United States Presidential Election, 2012

Crocodile Dippy said:
Messed Up Freakshow of Cryptic Sarcasm said:
Well, Herman Cain was undeniably an idiot...
Click to expand...
I know very little about your bizarro politics (in Australia, majority vote doesn't mean anything so long as you've got the right connections and enough independent hipster parties to back you up in the Senate), but from what Snack showed me of Herman Cain's campaign, he was hilarious.
Click to expand...

He really was. I can't believe anyone took him seriously... his final speech quoted the Pokemon movie.

Dr. Javelin said:
You know, you should check out CNN sometimes, Scarecrow.

I mean, I'm looking at it here and some of the article titles are:

  • Ego keeps Gingrich going
  • Romney back in the driver's seat

Stuff like that.
Click to expand...

To quote Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show said:
You like to pretend that the relentless conservative activisim of Fox News is the equivilant of the disorganized liberal influence you find on NBC, ABC, and CBS. But Fox News - you may be able to detect a liberal pathogen in their bloodstream, however faint. But Fox News has such a crazy over-reaction to that perceived threat. You're like an auto-immune disorder. I'm not saying the virus doesn't exist in some small quanity; but you're producing waaay too many antibodies.
Click to expand...

This was followed by a choir singing "go fuck yourself, Fox News" while Stewart danced around in front of them, but that's beside the point.
 
Still.

You would enjoy it.
 
Trump endorsed Romney, like it means anything.
 
Mario4Ever said:
Magus said:
I don't really have words to describe the utter ridiculousness of this....
Click to expand...

Ugh...why is it religion always gets in the news over something trivial or stupid?
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying it was a flaw with the article, more like the governmental policies, but yes, I do agree that this type of conflict does generally show up in religion-related news.

Anyway, I really fail to see the logic behind forcing Catholic hospitals to fund abortions then using the separation of Church and State to justify that act.
 
I can see it to some extent, especially since treatment in hospitals run by adherents of a particular religion isn't limited to adherents of that religion in most cases, and since hospitals are state and federal institutions rather than religious institutions. When operating an institution open to all people, it is nonsensical to exclude certain practices according to a mandate that isn't relevant to all patients if these practices are available in other institutions. If the people who run these institutions don't like it, they can either restrict their services to like-minded individuals or shut the institutions down.
 
One thing that irritates me about the separation of church and state is that it was intended to stop government intervention in the church but now it's interpreted as to prevent church interference in the government.

why
 
Santorum won all three states tonight, making him the Republican frontrunner. He will give the gay marriage people a good run for their money.

Proposition 8 was thrown out today by activist judges. This is horrible. Even though the citizens of the state of California voted they WANTED to defend gay "marriage" (WHICH CANNOT EXIST AND NEVER WILL EXIST. Even in nations where homosexuality was tolerated among the upperclass, no one ever thought of a man marrying another man). Marriage is a religious thing. So WHY DO THEY WANT TO CALL IT MARRIAGE? I don't support civil unions either, but wouldn't it be easier for them to get their way if they call it something other than marriage? If civil unions are the same thing, wouldn't it be easier for gays who support this to call it Civil Unions instead of "marriage"? The whole gay marriage agenda is not because a large number of them want to get married. No, no. It's to give a rubber stamp of approval to all alternative lifestyles. That's the only reason why. I have known gays who are very much opposed to gay "marriage". It's an oxymoron. It doesn't matter if the majority wind up supporting it. It simply cannot exist. It is a novelty. They would have thrown you in an insane asylum in the 1950s if you suggested it.

The gay agenda has become a treacherous anti-religious movement. That is the only way for them to win is to promote secularism. The people who seem to be arguing for gay marriage are arguing to a moot cause. For if everyone in the world became homosexual, our species would die out. All gay people need to do if they want to be cured (since the Bible makes it clear that it is a result of idolatry) is like try praying the rosary that the demon of lust that they are given over to will fly out of them. It's not big deal, really it ain't.

But I'm glad Santorum and I see eye to eye on this, because widespread acceptance of homosexuality has preceded the fall of every great nation. I have nothing against those people I used to be a bigot and hate them but I don't anymore- I'm friends with someone who is bisexual but I'd have to make him Catholic before I could give him a rosary because he is a Baptist. Sometimes people need to learn you've got to live and let live. If God wills it, he will be delivered from his shameful affliction. My religion does not require a second reproach.
 
Mario4Ever said:
I can see it to some extent, especially since treatment in hospitals run by adherents of a particular religion isn't limited to adherents of that religion in most cases, and since hospitals are state and federal institutions rather than religious institutions. When operating an institution open to all people, it is nonsensical to exclude certain practices according to a mandate that isn't relevant to all patients if these practices are available in other institutions. If the people who run these institutions don't like it, they can either restrict their services to like-minded individuals or shut the institutions down.
Click to expand...
The thing about it is, though, that these are hospitals run by Catholics, and Catholics are being told by the government to either violate their religious beliefs in this practice or stop providing medical care. It's one thing to be willing to give out abortions at a hospital, it's another thing entirely to be told you must be willing to abort babies in order to provide medical care to people. Being forced to give out or pay for other peoples' abortions is an entire step up from being willing to allow people who want and are willing to abort babies to perform abortions. If you want an abortion, don't go to the free Catholic hospitals.
 
Marwikedor said:
But I'm glad Santorum and I see eye to eye on this, because widespread acceptance of homosexuality has preceded the fall of every great nation.
Click to expand...
Examples?
 
carcinoGeneticist said:
Crocodile Dippy said:
(in Australia, majority vote doesn't mean anything so long as you've got the right connections and enough independent hipster parties to back you up in the Senate)
Click to expand...

