imply that the dissent of Byron White is some indication of the Democrat party being pro-life. What a joke.

No. Get your facts straight. I blamed the nominations of Souter and Kennedy in part on the Bork fiasco. But also, I blamed it on the actions of pro-abortion Democrat catholics like Teddy Kennedy and Joe Biden who demonized Bork. I never blamed Sandra Day O’connor on Bork. I would blame Reagan and his advisors for that.

You look at Teddy Kennedy as a pro-abortion Democrat Catholic relevant to today even though he is dead but a justice appointed by his brother, Robert Kennedy, i.e. Byron White, as irrelevant because he was appointed many years ago. So how is that an equal standard? Ted Kennedy was elected in 1962, prior to the 70s.

Your attribution of blame to Bork is confusing. Its is confusing why a 1964 civil rights bill is a moot point worthy of ignorance but a 1973 Roe vs. Wade legislation is the one and only important political issue today. They happened with 10 years of each other so one can’t rely on the passage of time to argue for the unimportance of one and not the other; their existence or nonexistence substantially affects society.

The word atone means “Make amends or reparation: he was being helpful, to atone for his past mistakes.” Its confusing how conservatives can be “atoning for years” for ideas still supported by many in their ranks. Atonement can only happen after you have stop supported an idea and made amends, neither of which has happened.

As for the “at least”, being pro-life is no excuse. The current Stormfront today has over 70% of its members as Republican, Constitutionalist, or Libertarian. Could you also nominate someone from one of these groups as long as they were pro-life (most of them are)? Justice requires doing to another as you want done to yourself. The Nation of Islam is extremely pro-life; here is Farakkhan’s statement on the Priests for Life website where he rails against abortion. priestsforlife.org/articles/document-print.aspx?ID=2747 But conservatives attack him, not defend him based on a minimal standard of at least he didn’t find a “right” in the constitution for a mother to kill her unborn child. Nor did Iraq’s condition as a pro-life country prevent attacks.

So blaming liberals for attacking Bork is not placing the blame on the right source: conservatives for nominating him.

And the willingness of conservatives to nominate him is not because he was the only qualified pro-life candidate but because the primary motivation of many conservatives is resentment, not the pro-life cause. The support of his lack of support of civil rights is greater than the pro-life support. This shows through in lack of support for Huntsman with attacks on his relationship with China and adopted children as well as attacks on McCain for his adopted child from Bangladesh from Mother Teresa’s orphanage who would have otherwise died due to lack of money for lifesaving surgery. It was admitted by Limbaugh

So the base of the Republican Party, the voters, have been bottling up for 25 years, a resentment – an anger, if you will… What they want right now is fight-back, what they want is push-back, what they want is kick-back, what they want is smack-down! What they want is for these people who have been laughing at them and mocking them and impugning them, put in their place.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/23/the_gop_establishment_in_abject_panic_they_don_t_understand_their_own_base

Polls have even studied this and found that Tea Party supporters hold more resentful views than the rest of the population. thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/08/09/112332/tea-party-racism-2/ And this has been studied by many academic scientists using data and all coming to the same conclusion: nytimes.com/2007/04/29/business/yourmoney/29view.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

 

[ishii]

Hostility: a hostile (very unfriendly) disposition; a state of deep-seated ill-will. “Hoping that someone fails” before someone even starts. rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2009/01/16/limbaugh_i_hope_obama_fails Opposing a policy because you want to “break” someone as Rep. De Mint put it with the debt fiasco. politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/Health_reform_foes_plan_Obamas_Waterloo.html Refusing to support a GOP candidate because they are simply associated with a person. That’s hate right there.

Yes, many of us hope that Obama’s insidious plans to subordinate the Catholic Church to the federal government led by Obama and Kathleen Sebelius fail. Don’t you? Or do you want Obama to succeed? I hope that his re-election campaign fails miserably, as it should. Given Obama’s philosophy and plans to change America - I can see why Rush wants him to fail. I do too. I wish his efforts to stack the supreme court with pro-abortion justices failed.

Hate doesn't have to result in violence, but then Obama has received over 400% more death threats than any other president.

Source?

