• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romenys camp says he still supports Mourdock

Dooble said:
Thoughtful, but pointless. We're discussing the Divine's stance on abortion, not the Founding Fathers'. The Constitution is whole different debate.
Click to expand...

Actually, The Constitution is what applies to the United States in the real world...the Divine's stance on abortion truly is "pointless" since it fails to govern.
 
Fruityfact said:
Actually, The Constitution is what applies to the United States in the real world...the Divine's stance on abortion truly is "pointless" since it fails to govern.
Click to expand...
Your "real world" is MTV and Obama family vacations. The U.S. is a Christian nation regardless of what you think.
 
Dooble said:
Your "real world" is MTV and Obama family vacations.
The U.S. is a Christian nation regardless of what you think.
Click to expand...

What?
This may be Christians in this nation...but have you ever heard of "the separation of church and state"

"The United States has always been home to a multitude of faith traditions and, indeed, was imagined from the beginning to be a religious haven. The first of the Amendments to The U.S. Constitution, collectively known as the "Bill of Rights," states clearly that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This not only guaranteed freedom of belief but also ensured that no single religion would be given privileges over others."
 
Dooble said:
Your "real world" is MTV and Obama family vacations. The U.S. is a Christian nation regardless of what you think.
Click to expand...

not so much
and thank goodness for that
 
You want people to be outraged that a Christian said that human life is sacred?

Lol.
 
If you believe (as Obama does) that abortion should be 'safe...and rare' then you recognize that slaughtering unborn children is not something that people should be cavalier about and that it does in fact matter. That being the case, it shouldnt be a stretch for someone...ANYONE...that believes slaughtering unborn children is wrong to extend that belief to ALL unborn children, including those unborn children that had the bad fortune to be the biproduct of a violent sexual assault. However...if you believe it is NOT the slaughter of an unborn child, then you shouldnt give half a rats ass. If you believe it to be wrong, but not really your place to say...then you have a lot of gall pretending your willingness to compromise your position and values on life is superior to someone who dares to believe that all life is important.
 
The sick GOP war on women and their bodies continue.

It's incredible any women would ever vote for this party of rape apologists.

Conservatives just get weirder and weirder
 
Fruityfact said:
What?
This may be Christians in this nation...but have you ever heard of "the separation of church and state"
Click to expand...
I sure have, but that excerpt is in neither the U.S Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. It's a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. The problem is, the Supreme Court favored radical revisionists and ruled that the letter was relevant. They were probably buffaloed somehow.

The truth is, each country has a defining characteristic and ours just happens to be Christianity.
 
Romney is doing stuff like this for two reasons. One he does not give a crap what we think about anything and as such he is going to say whatever he wants to if it sounds good at the time. Murdock's position is therefore irrelevant.
 
disneydude said:
Anyone who cares out our Supreme Court should be very concerned. This is EXACTLY the type of person who Romney would appoint to what is already a sensitive balance on the court. If you care about the Supreme Court falling into the hands of Right-wing extremeists...then you should not vote for Romney
Click to expand...

And this statement, as if it's being presented as a fact, is based on.....what exactly?

I love how in one thread we're told we shouldn't vote for Romney because you can't trust him because no one knows who he is and he flip flops repeatedly and just goes with whatevers best for him politically.....and then in another thread we're supposed to believe that because he's not removing support for a random republican politician over a stupid statement that it means 100% that he's going to nominate radical, evangelical, suprreme court justices.

This entire thing has become laughable.
 
disneydude said:

Anyone who cares out our Supreme Court should be very concerned. This is EXACTLY the type of person who Romney would appoint to what is already a sensitive balance on the court. If you care about the Supreme Court falling into the hands of Right-wing extremeists...then you should not vote for Romney
Click to expand...

disneydude said:
This is the type of person you would expect to see in a Romney cabinet or a Romney Supreme Court. America should be VERY afraid.
Click to expand...

