Bachman, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Cain ends campaign with no endorsement for Romney. Is this just sour grapes?
bob
2012/05/02 20:40:19
|
|
|||||
|
5 votes
|
|
20% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
8% | ||
|
6 votes
|
|
24% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
8% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
8% | |||
|
8 votes
|
|
32% | |||
voters that Republicans stayed away by the millions and no "insiders" endorsed him. Is
there something to learn from all of this?
Oh, and Ron Paul's supporters are convinced that the nation will suddenly go totally insane and want Ron Paul to be the joke in chief.
http://thecompetentconservati...
“The important thing this election is defeating Barack Obama and I think Mitt Romney is the one to do that” -Michelle Bachmann, April 24, 2012
Santorum
http://www.prnewswire.com/new...
"In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide
more than their party's nominee. They will decide the very future of our
party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built.
Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this
election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the
conservative principles that we hold dear," said Senator Santorum.
"Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues
confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate
that can go into the general election with a united Republican party."
Gingrich
http://politicalwire.com/arch...
Gingrich Endorses Romney
Newt Gingrich will formally suspend his presidential campaign today and "embrace" Mitt Romney today, USA Today reports.
"The two men will make a joint appearance in a few weeks, when Gingrich will make an official endorsement. The Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee have offered to be helpful as Gingrich works to retire his campaign debt."
Perry
http://www.foxnews.co...
http://thecompetentconservati...
“The important thing this election is defeating Barack Obama and I think Mitt Romney is the one to do that” -Michelle Bachmann, April 24, 2012
Santorum
http://www.prnewswire.com/new...
"In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide
more than their party's nominee. They will decide the very future of our
party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built.
Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this
election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the
conservative principles that we hold dear," said Senator Santorum.
"Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues
confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate
that can go into the general election with a united Republican party."
Gingrich
http://politicalwire.com/arch...
Gingrich Endorses Romney
Newt Gingrich will formally suspend his presidential campaign today and "embrace" Mitt Romney today, USA Today reports.
"The two men will make a joint appearance in a few weeks, when Gingrich will make an official endorsement. The Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee have offered to be helpful as Gingrich works to retire his campaign debt."
Perry
http://www.foxnews.com/politi...
Texas Governor Rick Perry, one of Mitt Romney's former rivals for the GOP presidential nomination, has formally endorsed the former Massachusetts governor for president.
Cain
http://dailycaller.com/2012/0...
Speaking on Fox News, Cain said, “The numbers are on Mitt Romney’s side, and yes, I am always saying, I will support whoever the nominee is, and it looks like Mitt Romney’s going to be that nominee, and we do need to get behind him.”
What else don't you know?
Maybe liberals with a conscience, non hyper partisans, will see this and we can move forward with this election year and beyond in a responsible issue driven manner rather than devolving into daily attacks on Romneys faith and background.
As for his economic background? He built his wealth out of taking failing companies that were going to close their doors and making the efficient functional businesses again - saving jobs in the process. He applied that same concept to the Winter Olympics. And he even took the budget of a blue state that was constantly in deficit and turned it toward a surplus.
His whole platform is informed by his religion. You can't be Anti-choice without being a theocrat. Either you support other people's Freedoms or you try to force your religion on them. There's no in-between.
But if you're a person that uses "anti-choice" as a term rather than pro-life/pro-choice then I suspect you're beyond seeing things in an unbiased nature.
Pretty much every issue in life has a big broad grey area in it. With regard to abortion, there is no legal definition of when life begins. If you support human freedoms then what is more inportant? The right to live or the right to privacy? See the big grey line there is when life begins. You've clearly made your choice on that subject. But there is no legal choice in the matter. Its subjective. The result of the issue could be the death of a second innocent life which I would define as quite the oppression of someones rights.
Anyway. Food for thought. Theres a lot of inbetween and the other side of every issue isn't a villain. Its worth taking time out of your day to understand the other side beside branding them with rhetoric and assumption.
As for Romney, he was pro-choice at one point in time in spite of his faith. Try giving this a read: http://www.npr.org/templates/...
In America we have protections against the government establishing ...
But if you're a person that uses "anti-choice" as a term rather than pro-life/pro-choice then I suspect you're beyond seeing things in an unbiased nature.
Pretty much every issue in life has a big broad grey area in it. With regard to abortion, there is no legal definition of when life begins. If you support human freedoms then what is more inportant? The right to live or the right to privacy? See the big grey line there is when life begins. You've clearly made your choice on that subject. But there is no legal choice in the matter. Its subjective. The result of the issue could be the death of a second innocent life which I would define as quite the oppression of someones rights.
Anyway. Food for thought. Theres a lot of inbetween and the other side of every issue isn't a villain. Its worth taking time out of your day to understand the other side beside branding them with rhetoric and assumption.
As for Romney, he was pro-choice at one point in time in spite of his faith. Try giving this a read: http://www.npr.org/templates/...