Reducing poverty = increasing the number of people who go from poverty to middle class or reducing the severity of poverty. The graphic below is an example:

Reducing poverty means creating more jobs - and more have been created in Republican Texas than in Democrat California. How do you define poverty? How does the census bureau define it? There may be stats that say " X number of people are living in poverty" but unless we agree on what exactly poverty is, the stat means nothing. But you never answered my question: (I’m getting used to it though): A) If you were an unemployed American which state would you want to move to to find a job, Texas or California? B) Which party has controlled Texas for years? Which party has controlled California for years?

You look at Teddy Kennedy as a pro-abortion Democrat Catholic relevant to **today** even though he is dead but a justice appointed by his brother, Robert Kennedy, i.e. Byron White, as irrelevant because he was appointed many years ago.  So how is that an equal standard?   Ted Kennedy was elected in 1962, prior to the 70s.

I can now understand the level of your disconnect. Teddy Kennedy is relevant to any discussion of the politics of nominating supreme court justices in the late '80’s and early 90’s. Since you brought up Planned Parenthood vs. Casey which was in 1992, I thought Kennedy was relevant. Plus Teddy is relevant in any discussion which involves Bork and the effect on later nominations. What’s relevant to today is the election of 2012 in which we’ll be deciding whether to re-elect an anti-catholic president or elect a Republican.

Your attribution of blame to Bork is confusing.  Its is confusing why a 1964 civil rights bill is a moot point worthy of ignorance but a 1973 Roe vs. Wade legislation is the one and only important political issue today.  They happened with 10 years of each other so one can't rely on the passage of time to argue for the unimportance of one and not the other; their existence or nonexistence substantially affects society.

I don’t blame Bork. I blame those who defamed him in order to keep the sacred right of a mother to kill her unborn child. You were talking about hate earlier. I “hate” abortion rights and abortion. Do you?

As for the “at least”, being pro-life is no excuse. The current Stormfront today has over 70% of its members as Republican, Constitutionalist, or Libertarian. Could you also nominate someone from one of these groups as long as they were pro-life (most of them are)? Justice requires doing to another as you want done to yourself. The Nation of Islam is extremely pro-life; here is Farakkhan’s statement on the Priests for Life website where he rails against abortion. priestsforlife.org/articles/document-print.aspx?ID=2747 But conservatives attack him, not defend him based on a minimal standard of at least he didn’t find a “right” in the constitution for a mother to kill her unborn child. Nor did Iraq’s condition as a pro-life country prevent attacks.

Okay… Louis Farrakan, Stormfront (had to look that up), and a “pro-life” Iraq? Seriously?

It was admitted by Limbaugh    Polls have even studied this and found that Tea Party supporters hold more resentful views than the rest of the population.  [thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/08/09/112332/tea-party-racism-2/](http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/08/09/112332/tea-party-racism-2/)    And this has been studied by many academic scientists using data and all coming to the same conclusion:  [nytimes.com/2007/04/29/business/yourmoney/29view.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/business/yourmoney/29view.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin)

I hate phony liberal elitism too. Your comments are a textbook example of how the liberal mind works. Hopefully others will read them and better understand the illogic that is modern American liberalism. For that, I thank you.

Ishii

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Whew! I just got through this thread (and the others that were merged into it).

Wish I could type as fast as some of you posters, but, alas, at times I get through writing
a post and then hit a wrong key and the post disappears! If I were faster, I could just
rewrite it but I usually give up at that point. So thanks to the many conservative posters
who share my opinions and give such good responses.

I will support Romney if he secures the nomination and will work to help elect him, but I
will support either Santorum or Gingrich with much more enthusiasm. I am praying that
by the time we have our primary (the Democrat judges are holding our redistricting hostage
and are really messing up the calendar for primary, county convention and our state
convention) I will be more certain of my candidate. If I had to do it today, I would vote for
Santorum, but Newt is capable of a comeback so I’ll have to see.
By the way, I heard either yesterday or today, that Santorum has received over $3 million
in contributions in about 72 hours.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Main caucuses results: Romney 39%, 2190 votes; Paul 36%, 1996 votes; Santorum 18%, 989 votes; Newt 6%, 349 votes.

How can Paul be second place when he did not attend?

He declined the invitation because he is out trying to be the next President, not at a pep rally for the GOP faithful.

 

[LovePatience]

Reducing poverty means creating more jobs - and more have been created in Republican Texas than in Democrat California. How do you define poverty? How does the census bureau define it? There may be stats that say " X number of people are living in poverty" but unless we agree on what exactly poverty is, the stat means nothing. But you never answered my question: (I’m getting used to it though): A) If you were an unemployed American which state would you want to move to to find a job, Texas or California? B) Which party has controlled Texas for years? Which party has controlled California for years?