That's right. Remember FOLKS. We know for 100% Certainty that Mitt Romney will ABSOLUTELY pack the surpreme court with "Right-Wing Extremists" and fill his Cabinet with people who are exactly like this type of person. It's not a question, it's DEFINITELY going to happen. BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID! Disneydude is POSITIVE about this because he and other liberals think Romney is so blazingly transparent and obvious in what he thinks, views, or says....

disneydude said:
Perhaps to show that he does not believe in the extreme right-wing of the party....but oops....he doesn't want to do that....he wants to play Extremely/Severely conservative Mitt and Moderate Mitt at the same time
Click to expand...

AdamT said:
Yeah, that's what he says this week. A few months ago, however Romney (a/k/a Flip Flopney) said he would be "delighted" to sign a bill banning all abortion.
Click to expand...

disneydude said:
Which Mitt disagrees? The Moderate Mitt or the Severely Conservative Mitt? Mitt isn't exactly known for having principles that he stands by. His etch-a-sketch might tell him something different tomorrow. Remember...this is the same Mitt who has flip flopped on Abortion rights several times himself.
Click to expand...

wolfman24 said:
Romney is doing stuff like this for two reasons. One he does not give a crap what we think about anything and as such he is going to say whatever he wants to if it sounds good at the time. Murdock's position is therefore irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Wait...okay, scratch that. Don't vote for Mitt, he flip flops in his etch-a-sketch fashion as a means of doing or saying whatever he thinks will sound good at the time. You can't trust him or what he's going to do, he's always going to change up to whatever seems to be popular. You can't predict what he's going to do....

......except what he'll do with the SCOTUS and the cabinent, you can KNOW with absolutely certainty that he will unquestionably pack it with Right-Wing Extremists...but other than that, you can't trust him!
 
Zyphlin said:
That's right. Remember FOLKS. We know for 100% Certainty that Mitt Romney will ABSOLUTELY pack the surpreme court with "Right-Wing Extremists" and fill his Cabinet with people who are exactly like this type of person. It's not a question, it's DEFINITELY going to happen. BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID! Disneydude is POSITIVE about this because he and other liberals think Romney is so blazingly transparent and obvious in what he thinks, views, or says....









Wait...okay, scratch that. Don't vote for Mitt, he flip flops in his etch-a-sketch fashion as a means of doing or saying whatever he thinks will sound good at the time. You can't trust him or what he's going to do, he's always going to change up to whatever seems to be popular. You can't predict what he's going to do....

......except what he'll do with the SCOTUS and the cabinent, you can KNOW with absolutely certainty that he will unquestionably pack it with Right-Wing Extremists...but other than that, you can't trust him!
Click to expand...

Ok thats probably true.
 
Zyphlin said:
And this statement, as if it's being presented as a fact, is based on.....what exactly?

I love how in one thread we're told we shouldn't vote for Romney because you can't trust him because no one knows who he is and he flip flops repeatedly and just goes with whatevers best for him politically.....and then in another thread we're supposed to believe that because he's not removing support for a random republican politician over a stupid statement that it means 100% that he's going to nominate radical, evangelical, suprreme court justices.

This entire thing has become laughable.
Click to expand...

Based on his previous statements about the type of people he would appoint and based upon his current statements about abortion....and also based on his complete cowtowing to the radical right-wing of the party. But you are correct about one thing...because Romney flip flops so much it is hard to say exactly what he will do for sure. Which is another reason not to trust him and not to vote for him.
 
Zyphlin said:
That's right. Remember FOLKS. We know for 100% Certainty that Mitt Romney will ABSOLUTELY pack the surpreme court with "Right-Wing Extremists" and fill his Cabinet with people who are exactly like this type of person. It's not a question, it's DEFINITELY going to happen. BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID! Disneydude is POSITIVE about this because he and other liberals think Romney is so blazingly transparent and obvious in what he thinks, views, or says....









