Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

189111314137

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Valmont wrote: »
    And Robindch still hasn't finished an Ayn Rand novel. :D

    Given that acts of exceptional patience are usually the preserve of saints, I'm not sure why you're so surprised.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Rick Santorum on Sunday took on separation of church and state.

    "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told 'This Week' host George Stephanopoulos. "The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."

    The GOP candidate was responding to comments he made last October. He had said that he "almost threw up" after reading JFK's 1960 speech in which he declared his commitment to the separation of church and state.

    Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

    The GOP candidate has been doubling down on religious rhetoric in an effort to court evangelical voters ahead of Super Tuesday. Last week, he questioned Obama's spiritual beliefs.

    "[Obama believes in] some phony ideal, some phony theology ... not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology," he said.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/santorum-church-and-state_n_1302246.html

    This guy makes me want to puke!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    Interestingly in terms of foreign policy Ron Paul is easily the best candidate for the Republicans and is better than Obama.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    :pac:



    A snob that want EVERYONE to go to college...

    entrepreneur-1.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    RichieC wrote: »
    :pac:

    entrepreneur-1.jpg

    I read the caption in HIS voice. Impossible not to. :D


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    He's the presidential fruitcake that keeps on giving.

    Here's Santorum speaking to an, er, overflow crowd in the town of ... wait for it ... Cumming.

    http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=245894


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    The GOP candidate was responding to comments he made last October. He had said that he "almost threw up" after reading JFK's 1960 speech in which he declared his commitment to the separation of church and state.
    Ironic really that JFK had to say such things because the Baptists and other nutters with whom Santorum is so cosy were unlikely to vote for a Catholic at that time.

    Some old-school fractures in the unity of the Christian denominations in the US actually look appealing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    This should be the Album cover of this thread:

    15vwv9.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    There's is a difference between not condoning something and actually taking physical steps to prevent it.

    Imagine the many thousands of unemployed ex-US military combined with major weapons suppliers whose main employer/buyer has downscaled and it's not so ludicrous to see how these might come together.

    I have many many problems with libertarianism but I'll try limit my reservations to those with relevance to the A&A forum. It might preach tolerance and freedom of expression but the flip-side of these freedoms is it permits bigotry, hatred and segregation to spread.

    It's not a stretch of imagination to imagine schools, clubs, shops, communities, etc refusing to teach/deal with/permit/etc people based on their religion (or lack of). No amount of toothless condemnation from a libertarian federal government will change things at a local level.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC




  • Registered Users Posts: 5 horses4courses


    God didn't say anything.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    BQR5E.png


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    If a doctor in a private hospital does not want to treat a black man on his death bed - is that ok too? Afterall, it's a private business.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,734 ✭✭✭Newaglish


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Yes. Private business owners should not be allowed to discriminate for any reason.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    Newaglish wrote: »
    Yes. Private business owners should not be allowed to discriminate for any reason.
    There was a case in England recently of a guesthouse owned by a pair of christian fundies who barred a gay couple from staying there. The courts found against the guest-house owners and rightly so imo.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    And you don't see a problem with a man dying, because he is black? You feel that it's worth the personal freedom that goes along with it?
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    If it is part of his job duties, then no - it's not ok with me. He will have to seek employment in a different area of healthcare which doesn't involve abortions.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    It wasn't the government lynching blacks wearing hoods, or out screaming their heads off and rioting when a black kid dared to go to school. it was the people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    4stoo.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16 Naughtius Maximus


    RichieC wrote: »
    4stoo.jpg

    Did he actually say that? Apparently a good few hardcore religous nuts support him for his "states rights" stances; the idea being a state can tell yuo what to do and the federal government can't tell the states what to do.
    Sometimes I admire his consistency but then you thinkto yourself what is someone who is suppsoedly a libertarian doing in the republican party.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    This post had been deleted.
    Permabear wrote: »
    Provided that his decision is consistent with his contractual obligations to the hospital, then yes, of course it's okay. (If a Catholic doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion, is that okay with you?)

    AFAIK doctors and nurses are supposed to be unbiased and treat all the sick accordingly. Be they black, white, catholic, muslim, criminals or whatever.

    They are not there to judge.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,553 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    BQR5E.png
    As much as most of what he says grates with me, I've seen that interview and that banner is somewhat disingenuous. He believes all life is a "gift from God", regardless of the circumstances. Not for you or me - but that's his bag.

    *washes fingers*


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Dades wrote: »
    As much as most of what he says grates with me, I've seen that interview and that banner is somewhat disingenuous. He believes all life is a "gift from God", regardless of the circumstances. Not for you or me - but that's his bag.

    *washes fingers*

    I concur. There are plenty of things I don't like about the guy without having to take stuff he said way out of context.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Painting this as a situation in which it was all the governments fault &
    that it was enshrined legislatively in the south is mightily dishonest:
    Truman could have issued executive orders in other areas, but did not.
    The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, plus the set of laws passed
    in the late 1860s and early 1870s, gave the President enough authority
    to wipe out racial discrimination. The Constitution demanded that the
    President execute the laws, but no President had used that power.
    Neither did Truman. For instance, he asked Congress for legislation
    "prohibiting discrimination in interstate transportation facilities"; but
    specific legislation in 1887 already barred discrimination in interstate
    transportation and had never been enforced by executive action.
    Meanwhile, the Supreme Court was taking steps-ninety years after the
    Constitution had been amended to establish racial equality-to move
    toward that end. During the war it ruled that the "white primary" used to
    exclude blacks from voting in the Democratic party primaries- which in
    the South were really the elections-was unconstitutional.

    In 1954, the Court finally struck down the "separate but equal" doctrine
    that it had defended since the 1890s. The NAACP brought a series of
    cases before the Court to challenge segregation in the public schools,
    and now in Brown v. Board of Education the Court said the separation of
    schoolchildren "generates a feeling of inferiority .. . that may affect their
    hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." In the field of
    public education, it said, "the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no
    place." The Court did not insist on immediate change: a year later it said
    that segregated facilities should he integrated "with all deliberate speed."
    By 1965, ten years after the "all deliberate speed" guideline, more than
    75 percent of the school districts in the South remained segregated.
    Ch. 9, Zinn - A People's History of the United States
    There were plenty of laws pointing in both directions & the people of
    their own free will hardly moved to change things for the better towards
    the people they were oppressing. The people went out of their way to
    ignore legislative clauses both on a local & constitutional level to indulge
    in what was commonly accepted in their day. Again, painting this as an
    idyllic situation that was all the fault of the government is mightily
    dishonest.
    Permabear wrote: »
    He wouldn't be dying because he is black; he'd be dying because he somehow wound up in a highly contrived hypothetical situation in which the hospital had only only doctor on duty, who had no contractual obligations to treat black patients, and who exercised a free choice not to treat this particular patient.

    An atheist in the bible belt would be a more realistic situation then, & notice
    that this situation only seems contrived today, 100 years ago it most
    certainly wasn't contrived or unbelievable by any means. Also I think you
    get the general point being made, it still stands to highlight the sheer
    insanity you're arguing for. Furthermore it would be irreversible if what
    you are arguing for were to be enacted in reality.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    legspin wrote: »
    There was a case in England recently of a guesthouse owned by a pair of christian fundies who barred a gay couple from staying there. The courts found against the guest-house owners and rightly so imo.

    This case is not quite that simple. The couple had a policy that only married couples could share a double bed. They are perfectly entitled to have this policy and to enforce it. The problem they had was the courts decided that, for the purposes of this couple's rule, a civil partnership was equivalent to marriage. The discrimination in this case was not considering civil partnership as equal to marriage.

    Assuming that the rule would be applied to heterosexual non-married couples (it apparently was but the NSS say that they sent an unmarried hetro couple who shared a double bed) then there is nothing illegal about their policy.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Utter guff, and I think you know it.


Advertisement