We started with a discussion of poverty. You said that the GOP has a different plan to reduce poverty. You haven’t shown any evidence of any sort of GOP concern with poverty and when asked to produce evidence, provided the example of Texas, where poverty has increased rather than decreased. It seems you don’t care about poverty itself. So, we can move on to jobs if we can agree that it is false that the GOP has a plan to reduce poverty; when its stellar state can’t even do it.

“Absolute poverty” or destitution refers to the one who lacks basic human needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter. That’s the definition that is commonly used. More information is here: census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/

I can now understand the level of your disconnect. Teddy Kennedy is relevant to any discussion of the politics of nominating supreme court justices in the late '80’s and early 90’s. Since you brought up Planned Parenthood vs. Casey which was in 1992, I thought Kennedy was relevant. Plus Teddy is relevant in any discussion which involves Bork and the effect on later nominations. What’s relevant to today is the election of 2012 in which we’ll be deciding whether to re-elect an anti-catholic president or elect a Republican.

You admit that history shows that GOP presidents nominate both pro-life and pro-choice judges. But you are not bothered by the number of pro-choice judges nominated because you don’t see it as their fault (except for Sandra Day O’Connor). Nor are you bothered by the unpopularity of the GOP outside of the pro-life cause; generally speaking, you would rather lose an election and have the GOP candidate of your choice than present a GOP candidate that is attractive to the public. Nor are you bothered by the fact that GOP voters reject pro-life candidates who are more popular outside of the GOP such as Huntsmann in favor of those who pro-life records are dubious due to their lack of anger filled rhetoric…

So what is the plan to reduce abortion exactly? And what’s the timeline of success for this plan?

 

[ProVobis]

So what is the plan to reduce abortion exactly? And what’s the timeline of success for this plan?

Good questions. Seems like a true “pro-life” candidate would have such a plan at the top of his list.

 

[ishii]

We started with a discussion of poverty.

I believe I chimed in when you started misrepresenting history of GOP appointed surpreme court justices.

You said that the GOP has a different plan to reduce poverty. You haven’t shown any evidence of any sort of GOP concern with poverty and when asked to produce evidence, provided the example of Texas, where poverty has increased rather than decreased. So, we can move on to jobs if we can agree that it is false that the GOP has a plan to reduce poverty; when its stellar state can’t even do it.

Stronger economy/more opportunity and jobs = reduced poverty.

Thus,

GOP plans to create stronger economy, opportunity and jobs = plans to reduce poverty.

It seems you don’t care about poverty itself.

Yes I do.

“Absolute poverty” or destitution refers to the one who lacks basic human needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter. That’s the definition that is commonly used. More information is here: census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/

Poverty and destitution are two different things. How do you define poverty?

You admit that history shows that GOP presidents nominate both pro-life and pro-choice judges. But you are not bothered by the number of pro-choice judges nominated because you don’t see it as their fault (except for Sandra Day O’Connor). Nor are you bothered by the unpopularity of the GOP outside of the pro-life cause; generally speaking, you would rather lose an election and have the GOP candidate of your choice than present a GOP candidate that is attractive to the public. Nor are you bothered by the fact that GOP voters reject pro-life candidates who are more popular outside of the GOP such as Huntsmann in favor of those who pro-life records are dubious due to their lack of anger filled rhetoric…

I admit that history shows that the political climate in the late 80’s and early 90’s made it very difficult if not virtually impossible for the GOP to succeed in getting pro-life judges approved. I am very bothered that liberal Democrat catholics did not approve of the pro-life justices. I liked Huntsman okay, but he put people to sleep - not a good trait when trying to get the nomination. The reality shows that such a candidate who cannot get his main supporters excited about his canidacy is a weak candidate. This is true for both parties : the dull, boring candidate loses all the time. Your argument that he would have a better chance against Obama than the others is based on…? I notice that you’ve gone from calling it “hate” to “anger” . That is progress, LOvepatience - good job.

So what is the plan to reduce abortion exactly? And what’s the timeline of success for this plan?

Try to get liberal Catholic Democrats to stop voting for candidates who believe in abortion and statism, so we can elect Republicans and overturn Roe V Wade, as well as revive the economy so individuals will have more money to donate to charities and crisis pregnancy centers, etc. Also, try to get the moderates, who have difficulty getting “fired up” about anything, to wake up and see what Obama is doing to our country so they kick him out of office. Won’t you join us?