In America we have protections against the government establishing one faith as supreme to all others as we also have protections against the government forcing us to go against out faith. But that doesn't say anything about legislating based on morality in general. And morality is fed by a number of sources from the various religions to personal experience (which fed Romneys early view on abortion) to theories on humanism. While laws can't be passed to make America a "Catholic" nation that doesn't mean voters can't make choices on candidates and laws based on their own moral compass. You may want to keep that in mind.
While I do not personally consider abortion to be the best option to most unwanted pregnancies, I do not think anyone has the right to make that decision but the person it directly affects. This is why I frame the issue as pro-choice/anti-choice. To me it is not about life, but about liberty. Human life is not inherently valuable. The only argument that can be made in favor of human life is that humans have a slightly more complex brain than other mammals and therefore out psychological ability to suffer is arguably greater than other animals.
But getting back to the issue of abortion, let me pose a hypothetical question. If, one night while you slept, someone hooked a child up to you in such a way that your digestive and respiratory systems were linked. Severing the connection would result in the child's death. You were then expected to support this child for 9 months, taking them everywhere with you and ensuring you maintained your diet for their sake. At the end of the nine months you would undergoe an operation of removal, but you were told the physical pain would be excruciating i you waited that long. Would you go the 9 months? I'm guessing your answer is yes, but do you see how this would be a difficult choice that not everyone could make?
This is a complex issue with valid points on both sides and both sides deserve the respect to be labeled as they see fit. Despite my opinion I'd never define the other side as pro-murder or pro-death.
We clearly have a wildly different view on humanity and its value. Life is the most important thing, without it there is no thought and no society and no progression. Life is our most precious human resource.
Of course I'd say yes. And I'd also thats a distinctly male and vitually inhuman strawman you set up. Considering the vast majority of woman, at least in America, have control both of their bodies and the biological consequences of their choices, its a lot different than just randomly having something strapped to you. Not to mention its a growth process that contains an emotional element as well as a DNA connection.
And if you have the believe of life beginning earlier rather than later the inconvenience and discomfort aren't grounds for killing another person.
My fundamental baseline is that progressive humanity should protect and respect human life rather than washing its hands of the issue.
As far as the value of human life, we'll have to agree to disagree. People die every day. Many fetuses naturally die prior to birth. Although I believe morality should be evaluated as a system of minimizing the physical and psychological suffering of sentient creatures, i do not think there is anything inherently special about human life as opposed to the lives of other mammals. As I said, aside from some arguable psychological advancements, humans are animals. I would avoid the death of humans and animals if at all possible, but death is natural.
As far as the point at which life begins, I would have to qualify that as human life. I frequently kill insects and spiders with malice and think nothing of this because their nervous systems are so rudimentary that I consider my own psychological discomfort more valuable than their physical well-being. Perhaps in the future i wull come to accept that this assumption is wrong and truly immoral, but I digress. I would consider a fetus to be developed enough for human status after the first trimester (3 months) which I believe is also the end of the timeframe for legal abortion. I say this because up until this point the fetus lacks higher brain functions.
It may not have been intentional but that was a strawman. It would be no different if I said imagine you were defenseless and on life support for 9 months time and even though you'd be alive and perfectly fine after 9 months one person got to decide if you lived or died.
Its full of holes, false assumptions and over simplifications.
People die every day doesn't mean that its ok to randomly and artificially cull the lives of x amount of people because they are a detriment or in the way or annoying. Neither does natural death of one person excuse the unnatural death of another.
You have a fatalistic view of humanity. We are vastly different from other mammals in our intellect and self awareness. If we were like other mammals we'd be incapable of having this philosophical discussion both due to lack of the ability to think and to innovate the technology to communicate as we are. We have the ability to quickly and vastly affect the planet we live on as well as moving eventually beyond where we are now. We're so clearly not animals.
The difference between a bug and a baby is simple to understand in its potential. A bug will never be more than what it is. A fetus eventually becomes what yo...
It may not have been intentional but that was a strawman. It would be no different if I said imagine you were defenseless and on life support for 9 months time and even though you'd be alive and perfectly fine after 9 months one person got to decide if you lived or died.
Its full of holes, false assumptions and over simplifications.
People die every day doesn't mean that its ok to randomly and artificially cull the lives of x amount of people because they are a detriment or in the way or annoying. Neither does natural death of one person excuse the unnatural death of another.
You have a fatalistic view of humanity. We are vastly different from other mammals in our intellect and self awareness. If we were like other mammals we'd be incapable of having this philosophical discussion both due to lack of the ability to think and to innovate the technology to communicate as we are. We have the ability to quickly and vastly affect the planet we live on as well as moving eventually beyond where we are now. We're so clearly not animals.
The difference between a bug and a baby is simple to understand in its potential. A bug will never be more than what it is. A fetus eventually becomes what you are now sitting wherever you are. But to continue on, its good that you have an opinion as to when life begins. Its my opinion that the definition of life is a human and not a gender based question. As a culture, as a society we need to have that discussion and come to a conclusion. Anything else is a waste of our ability and an undermining of the society we're trying to progress in.