The next American Century- Republican primary over

gimmesometruth27

sarah palin anyone?

think they will pick her again?

peacefrompaul

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

sarah palin anyone?

think they will pick her again?

That would be foolish

catefrances

peacefrompaul wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

sarah palin anyone?

think they will pick her again?

That would be foolish

yeah but itd be a whole stack of fun wouldnt it?

gimmesometruth27

peacefrompaul wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

sarah palin anyone?

think they will pick her again?

That would be foolish

their whole platform is foolish. they are nominating romney. doesn't get much more foolish than that....

peacefrompaul

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

sarah palin anyone?

think they will pick her again?

That would be foolish

their whole platform is foolish. they are nominating romney. doesn't get much more foolish than that....

Ha, no kidding

usamamasan1

catefrances wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

can you please tell me exactly what these american values are? and in what way the current administration arent willing to forcefully assert them. also how would they go about that anyways? thanx in advance. ..

Values

Abortion

Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.

Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.

Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the water’s edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens. The compassionate instincts of this country should not be silent in the face of injustices like China’s One-Child policy. No one will ever hear a President Romney or his vice president tell the Chinese government that "I fully understand" and won’t “second guess” compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.

Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us. As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America’s values of preserving life at home and abroad.

Stem Cell Research

Great advancements in science are welcome antidotes to human frailty. The desire to save and strengthen the lives of those we love is noble and good, yet the promise of science does not justify discarding our moral duty to protect human life in its most vulnerable form. Scientific research and the preservation of human dignity are complementary, and America’s laws must reflect this conviction.

Stem cell research is a great scientific frontier, and it must be pursued with respect and care. When confronted with the issue of stem cell research as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney chose to support life by vetoing a bill that would have allowed the cloning of human embryos. Quite simply, America cannot condone or participate in the creation of human life when the sole purpose of its creation is its sure destruction.

Adult stem cell research and alternative methods to derive pluripotent stem cells, such as altered nuclear transfer and direct reprogramming, are scientific paths that carry much promise and avoid raising ethical concerns. As president, Mitt will focus his energy on laws and policies that promote this kind of research to unlock the medical breakthroughs that our loved ones so desperately need.

Marriage

The values that Mitt Romney learned in his home have enriched his life immeasurably. With his parents’ example before him, he married, had five sons, and now basks in the joy of sixteen grandchildren.

Marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom. It is also critical for the well-being of a civilization. That is why it is so important to preserve traditional marriage – the joining together of one man and one woman. As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act – a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton – but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.


You're welcome

usamamasan1

Although this is not about me of course, individual freedom is key.

Romney is down with it.

Obama is not. For example, the mandate in Obamacare that everyone needs to be covered by an insurance policy...for starters.

brianlux

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

sarah palin anyone?

think they will pick her again?

I was in a Goodwill store recently and saw a whole row of hard cover copies of Palin's autobiography. You can't give them away.

catefrances

lets talk about this one for now

usamamasan1 wrote:

...
Marriage

The values that Mitt Romney learned in his home have enriched his life immeasurably. With his parents’ example before him, he married, had five sons, and now basks in the joy of sixteen grandchildren.

Marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom. It is also critical for the well-being of a civilization. That is why it is so important to preserve traditional marriage – the joining together of one man and one woman. As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act – a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton – but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

why must marriage be defined as being between one man and one woman? we deal with this one in australia as well and ive never quite understood why marriage has to be sanctified as being between one man and one woman. is this based in faith? if so then how does reflect the separation of church and state? and if not, then where is it coming from?

gimmesometruth27

catefrances wrote:

lets talk about this one for now

usamamasan1 wrote:

...
Marriage

The values that Mitt Romney learned in his home have enriched his life immeasurably. With his parents’ example before him, he married, had five sons, and now basks in the joy of sixteen grandchildren.

Marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom. It is also critical for the well-being of a civilization. That is why it is so important to preserve traditional marriage – the joining together of one man and one woman. As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act – a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton – but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

why must marriage be defined as being between one man and one woman? we deal with this one in australia as well and ive never quite understood why marriage has to be santified as being between one man and one woman. is this based in faith? if so then how does reflect the separation of church and state? and if not, then where is it coming from?

it is because there is not a true separation of church and state in this country. we like to say that there is a separation, but in all actuality the church has too much influence in our government and too much influence in government policy. especially the policies relating to social issues.

gimmesometruth27

brianlux wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

sarah palin anyone?

think they will pick her again?

