Rick Santorum - Stuck in 1985

I am pro-choice because I am a guy. I will never feel the joy, pain, nausea of carrying a kid. Due to this, it is not my right to force my view on the woman who does have to endure it. It is her body, it is her choice, it is a decision she will have to live with. (and I have known a few who regret it)

Looking around the world today, sometimes I think the aborted ones are the lucky ones.

As for the death penalty, I agree 100%. It is NOT a deterrent, it is just a way to make the masses satisfied that "justice was done". I also agree that one innocent death is one too many.

SVreX:

You're 100% right. I admit, I was trolling there.

I gained one grain of respect for him there, I didn't expect the contents of that video to be what they were when I was digging.

I really don't like the man. His viewpoint on a lot of social issues terrifies me, to be frank.

mad_machine wrote: I am pro-choice because I am a guy. I will never feel the joy, pain, nausea of carrying a kid. Due to this, it is not my right to force my view on the woman who does have to endure it. It is her body, it is her choice, it is a decision she will have to live with. (and I have known a few who regret it)

It's not just her body that's in question. If there were some way that would allow a woman to not have to carry a child to term that didn't involve taking a life, that would be one thing. Sadly, there isn't.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Is Bachman a member because the "Tea Party" wholly embraces her politics or because she is seen as a "means to an end"? I don't know and neither do you........

What difference does it make? If she's a means to an end, then that makes my point - they sold out. And, once again, I'll point out that I posted an observation in a very straightforward way with no rhetorical bent and was met with a hostile response. So, once again, I'll leave you all to your fun and go find an interesting thread about cars.

Eddie, it makes a difference because we don't live in a "it's everything or nothing" world. It appears you made an observation based upon what you want to believe, not on the likely result. My response was not hostile, it was based on a reality that compromise is not the same as selling-out.

By your (and others') reasoning every man, woman or organization that does not/cannot fulfill their stated purpose or intent is a failure or a traitor to the cause.

Santorum, just like Obama, is campaigning to gain support in a po;itical campaign. He will say things to energize the base in manners of which he is no less guilty than any other politician. He may actually believe in repealing existing "reproductive-rights" laws, but doing so requires the co-operation of Congress and a majority of the voting constituency.

With all due respect, I happen to think that level of support is imaginary and (largely) the by-product of ignorance and/or personal biases; not your's specfically, but those of a lot of contributors of this thread.

My sister considers me hardcore right wing. I do not see myself that way. However after reading a little bit of this thread and for no other reason than i guess trying to get my post count up I will say something that I believe in.

I do not trust science. I believe science is just an educated guess that has yet to be proven wrong. I am not a very religous person however I do believe in God. I also am pro choice. I could care less if a person is killed during the abortion. It saves the tax payers alot of money down the road when this unwanted and unloved child becomes a ward of the state. The United States is way over poplulated as it is. It is only sustainable because of oil. The ability of most big cities to sustain it's current population without the benefit of oil would immediately disappear. And the population would be decreased to a level that is naturally sustainable. My point is there are much, much bigger fish to fry than worrying about his religous views.

I will not vote for him.

Oh, one other thing that I'm going to mention in this thread before I retreat back to my corner. This is going off of what MG Bryan said earlier about the misunderstanding of Catholics:

I am a Catholic and a conservative, and the religious right wing terrifies me for various reasons. The big reason for this is that morality is something that is taught by various religions, but it is NOT something that is exclusive to any religion or only to those who believe in God or any deity. Separation of Church and State is clearly ignored by much of the right wing who seem to think that morality is only for Christians, and because of that many candidates that I might be interested in don't even get a glance from me. I suspect that I will be voting third party once again.

mtn wrote: . Separation of Church and State is clearly ignored by much of the right wing who seem to think that morality is only for Christians, and because of that many candidates that I might be interested in don't even get a glance from me.

Hence my aprehension, at someone like Santorum, although I'm not religious.

I don't see the need to respond to the other stuff in this thread, because it's quite obvious where Santorum stands on these issues.

Whether the support is there is moot, it's that he believes it to be important........which is what I find frightening. Especially since he had publicly said he thinks it's the most important issue facing the US.

