Possible rhetorical question, but... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Fightdirecto -> Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 1:18:25 PM)

Almost every GOP presidential candidate says they want "smaller government" and "less government intrusion" -

BUT -

At least one GOP presidential candidate (Santorum) wants to overturn the SCOTUS ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut and ban all forms of contraception - even those forms used by married hetrosexual couples.

How can you make sure married hetrosexual couples aren't using any form of contraception (other than the "rhythm method") without government intrusion into a married hetrosexual couple's home/bedroom?

And, if you allow the police to enter married hetrosexual couples' homes to make sure that married hetrosexual couples are not using contraceptives, would it not follow that you would also allow the police to enter married hetrosexual couples' homes to make sure that married hetrosexual couples are not using floggers/handcuffs/a St. Andrew's Cross/etc.?

How can you reconcile "smaller government" and "less government intrusion" with a federal ban on all forms of contraception, enforced by the local/state/federal police?



truckinslave -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 1:28:44 PM)

So wrong so many ways.

Santorum has never indicated that he wants to outlaw contraception. Period.

The idea that Griswold was wrongly decided not because it involved contraception but because it expanded federal powers may be beyond you.



erieangel -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 3:46:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

So wrong so many ways.

Santorum has never indicated that he wants to outlaw contraception. Period.

The idea that Griswold was wrongly decided not because it involved contraception but because it expanded federal powers may be beyond you.


Griswold did not expand federal powers over the state, what it did was expand PERSONAL powers over the intrusion of the state.




Owner59 -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 3:50:57 PM)

Free the heavy hands of government from keeping businesses from ripping us off or ruining our water/air/soil only to place them in our bedrooms and in our personal lives.[X(]



kalikshama -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 4:21:57 PM)

Santorum: States Should Have The Right To Outlaw Birth Control

Rick Santorum reiterated his belief that states should have the right to outlaw contraception during an interview with ABC News yesterday, saying, “The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.” Watch the Jake Tapper interview:

video

Santorum has long opposed the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling “that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception” and has also pledged to completely defund federal funding for contraception if elected president. As he told CaffeinatedThoughts.com editor Shane Vander Hart in October, “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

But an overwhelming majority of Americans — virtually all women (more than 99 percent ) aged 15–44 have used at least one contraceptive method — rely on contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancies and limit the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. In fact, the Guttmacher Institute estimates that contraceptive services provided at publicly funded clinics helped prevent almost two million unintended pregnancies. Without funding from Medicaid and Title X, “abortions occurring in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher among women overall and among teens; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.”



tazzygirl -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 4:23:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

So wrong so many ways.

Santorum has never indicated that he wants to outlaw contraception. Period.

The idea that Griswold was wrongly decided not because it involved contraception but because it expanded federal powers may be beyond you.


The federal government prevented states from exercising their religious views upon women by not allowing the state to determine if a woman can have a safe form of birth control.



Lucylastic -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 5:19:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Santorum: States Should Have The Right To Outlaw Birth Control

Rick Santorum reiterated his belief that states should have the right to outlaw contraception during an interview with ABC News yesterday, saying, “The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.” Watch the Jake Tapper interview:

video

Santorum has long opposed the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling “that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception” and has also pledged to completely defund federal funding for contraception if elected president. As he told CaffeinatedThoughts.com editor Shane Vander Hart in October, “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

But an overwhelming majority of Americans — virtually all women (more than 99 percent ) aged 15–44 have used at least one contraceptive method — rely on contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancies and limit the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. In fact, the Guttmacher Institute estimates that contraceptive services provided at publicly funded clinics helped prevent almost two million unintended pregnancies. Without funding from Medicaid and Title X, “abortions occurring in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher among women overall and among teens; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.”

I couldnt say anything .... nice, so I left the troll dangling.
Thankyou ladies (Kali and Tazzy) for doing it nicely:)[;)][;)][;)][;)]



Notsweet -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 5:29:11 PM)

Although it's true that the citizens of each state should decide what they want for themselves, and not the federal government, Santorum is still a fucking nightmare. His ideas regarding social conservativism make me scream. And people assume that what comes out of his crazy face is what all conservatives think. I cringe whenever I see him.
But the one thing he's right about--and maybe this a bit of the anarchist in me--the states have GOT to make their own choices, and not have the federal government sucking money out of them, then giving it back and telling them what to do with it. What Congress knows about the needs of any one state could dance on the head of a pin.