 

[kubark]

Don’t manipulate facts in order to disengenuously argue that the GOP in 2012 is not pro-life.

Pierce Butler, Owen Roberts, and Charles Evans Hughes - all appointed by Republicans in the 20’s. And that has about as much relevance to the current pro-life GOP in 2012 as justices appointed by Eisenhower in the 50’s does.

Ishii

What facts have been manipulated?

You haven’t even attempted to dispute the facts that were presented demonstrating that Rick Santorum is a pro-life fraud. If leaders in the pro-life movement and the Catholic Church will not call Santorum out on his sham record, then it is required of us to do so regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you, ishii.

 

[kubark]

My first criterium for voting for a candidate is that they must be pro-life. I stand with the Church on this

My first criterion is that the candidate be pro-life. The candidate must demonstrate an understanding that “pro-life” includes not only beginning and end of life issues, but everything in between, including the waging of war and an understanding of the economy.

My second criterion is that the candidate must be pro-Constitution, and realize that Principle comes before Party and Constitution comes before Cause.

Thirdly, they must be pro-America and place American interests ahead of all other foreign special interests.

I then look at a potential candidates record (they way they look or talk or their mannerisms are irrelevant) and evaluate just how closely their rhetoric matches their voting record.

 

[kubark]

He has passed exactly one piece of Legislation in his entire political career and that involved restoration of a firehouse in his district. It would be hard to find a congressman who has been less effective in the History of the US And while we’re at it we are told we must ignore his 50% pro-life record from the American life league (as opposed to Santorums and Gingrichs nearly 100% ) and accept Paul supporters definition of pro-life and if we get past all that we are told we must ignore his racist, anti-semetic rants of 20 years ago.(some one else signed his name to them???)

Ron Paul is neither racist nor anti-semitic. That is a bald-faced lie, and you know it. Ron Paul took responsibility for words that he didn’t write back in the 90s when most politicians would have done nothing but make excuses (sort of like Santorum disciples make excuses for his support of pro-death politicians). It was a dead issue then and it remains so now. Quit playing the race/anti-semite card already - it is pathetically predictable.

And as to your comment regarding Ron Paul’s consistent pro-life record in the face of opposition from his own party on the pro-life issue, you seem, estesbob, to echo Chuck Baldwin who wrote in 2007 that:

*In fact, the GOP has controlled the U.S. Supreme Court since the infamous Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion-on-demand was handed down in 1973. That means GOP appointments have dominated the Court for over thirty years, and yet abortion-on-demand is still the law of the land.

Beyond that, for six years (2000-2006), “pro-life” Republicans controlled the entire federal government. And, for six years, millions of unborn babies cried their silent screams as the abortionists’ scalpels ripped their little bodies apart in abortuaries throughout America.

The only presidential candidate who has a commitment to saving the lives of unborn babies and who understands the constitutional authority of Congress to end abortion-on-demand is Texas Congressman Ron Paul (with the exception of Alan Keyes, who recently announced his candidacy). You read it right. At this point, John McCain is all talk; Mitt Romney is all talk; Fred Thompson is all talk. And even Mike Huckabee is all talk.

Ron Paul seems to be the only presidential candidate who understands that under Article. III. Section. 2., the Constitution gives to the Congress of the United States the power to hold rogue courts in check and to overturn outlandish rulings such as Roe v. Wade.

Accordingly, Ron Paul has introduced and reintroduced the Sanctity of Life Act (including in the current Congress). If passed, this Bill would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The Bill also recognizes the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, this Bill would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision. The Bill would also deny funding for abortion providers. In plain language, the Bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand.

**Is it not more than interesting that “pro-life” President George W. Bush, along with the “pro-life” Republican Party leadership of both houses of Congress, refused–and continues to refuse–to support Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act? In addition, not a single “pro-life” presidential candidate outside of Ron Paul has even bothered to mention the Sanctity of Life Act, much less aggressively call for its implementation with a promise that, if elected President, he would sign it into law. Not Huckabee; not McCain; not Thompson; not Romney; none of them! (you can add Santorum and Gingrich to that list too) **

**Why did John McCain not introduce Dr. Paul’s Sanctity of Life bill in the U.S. Senate? Why have Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson not committed to use the power of the bully pulpit of the White House to push Congress to implement this Act? Again, either these men are ignorant of their constitutional duties and responsibilities (in which case, they are unqualified for the office of President) or they are not truly serious about overturning Roe v. Wade and ending abortion-on-demand (in which case, they are conservative phonies and frauds). **

I say again, it is time for “pro-life” Republicans to put up or shut up!