I was in a Goodwill store recently and saw a whole row of hard cover copies of Palin's autobiography. You can't give them away.

people could use some kindling in the winter or for a campfire in the summer so those might come in handy.

Newch91

catefrances wrote:

lets talk about this one for now

usamamasan1 wrote:

...
Marriage

The values that Mitt Romney learned in his home have enriched his life immeasurably. With his parents’ example before him, he married, had five sons, and now basks in the joy of sixteen grandchildren.

Marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom. It is also critical for the well-being of a civilization. That is why it is so important to preserve traditional marriage – the joining together of one man and one woman. As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act – a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton – but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

why must marriage be defined as being between one man and one woman? we deal with this one in australia as well and ive never quite understood why marriage has to be santified as being between one man and one woman. is this based in faith? if so then how does reflect the separation of church and state? and if not, then where is it coming from?

That "Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman" sounds like big government to me, telling us who we can and can not marry. My take on this marriage subject is, if you love someone, marry them whether it's man and man or woman and woman.

catefrances

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

sarah palin anyone?

think they will pick her again?

I was in a Goodwill store recently and saw a whole row of hard cover copies of Palin's autobiography. You can't give them away.

people could use some kindling in the winter or for a campfire in the summer so those might come in handy.

youre advocating burning books!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! :shock:

gimmesometruth27

catefrances wrote:

youre advocating burning books!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! :shock:

no, i am advocating that we use what we have at our disposal. if you need to make a fire for some reason, and for some other reason all you have on you is the palin book, then by all means burn away. gotta do what you gotta do in those situations. i call that being resourceful.

catefrances

Newch91 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

lets talk about this one for now

usamamasan1 wrote:

...
Marriage

The values that Mitt Romney learned in his home have enriched his life immeasurably. With his parents’ example before him, he married, had five sons, and now basks in the joy of sixteen grandchildren.

Marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom. It is also critical for the well-being of a civilization. That is why it is so important to preserve traditional marriage – the joining together of one man and one woman. As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act – a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton – but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

why must marriage be defined as being between one man and one woman? we deal with this one in australia as well and ive never quite understood why marriage has to be santified as being between one man and one woman. is this based in faith? if so then how does reflect the separation of church and state? and if not, then where is it coming from?

That "Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman" sounds like big government to me, telling us who we can and can not marry. My take on this marriage subject is, if you love someone, marry them whether it's man and man or woman and woman.

it certainly does sound like big government. if adam wants to marry steve its not my business.. its not anyones business except adam and steves. and as people they should be allowed the same rights as the straights.

and i find it endlessly amusing that when the god squad freaks out about homosexual marriage and how marriage should be between a man and a woman they seem to conveniently forget that jesus' parents werent married which effectively makes jesus a bastard child... perhaps thats for another thread. :think:

catefrances

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

youre advocating burning books!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! :shock:

no, i am advocating that we use what we have at our disposal. if you need to make a fire for some reason, and for some other reason all you have on you is the palin book, then by all means burn away. gotta do what you gotta do in those situations. i call that being resourceful.

tbh gimme if you had a palin book at your disposal id be seriously worried.

brianlux

I totally agree Newch91 and Catefrances. Marriage is about two people loving each other and wanting to be together. Some of the happiest, most well adjusted wonderful couples I know are gay couples. The people I'm referring to live in my current home town, a fairly conservative town for California. Tolerance seems to be growing even here. I hope the same is happening elsewhere.

hedonist

I've known happy and fucked-up couples, both gay and straight. Good and bad times don't discriminate

I say open the floodgates to the doors of matrimony; all are - should be - welcome, should they choose that path. But let's also get rid of the "benefits" that come with it. Have it recognized in the sense of commitment but remove all of the automatic legal ties and make it incumbent upon anyone who wants them to secure those ties themselves.

peacefrompaul

brianlux wrote:

I totally agree Newch91 and Catefrances. Marriage is about two people loving each other and wanting to be together. Some of the happiest, most well adjusted wonderful couples I know are gay couples. The people I'm referring to live in my current home town, a fairly conservative town for California. Tolerance seems to be growing even here. I hope the same is happening elsewhere.

I'd like to say it is, unfortunately it is not here in Eau Claire. One of my main problems with this city basically ruled by churches.

Newch91

brianlux wrote:

I totally agree Newch91 and Catefrances. Marriage is about two people loving each other and wanting to be together. Some of the happiest, most well adjusted wonderful couples I know are gay couples. The people I'm referring to live in my current home town, a fairly conservative town for California. Tolerance seems to be growing even here. I hope the same is happening elsewhere.

Have you seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