To his credit, even if he bails from the race, he is probably building a fairly loyal base out of the religious right. No matter what happens, if he stays active in politics his speaking fees are only going up.

nicksta43 wrote: I do not trust science. I believe science is just an educated guess that has yet to be proven wrong.

Uh yeah, that's how science works. Hell, it's the best part of science!

Well, "theory" in scientific parlance is significantly more that "just" an educated guess: "Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses."

I understand how it works. All the smart people thought the world was flat once as well.

nicksta43 wrote: I understand how it works. All the smart people thought the world was flat once as well.

800 or 900 years ago... That hardly discredits science.

nicksta43 wrote: I understand how it works. All the smart people thought the world was flat once as well.

No "smart person" (well, in the "west") has believed that since the Greeks figured it out (say around 400 B.C.).

But again, best part about science is that when a theory is shown to be incorrect (biblical example: bats being birds), no body get's butthurt (much) about it.

Not trusting in science must mean you go to bed every night saying "well, I sure hope gravity still works tomorrow."

Osterkraut wrote:

nicksta43 wrote: I understand how it works. All the smart people thought the world was flat once as well.

No "smart person" (well, in the "west") has believed that since the Greeks figured it out (say around 400 B.C.). But again, best part about science is that when a theory is shown to be incorrect (biblical example: bats being birds), no body get's butthurt (much) about it.

It came back as a common belief a couple times. It's been nearly a thousand years since any of the examples of that though.

MG Bryan wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

nicksta43 wrote: I understand how it works. All the smart people thought the world was flat once as well.

No "smart person" (well, in the "west") has believed that since the Greeks figured it out (say around 400 B.C.). But again, best part about science is that when a theory is shown to be incorrect (biblical example: bats being birds), no body get's butthurt (much) about it.

It came back as a common belief a couple times. It's been nearly a thousand years since any of the examples of that though.

If by common belief you mean "belief by the uneducated" then maybe, but it's damn near a given that if you could read Latin, you at least knew that there was a well-known theory that the earth was round.

Osterkraut wrote: But again, best part about science is that when a theory is shown to be incorrect (biblical example: bats being birds), no body get's butthurt (much) about it.

Carl Linnaeus created the modern classifications called "birds (Aves)" and "mammals (Mammalia)" in 1735.

The Biblical word "'owph" means "owner of a wing", and covered birds, bats, insects, and pterosaurs.

It would have been pretty tough to classify a bat with a word for a classification that did not yet exist.

But it is clear you are not interested in answers or learning. Anyone who uses an argument such as this to discredit the Bible isn't really interested in an answer. The question has no legitimacy.

I respect science enough to not use such foolishness to discredit it.

Osterkraut wrote: If by common belief you mean "belief by the uneducated" then maybe, but it's damn near a given that if you could read Latin, you at least knew that there was a well-known theory that the earth was round.

Now there's some darned good application of the scientific method.

Osterkraut wrote: Not trusting in science must mean you go to bed every night saying "well, I sure hope gravity still works tomorrow."

science is also what makes the cars that we come here to discuss do what they do..

and also why we are able to even come "here" to discuss those cars, since "here" is just a bunch of 1's and 0's on a server somewhere, and we connect to "here" with machines that send a bunch of 1's and 0's thru a bunch of other machines- and sometimes thru a satellite that uses science to maintain it's position 25,000 miles above a certain point on the (mostly round) earth..

nicksta43 wrote: I believe science is just an educated guess that has yet to be proven wrong.

Ironically, scientists believe the same thing.

Comment deleted. I'm not discussing science with a creationist.

Lol

nicksta43 wrote: I understand how it works. All the smart people thought the world was flat once as well.

Clearly, you do not.

MCarp22 wrote:

nicksta43 wrote: I believe science is just an educated guess that has yet to be proven wrong.

Ironically, scientists believe the same thing.

Exactly my point. I am not in any trying to dicredtit science. If thats how you interpereted it then mybe thats a bias on your part.

What I am saying is I don't give a flying berkeley about how we got here, or what makes the earth work the way it does. WE as a people have a lot greater issues standing directly in front of us that we need to get figured out fast.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

nicksta43 wrote: I understand how it works. All the smart people thought the world was flat once as well.

Clearly, you do not.

But what do I know, I'm government educated and barely got out of high school. Anyway I have to leave now to go to my pathetic job using shovels and hammers