Sounds almost too easy. Because it is. But I realize that it makes it easier to use that idea to bash the GOP for “doing nothing to stop abortion” . If it were such a great idea then why didn’t Henry Hyde, the pro-life stalwart, Rick Santorum and other leaders push such a solution? Is it because the idea is not realistic, or are they secretly avoiding a solution because they want votes and aren’t authentically pro-life?
I don’t know. It seems a bit strange that he’d not attend the pro-life forum. Is it because he’s afraid to face the inevitable criticism from the other guys? I tend to be somewhat cynical about these things. And I would support Romney if he got the nomination.
Why don’t you ask them their reasons rather than asking me? What I’m talking about is hardly an unheard of practice, as Congress has done this for other issues like certain immigration questions.
My point was that if passing a congressional bill would overturn Roe V Wade then doing so would’ve been the focus, but it wasn’t. Its a moot point now though isn’t it? I mean, Obama would veto it and it certainly wouldn’t get past a senate where Pelosi and Barbara Boxer rule. Either way, we still have to elect a pro-life president, a pro-life congress and then nominate a contructionist judge for the vacancy that will likely come up in the next few years.
It’s a moot point at the moment, yes. It’s a logical fallacy to assert that if a Congressional act would side-step Roe v. Wade then it would be done, however. Again, I recommend asking these folks why they don’t support things like the Sanctity of Life Act. In fact, perhaps they DO support the Act but are also pushing for other avenues as well; I certainly don’t know anyone who advocates the Sanctity of Life Act who doesn’t also support appointing Judges and passing Constitutional Amendments protecting life.
I could not vote for him for two main reasons.
1. He talks as though one of his first acts as president could be to order bombing in Iran. We've had more than enough of this extremist ranting. This is a time to negotiate and not rush into another war. He sounds like a neocon when it comes to foreign policy.
2. There is something too brittle about Santorum. He comes across as very ideological, thoroughly committed to what he views as righteous, something of a religious zealot. We don't need or want that in the White House.
If he ends up running against Obama, the decision would be difficult, but it is very unlikely that I would vote for him. Third party? Possible.I probably would, though I agree it would be a difficult decision. He is too hawkish. Still, he is probably one of two Republicans I can say now that I would vote for. He is one of the two that has shown me he has the consistency and morality for the office.
I agree, we have allowed illegal immigration for so long that the little “white lies” are becoming an accepted way of life for our children. We cannot bend rules just because that bending fits our needs. I’m sure that many undocumented aliens are here because they need work so the break the law and enter the country to work. But would we let off a man who needed to feed his family of 5 by robbing a store? Armed robbery forgiven because we thought it ok to bend the rules because the family needed it? NO, if these undocumented aliens needed to enter the country to work, then they should find a legal means and then cross. If they cannot find a way to enter legally and US citizens want them here we need to change our laws through proper channels. Allowing these people to set an example for our kids that bending the law is OK if not a good road for us to start down. These people need to be removed from the country. They knew the possibility existed when they entered the country. Sorry, I don’t mean to appear cold, but I do not want my kids growing up in a society that continues to deteriorate by Bending the Rules and telling little White Lies!
The institution of marriage is thousands of years old and is different across many cultures. It was around far longer than governments. I understand what you think it is. The question is why do you need government involved. Last I checked you believe it is a church and religious function.
My apologies on the age error - though it doesn’t change my point. Unfortunately though, I deal with facts and data, unlike the last part of your message regarding a 50 state sweep. Unfortunately for you, the facts are Romney & Paul are statisticly tied in a hypothetical matchup vs Obama. Gingrich & Santorum were near the bottom due to their inability to get independents or traditional democrats.
What has suprised and disappointed me is extent to which Santorum disciples will go to defend his indefensible endorsement of the pro-death Arlen Specter over the pro-life Pat Toomey over a supreme court nominee deal that Arlen Specter denies ever took place.
Let’s be confused on the details, though. He’s talking about bombing Nuclear Weapon Manufacturing Facilities in Iran - not indiscriminately bombing the countryside into submission.
There is only one candidate in the GOP primary whose supporters are attracted to a "cult of personality". And that is Ron Paul, a man who lacks the courage to face a tough interview with either Beck or Levin. Hey, he's even afraid of Hannity now! :D
The winner of Iowa, Santorum, takes on ALL comers, and you either accept his explanations of his positions, or you don't, but you always know where he stands. Why, he even reads what he writes! :ehh: RobNot at all. Both Santorum and Romney still gets 7 electors like they did last week.
WEll of course. FoxNews has back the Romney candidacy for a couple of years now. The GOP apparatchik pick Romney as their man after McCain failed. I am not even sure why they have tolerated opposition candidates to run. I guess for the sport of it all.