Wait...okay, scratch that. Don't vote for Mitt, he flip flops in his etch-a-sketch fashion as a means of doing or saying whatever he thinks will sound good at the time. You can't trust him or what he's going to do, he's always going to change up to whatever seems to be popular. You can't predict what he's going to do....

......except what he'll do with the SCOTUS and the cabinent, you can KNOW with absolutely certainty that he will unquestionably pack it with Right-Wing Extremists...but other than that, you can't trust him!
Click to expand...

You don't make a great case for why anyone should vote for Romney....if fact, you made a great argument about why Romney shouldn't be trusted and isn't worthy of anyone's vote. Thank you Zyph!
 
disneydude said:
You don't make a great case for why anyone should vote for Romney....if fact, you made a great argument about why Romney shouldn't be trusted and isn't worthy of anyone's vote. Thank you Zyph!
Click to expand...

Nice deflection from hte fact I was providing a wonderful argument for why your hyper partisan bull**** in your first post should be ignored as nothing but fear mongering.

As I've said in other htreads, we do'nt really know for sure which Romney will definitely be in place. That said...I'd take every Romneye incarnation over Obama, so it's no reason for me not to vote for him.

More than that, my personal opinion based on examination of the man's record and statements, along with a general understanding of political science, leads me to believe he's essentially a moderate to average right leaning pragmatist rather than ideologue who will generally seek out a path that is most likely to be benificial to his electoral goals while going in the general direction of his overall view point. As such, if I had to wager as to what type of Presidency I would expecct out of him, I'd put my money on a post 1994 Conservative version of Bill Clinton. Compared to the two ideologues we've had previously, I'm far more comfortable in trusting him with the job than Obama for another 4 years.
 
Dooble said:
Your "real world" is MTV and Obama family vacations. The U.S. is a Christian nation regardless of what you think.
Click to expand...


This is where I disagree....you do not have to be a Christian to be American nor an American to be Christian....and even though I am a Christian I do not feel it is my right nor anyones right to force our religious beliefs on others.
 
AdamT said:
Yeah, that's what he says this week. A few months ago, however Romney (a/k/a Flip Flopney) said he would be "delighted" to sign a bill banning all abortion.

Click to expand...


While his flip flopping is more than fair game, I highly doubt Romney would turn out to be a social conservative
 
Zyphlin said:
Nice deflection from hte fact I was providing a wonderful argument for why your hyper partisan bull**** in your first post should be ignored as nothing but fear mongering.

As I've said in other htreads, we do'nt really know for sure which Romney will definitely be in place. That said...I'd take every Romneye incarnation over Obama, so it's no reason for me not to vote for him.

More than that, my personal opinion based on examination of the man's record and statements, along with a general understanding of political science, leads me to believe he's essentially a moderate to average right leaning pragmatist rather than ideologue who will generally seek out a path that is most likely to be benificial to his electoral goals while going in the general direction of his overall view point. As such, if I had to wager as to what type of Presidency I would expecct out of him, I'd put my money on a post 1994 Conservative version of Bill Clinton. Compared to the two ideologues we've had previously, I'm far more comfortable in trusting him with the job than Obama for another 4 years.
Click to expand...

Zyph...your argument was that we shouldn't take the man at his word....that he would appoint severely conservative judges to the Supreme Court....because he has changed positions so much that we don't know what to believe. HARDLY a ringing endorsement for the man...in fact, I would say it states very clearly that Romney cannot be trusted and what more important attribute can we seek in the man that wants to be the leader of the free world?
 
disneydude said:
Zyph...your argument was that we shouldn't take the man at his word
Click to expand...

Where in the world did I say that?

My argument was that your argument was ridiculous inconsistent...where at one moment you're basically stating as undeniable fact that he's going to put people in the SCOTUS and his cabinet that are "Right Wing extremists" and then at the next moment talking about how he flip flops from being an extreme conservative to a moderate.

Yes, in genreal, I don't think you should take MOST politicians at their word...but that was not the premise of my argument.