Ahahahahah

This is exactly what American politics is if you replace "independent hipster parties" with "money".
Click to expand...
Or if you can elect judges/justices to whatever court system you have, as the courts have some pretty unchecked power.

Remember California and how they wanted to ban gay marriage by popular vote?
 
Are you... trying to troll me...?
 
Magus said:
Mario4Ever said:
I can see it to some extent, especially since treatment in hospitals run by adherents of a particular religion isn't limited to adherents of that religion in most cases, and since hospitals are state and federal institutions rather than religious institutions. When operating an institution open to all people, it is nonsensical to exclude certain practices according to a mandate that isn't relevant to all patients if these practices are available in other institutions. If the people who run these institutions don't like it, they can either restrict their services to like-minded individuals or shut the institutions down.
Click to expand...
The thing about it is, though, that these are hospitals run by Catholics, and Catholics are being told by the government to either violate their religious beliefs in this practice or stop providing medical care. It's one thing to be willing to give out abortions at a hospital, it's another thing entirely to be told you must be willing to abort babies in order to provide medical care to people. Being forced to give out or pay for other peoples' abortions is an entire step up from being willing to allow people who want and are willing to abort babies to perform abortions. If you want an abortion, don't go to the free Catholic hospitals.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I warned Catholics Obama would star persecuting our religion. He needs to be thrown out of office he is a tyrant for forcing Catholics to go against their conscience. Not only should the RC Church not be forced to provide abortions, civil authorities must outlaw ALL access to abortion, birth control, and pornographic material or else this country will sink into deeper and deeper shit.

That is why I like Rick Santorum right now, because he WILL do all of those things I mentioned.
 
I really don't understand why religious institutions get to skirt the law like this...it's not by merit. Abortion, birth control, and pornography have nothing to do with the state of the economy. If you want to make baseless claims, I could easily attribute it to religious institutions' tax-exempt status (which they don't deserve, but that's beside the point). BTW, Catholic hospitals =/= the Catholic Church. If they don't want to provide access to birth control, the hospitals need to direct people to facilities that can (or hire secular employees who'll just do it). Not all Catholics oppose contraception, and it isn't fair to withhold it from the people who need it, particularly if they are unable to transfer to an alternative insurance provider/medical institution. It's not like all people who have sex want kids, or that there aren't cases in which a pregnancy can endanger the lives of parent and child. What this country needs is cooperation among the branches of government, not having every third word shot down.
 
Mario4Ever said:
I really don't understand why religious institutions get to skirt the law like this...it's not by merit. Abortion, birth control, and pornography have nothing to do with the state of the economy. If you want to make baseless claims, I could easily attribute it to religious institutions' tax-exempt status (which they don't deserve, but that's beside the point). BTW, Catholic hospitals =/= the Catholic Church. If they don't want to provide access to birth control, the hospitals need to direct people to facilities that can (or hire secular employees who'll just do it). Not all Catholics oppose contraception, and it isn't fair to withhold it from the people who need it, particularly if they are unable to transfer to an alternative insurance provider/medical institution. It's not like all people who have sex want kids, or that there aren't cases in which a pregnancy can endanger the lives of parent and child. What this country needs is cooperation among the branches of government, not having every third word shot down.
Click to expand...
Yes, 100% of all Catholics oppose contraception. The ones who do are merely people claiming to be Catholic but really are not. According to the Magesterial teachings of the Catholic Church, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a heretic to be a Catholic. When Jesus made St. Peter the first pope, he said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church. And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. The Catholic Church has always regarded heretics to be the gates of Hell that Jesus was saying.

All heretics incur IPSO FACTO excommunication. It is impossible for a heretic to be a Catholic because they CANNOT BELONG to a Church that they are not a member of. To deny but a single dogma of the Catholic faith is to reject ALL FAITH, because Christ is the guarentor of all her dogmas. So to say that there are some Catholics who accept contraception is an erronious statement.
 
Yes, and I'm so excited that you're finally beginning to reciprocate.
 
carcinoGeneticist said:
Yes, and I'm so excited that you're finally beginning to reciprocate.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I was surprised that you were surprised that I was trolling you back.

Between you and Goomba's Shoe, I think my life is full of trolling to be honest.
 
Romney won the Maine caucuses. Reporting in 95% at the moment: Romney's at 39%, Paul's at 36%, Santorum's at 18%, and Gingrich is at 6%.
 
My question if how did Santorum get 18% if he didn't even campaign at all there.

You know, if the GOP would stop fretting about who's "the most electable" and just all vote for their favorite candidate, Romney would be crushed and Santorum, Paul, or Gingrich might actually get elected.
 
Dr. Javelin said:
My question if how did Santorum get 18% if he didn't even campaign at all there.

You know, if the GOP would stop fretting about who's "the most electable" and just all vote for their favorite candidate, Romney would be crushed and Santorum, Paul, or Gingrich might actually get elected.
Click to expand...

Actually, a poll by Public Policy Polling taken on the 9th and 10th of this month have Santorum beating all the other nominees (Santorum beats Romney - 56% to 32% - in a head-to-head race). Romney barely beat Gingrich in a head-to-head race in the same poll - 45% to 42%.
 
Good. I'd be happy with Santorum as president, even if he does seem a bit inexperienced.

Now we wait and see how long it takes until Romney's attack ad juggernaut turns its fury on Santorum.

You know, it's really impressive if you think about how much money Santorum has and how well he's done. Goes to show that even stupidly rich guys like Romney can't win with pure cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back