Beyond that, it is time for Christian conservatives to stop being so gullible. We need to start looking beyond eloquent rhetoric and campaign clichés. We need to begin demanding results.

Every four years, Republicans trot out a conservative façade during an election season for the purpose of obtaining the votes of susceptible Christians. And every four years, conservative Christians–like starving catfish–take the bait: hook, line, and sinker.

“Save us from the monster,” seems to be the cry of well-meaning–but easily manipulated–conservatives. The “monster” is whoever the Democrats nominate, of course. But, ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has done absolutely nothing to change the course of the country. Nothing! In fact, it has only gotten worse with Republicans in charge.

Ron Paul is the only candidate running against the status quo. He is the only candidate who takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. He is the only candidate who, if elected, would actually turn the country around. Furthermore, among the major Republican presidential contenders, Ron Paul is the only candidate whose pro-life commitment extends beyond rhetoric.*

 

[ishii]

Good questions. Seems like a true “pro-life” candidate would have such a plan at the top of his list.

You fail to recognize the necessity of overturning Roe V Wade first, before being able to allow states to reform their laws on abortion. As for a plan to reduce abortion without overturning Roe V Wade, I would think energizing the private sector would also result in greater assistance to charities and groups that help women in crisis pregnancies. The president must also be a moral leader. Rick Santorum has, more than any other candidate, the strongest claim to authentic pro-life leadership. He walks the walk. He also is the only candidate who correctly points out the relationship of strong families to a strong economy. That would seem to be a no-brainer, but he’s the only one who really raises that issue. The Democrats only seem to argue for more aid and tax $$ to go to govt. programs to “help” those in need. Other Republicans argue for tax cuts and eliminating regulations to revive the private sector economy. Ron Paul wants to legalize dope and prostitution. But its Santorum who points out that so many of our problems result from the breakdown of strong families. If Santorum was president, he would use the bully pulpit to raise awareness for the sanctity of life. And its not lip service, because he is truly pro-life.

Ishii

 

[kubark]

You fail to recognize the necessity of overturning Roe V Wade first, before being able to allow states to reform their laws on abortion. As for a plan to reduce abortion without overturning Roe V Wade, I would think energizing the private sector would also result in greater assistance to charities and groups that help women in crisis pregnancies. The president must also be a moral leader. Rick Santorum has, more than any other candidate, the strongest claim to authentic pro-life leadership. He walks the walk. He also is the only candidate who correctly points out the relationship of strong families to a strong economy. That would seem to be a no-brainer, but he’s the only one who really raises that issue. The Democrats only seem to argue for more aid and tax $$ to go to govt. programs to “help” those in need. Other Republicans argue for tax cuts and eliminating regulations to revive the private sector economy. Ron Paul wants to legalize dope and prostitution. But its Santorum who points out that so many of our problems result from the breakdown of strong families. If Santorum was president, he would use the bully pulpit to raise awareness for the sanctity of life. And its not lip service, because he is truly pro-life.

Ishii

Santorum is most definitely NOT “truly pro-life.” His support and endorsement of pro-death politicans demonstrate that he is NOT “truly pro-life.” His voting for Title X legislation that funded contraception directly and abortion indirectly, demonstrates that he is not “truly pro-life.” His voting for an unjust, unconstitutional and unnecessary war in Iraq along with his latest warmongering on Iran, demonstrates that he is NOT “truly pro-life.”

Ron Paul does not want to “legalize dope and prostitution.” Where did you learn that misinformation, ishii?

The Republicans have controlled the U.S. Supreme Court since 1973. GOP appointments have dominated the Court for over thirty years, and yet abortion-on-demand is still the law of the land.

“Pro-life” Republicans controlled the entire federal government between 2000 and 2006 and for those six years and the years that have followed, abortion remains legal in ALL 50 states.

Santorum and Co. have not done anything substantial and lasting to end legal abortion. All they have done is tinker around the edges while deriding the one man in Congress who has consistently offered practical, immediate, Constitutional solutions to the problem.