....that he would appoint severely conservative judges to the Supreme Court....
Click to expand...

Where has he stated he'd appoint "severely" conservative judges to the Surpeme Court. Where has he said that Mourdock is the example of the ONLY type of person he'd appoint to the supreme court? At best you can make a suggestion that he MIGHT nominate someone SIMIALR to this...but I'll welcome you to show me a line stating specifically that he'd only nominate individuals "Exactly" like this that are "right wing extremists".

because he has changed positions so much that we don't know what to believe. HARDLY a ringing endorsement for the man...
Click to expand...

I wasn't making a ringing endorsement for the man. I was making a ringing endorsement for how idiotic of an argument you were making and how ridiculous your debating was. The fact you're trying to change the topic from your ineptitude in this discussion and your glaring inconsistencies highlights the strength of said argument.
 
This really just wreaks of the sort of bad faith behavior one sees in forum trolls, only in this case, it's the media just confirming how much they're in the tank for Obama.

There's nothing here to make hay over... there's nothing here to take offense at, nothing to apologize for. Pro-lifer says that life is sacred, news at 11.

The whole thing is just ridiculous. Mass delusion.
 
disneydude said:
Based on his previous statements about the type of people he would appoint and based upon his current statements about abortion....and also based on his complete cowtowing to the radical right-wing of the party. But you are correct about one thing...because Romney flip flops so much it is hard to say exactly what he will do for sure. Which is another reason not to trust him and not to vote for him.
Click to expand...
So for the record you DO believe the innocent unborn child that had the bad fortune to be created by a mother and a rapist should be slaughtered? I wonder...women who DO choose to carry a child that is the product of a rape...do they feel their life is blessed...that the child is a good thing out of a horrible act? Or should they hate it, loathe it, kill it for being evil? So quick to condemn the politician that holds the life of an unborn child to be a blessing...do you find it vile and something be destroyed? Before birth? What about after the birth?
 
Zyphlin said:
Where in the world did I say that?

My argument was that your argument was ridiculous inconsistent...where at one moment you're basically stating as undeniable fact that he's going to put people in the SCOTUS and his cabinet that are "Right Wing extremists" and then at the next moment talking about how he flip flops from being an extreme conservative to a moderate.

Yes, in genreal, I don't think you should take MOST politicians at their word...but that was not the premise of my argument.



Where has he stated he'd appoint "severely" conservative judges to the Surpeme Court. Where has he said that Mourdock is the example of the ONLY type of person he'd appoint to the supreme court? At best you can make a suggestion that he MIGHT nominate someone SIMIALR to this...but I'll welcome you to show me a line stating specifically that he'd only nominate individuals "Exactly" like this that are "right wing extremists".



I wasn't making a ringing endorsement for the man. I was making a ringing endorsement for how idiotic of an argument you were making and how ridiculous your debating was. The fact you're trying to change the topic from your ineptitude in this discussion and your glaring inconsistencies highlights the strength of said argument.
Click to expand...

So which is it then Zyph....should we take Romney at his word? Or do you think he is a flip-flopper with no core principles that we should never trust?
 
VanceMack said:
So for the record you DO believe the innocent unborn child that had the bad fortune to be created by a mother and a rapist should be slaughtered? I wonder...women who DO choose to carry a child that is the product of a rape...do they feel their life is blessed...that the child is a good thing out of a horrible act? Or should they hate it, loathe it, kill it for being evil? So quick to condemn the politician that holds the life of an unborn child to be a blessing...do you find it vile and something be destroyed? Before birth? What about after the birth?
Click to expand...

Neither. It isn't my decision to make. I would leave that decision up to the woman. Period.
 
disneydude said:
Neither. It isn't my decision to make. I would leave that decision up to the woman. Period.
Click to expand...
As would I but thats still a chicken**** response from someone that is critical of another for actually daring to have a belief and cant even bring himself to define his own position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom