twinimini: Didnt mean to point the finger on you regarding anti-gay and bibles - sorry if it seemed like that. I dont believe in the govt telling everyone what to do, think and feel, but in some cases, like these, I think it should be a sound and reasonable decision. Equal rights should be for everyone, 100%. There should be no exceptions. A yes or no on this(same sex marriage) might not be the most "urgent" thing, but its something that is really important, to a fairly large group of people in the US. It has an effect on their lives, just as, just looking from the other angle(for the "fun" of it), it would be if someone wanted to ban the right to marry your loved one due to skin color, heterosexuality etc. Back home(Sweden), our govt wanted to skip a referendum regarding Sweden accepting the Euro as our new currency. This govt is a coalition, consisting of right-wing(not extreme) capitalists, the Central party(they always act like a scale-tipper) and the Christian Democrats. Their proposition was declared "illegal" as it was a decision that would impact on 100% of the population. People still vote "no" on the Euro... I would NEVER agree that the govt(regarding left, right or middle) should decide everything, but in some cases, common sense such as equal rights, should not be decided by popular vote. Religion should ALWAYS be left out of politics, as it has a highly emotional effect on people. We are past old values. Heck, stoning is mentioned in the bible - would it be ok for the Swedes or Americans do start doing that? The slavery thing was only to show when a popular vote could and most certainly will have a devastating impact on a group of people that already have/are being pushed down. Sorry if its all very fuzzy on my behalf - having trouble finding English words for all I want to say, haha. Im trying to separate direct-impact decisions from decisions that will further alienate a group of people. So, we DEF agree on the fact that Govt should NOT decide on everything. Let me know if there is something that sounds suspiciously "weird" and Ill try to sort it out. Ps. Never meant to target you in any way, honestly. I cant do that to people I dont know, and I certainly dont judge people over the Internet. Next time you are in town, we should have a beer or two and THEN we can start judging, hehe.
Popping in momentarily. Seems most of the discussion with regard to Santorum's candidacy is focused upon his opinion on sexual issues especially as how it was formed by his religious beliefs. However, his poll numbers (fluctuating all the time) reflect popularity based on the prevailing concerns of the general public. Perhaps--as I note an above comment--the country at large has other things to worry about? In this case, it's about the economy, jobs, debt and deficit. Am still mainly a spectator, but I got out of lurkabout to put in my two cents: Priorities - PollingReport.com www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
When it comes to fundamental human rights, it isn't about the government telling us what we have to believe, or telling us how we have to live; it's about the government protecting its citizens from those who would want to do just that, if given the chance. This role of government is not inherent in democracy, and was not even included in the U.S. Constitution itself (which, after all, is an ancient document); it had to be added, by amendment, in most cases. Examples of this would include such now commonplace things as the notions of equal protection of the law, freedom for the slave population, and women's emancipation. For the first one-hundred and forty years of U.S. history, women were not recognized by law to be equal to men in their right to participate in voting for their leaders, and this represented the will of the people, but that didn't make it right. That's true, twini, but not when the will of the people is to oppress part of the citizenry of the country.
May have been true, up to some point; but, the most recent polling suggests polarization around "conservative" issues (as that term has come to be used in our times), whether economic or social, to such a degree that more than half of Republican voters now don't rank "being able to beat Obama" as being as important as ideological purity. Santorum himself, as much as anyone, has had a hand in forcing the Republican Party into that very uncomfortable corner, at this stage of the primary process, by appealing to those many who cannot get excited about Romney, or Gingrich, or Paul, with strong pronouncements on contraception, working women, and school funding, among others. In doing so, he moves himself further and further from a position of being able to appeal to the independent voters, and helps draw lines of distinction that will be hard to erase come the general election. None of this is good news for those, like twini, who have professed a strong Desire to see Obama replaced.
Source regarding Republican opinion on who is more electable vs. Obama could be found here: Santorum Expands Lead, but Romney Gets Electability Vote The general mood among right-leaning voters is to "get the bum out" regardless of who is their horse. So depending on whom is nominated, independents will be faced with enabling either right-wing social/fiscal activism vs. liberal social/fiscal activism. Have seen a lot of this these past four years from both sides... in the national elections, what will be the outcome of this dilemma?
I think the thing that is revealed in the poll is that, in spite of their belief that Romney is the "more electable" candidate, they still favor Santorum for his stands on social issues. Reports in the news today indicate that Santorum has stated he is now going to start talking exclusively about economic issues, though it's clear from his past speeches, and books written, that his heart is in the other. I spoke earlier about a need to start asking ourselves what kind of voters we have become, rather than what kind of candidates are we being offered, and I wonder if we aren't all guilty, to a degree, of having become "single interest" voters. Take the "throw the bum out" motive, for example: isn't that too just a way of reducing our considerations to a single one? Or, saying we are willing to accept any quality or type of candidate, so long as he is committed to reducing both taxes and the size and scope of federal government programs, isn't that just another form of a "single interest"? Each and every single interest voter is so because they have decided their choice of single interest is the overriding concern, and trumps all else. This strikes me as a bad way to approach who we will vote for, regardless of what we decide is our single interest, so important and complex is the job of president.
rdubnpk And Santorum has continued with the social commentary by citing Obama's "non-Christian" agenda of, through Obamacare, allowing women to abort fetuses that may have Down's Syndrome or other medical disabilities. This is probably the most controversial of all the issues that face Americans. It is easy to see the arguements on both sides. But, when it comes down to it, a women's body is her own. Neither the government, the Church, nor Joe Conservative have the right to decide for that woman whether she will or will not give birth. If you believe in the rights of individual American's to live their own lives and make their own decisions, I don't see any other way to look at it.
I dont buy its the womens body argument at all. By that same argument I should be able to kill one of my kids because they are mine. The fact is abortion is a grisly, nasty, barbaric practice that is tantamount to murder IMO. And sadly its also used as a form of birth control for many. However, I might support abortion in extreme cases, IE rape, severely deformed, etc and I don't use it as a litmus test when picking candidates.