 

[ProVobis]

Ron Paul

He’s also the only candidate who wants to scrap the federal income tax as well. Now why aren’t the other Republicans willing to scrap it? Perhaps because they and the party want it to be a permanent issue so that they have something to campaign on, never mind principles? This pro-status-quo position of the Republicans (other than Ron Paul) on abortion and everything else is beginning to irritate me.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The Republicans have controlled the U.S. Supreme Court since 1973. GOP appointments have dominated the Court for over thirty years, and yet abortion-on-demand is still the law of the land.

“Pro-life” Republicans controlled the entire federal government between 2000 and 2006 and for those six years and the years that have followed, abortion remains legal in ALL 50 states.

But at least Republicans don’t infringe upon religious liberty and further the abortion agenda; they keep the abortion issue stagnant (which isn’t good either, but it’s better than furthering abortion ideas).

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

He’s also the only candidate who wants to scrap the federal income tax as well. Now why aren’t the other Republicans willing to scrap it? Perhaps because they and the party want it to be a permanent issue so that they have something to campaign on, never mind principles? This pro-status-quo position of the Republicans (other than Ron Paul) on abortion and everything else is beginning to irritate me.

Because all of the other Republican candidate love big government. They just want Republican-style big-government rather than Democrat-style big-government.

 

[ProVobis]

But at least Republicans don’t infringe upon religious liberty and further the abortion agenda; they keep the abortion issue stagnant (which isn’t good either, but it’s better than furthering abortion ideas).

Sure, make Roe vs Wade the law of the land and then wash your hands of it. Thanks, Nixon, Reagan, et al.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Because all of the other Republican candidate love big government. They just want Republican-style big-government rather than Democrat-style big-government.

because Republican-style big-government is so much better of course!

 

[ishii]

This pro-status-quo position of the Republicans (other than Ron Paul) on abortion and everything else is beginning to irritate me.

How are the Republicans pro-status quo? As far as I know, all the candidates are pro-life. Rick Santorum is probably the most pro-life out of the three, but they are all pro-life.

Sure, make Roe vs Wade the law of the land and then wash your hands of it. Thanks, Nixon, Reagan, et al.

Look, I will grant you that Nixon was pro-choice and that Reagan as governor legalized abortion in the 60’s. But, getting back to 2012 and reality…its the GOP that would nominate supreme court justices who might overturn Roe V Wade. If you want to hand out blame though, look at the more recent actions of all of those catholic senators who prevented Roe V Wade from being overturned.

Ishii

 

[mary_bobo]

Santorum is most definitely NOT “truly pro-life.” His support and endorsement of pro-death politicans demonstrate that he is NOT “truly pro-life.” His voting for Title X legislation that funded contraception directly and abortion indirectly, demonstrates that he is not “truly pro-life.” His voting for an unjust, unconstitutional and unnecessary war in Iraq along with his latest warmongering on Iran, demonstrates that he is NOT “truly pro-life.”

Ron Paul does not want to “legalize dope and prostitution.” Where did you learn that misinformation, ishii?

The Republicans have controlled the U.S. Supreme Court since 1973. GOP appointments have dominated the Court for over thirty years, and yet abortion-on-demand is still the law of the land.

“Pro-life” Republicans controlled the entire federal government between 2000 and 2006 and for those six years and the years that have followed, abortion remains legal in ALL 50 states.

Santorum and Co. have not done anything substantial and lasting to end legal abortion. All they have done is tinker around the edges while deriding the one man in Congress who has consistently offered practical, immediate, Constitutional solutions to the problem.

Correct me if I am wrong (and I am sure you will be happy to) but now that RvW is law,does not the right case have to come before the court before anything meaningful can be done? And did not the GOP offer proposals to end partial birth abortion? And funding of abortions in foreign countries? Are you asking for something that cannot be accomplished by the wave of a hand?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Correct me if I am wrong (and I am sure you will be happy to) but now that RvW is law,does not the right case have to come before the court before anything meaningful can be done? And did not the GOP offer proposals to end partial birth abortion? And funding of abortions in foreign countries? Are you asking for something that cannot be accomplished by the wave of a hand?

Roe v. Wade is NOT LAW. It is a court opinion that has never been backed by legislation. It confers no rights, because only the Congress can grant us rights by amending the Constitution. In fact, the Congress is within their rights to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction on this matter.