Thing about power going to Washington...it doesn't come back where we can see and decide on it locally. But that's where we have to live with it.



tazzygirl -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 5:41:28 PM)

Some states give... others get from the Federal Government. 32 get more than thy give

New Mexico  $2.03  1 
Mississippi $2.02  2 
Alaska  $1.84  3 
Louisiana $1.78  4 
West Virginia  $1.76  5 
North Dakota  $1.68  6 
Alabama  $1.66  7 
South Dakota  $1.53  8 
Kentucky  $1.51  9 
Virginia  $1.51  10 
Montana  $1.47  11 
Hawaii $1.44  12 
Maine  $1.41  13 
Arkansas  $1.41  14 
Oklahoma  $1.36  15 
South Carolina  $1.35  16 
Missouri $1.32  17 
Maryland $1.30  18 
Tennessee $1.27  19 
Idaho  $1.21  20 
Arizona $1.19  21 
Kansas  $1.12  22 
Wyoming  $1.11  23 
Iowa  $1.10  24 
Nebraska  $1.10  25 
Vermont  $1.08  26 
North Carolina  $1.08  27 
Pennsylvania  $1.07  28 
Utah  $1.07  29 
Indiana  $1.05  30 
Ohio  $1.05  31 
Georgia  $1.01  32 
Rhode Island $1.00  33

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.pdf



Lucylastic -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 6:00:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Notsweet

Although it's true that the citizens of each state should decide what they want for themselves, and not the federal government, Santorum is still a fucking nightmare. His ideas regarding social conservativism make me scream. And people assume that what comes out of his crazy face is what all conservatives think. I cringe whenever I see him.
But the one thing he's right about--and maybe this a bit of the anarchist in me--the states have GOT to make their own choices, and not have the federal government sucking money out of them, then giving it back and telling them what to do with it. What Congress knows about the needs of any one state could dance on the head of a pin.

Thing about power going to Washington...it doesn't come back where we can see and decide on it locally. But that's where we have to live with it.

making the assumption that we cannot tell the difference between santorum, perry, cain, romney, Paul, bachmann or any republican/conservative/rightie. is insulting, but I guess thats ok huh



tazzygirl -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 6:02:49 PM)

The only one that has any true potential is Paul, imo... and even that is scary. Its not that he doesnt have great ideas... he does. He also has some that are so whacked out that the good cant outweigh them.



Lucylastic -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 6:21:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The only one that has any true potential is Paul, imo... and even that is scary. Its not that he doesnt have great ideas... he does. He also has some that are so whacked out that the good cant outweigh them.

I dislike many many of his views, however, having watched 90 % of the debates and done a lot of background research, he has some excellent ideas. but I couldnt vote for him EVER
but then I feel the same way about all of the candidates.
I liked Huntsman too, but again on deal breakers i have I couldnt vote for him either.



truckinslave -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 8:04:51 PM)

quote:

Griswold did not expand federal powers over the state, what it did was expand PERSONAL powers over the intrusion of the state.


Griswold first created the "right to privacy" and then used the power of the federal gummint to force the states to respect it.
Yeah, that's not an expansion of federal powers.
If they created the requirement to go about in public armed with a firearm, that would be an expansion of personal power.



truckinslave -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 8:08:02 PM)

quote:

Rick Santorum reiterated his belief that states should have the right to outlaw contraception


Your quote is correct (and so is Santorum).
The OP is wrong.
Santorum has never said that he "wants to... ban all forms of contraception".



tazzygirl -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 8:51:57 PM)

Which form does he want to ban? You forget he is a strict Catholic. Any form, other than rhythm and withdrawal, are forbidden.



Lucylastic -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 9:50:29 PM)

He stated that in a video...
I am not a believer in birth control artificial birth control , being able to do what you wanna do without having any responsibility.
He also stated, its harmful to women, its harmful to the country, etc etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo

so you are right, he didnt state he wanted to ban all forms, hes fine with the "natural ones"



rambling thought before bed
Id love to see how long that lasted if women sued every time they got pregnant by accident
of course with my plan , it wouldnt be an issue.



tazzygirl -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 9:51:53 PM)

But, of course, it was perfectly fine for him to consider abortion when his wife's life was in questionable risk



Notsweet -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 9:55:21 PM)

I'm sorry--what?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Notsweet

Although it's true that the citizens of each state should decide what they want for themselves, and not the federal government, Santorum is still a fucking nightmare. His ideas regarding social conservativism make me scream. And people assume that what comes out of his crazy face is what all conservatives think. I cringe whenever I see him.
But the one thing he's right about--and maybe this a bit of the anarchist in me--the states have GOT to make their own choices, and not have the federal government sucking money out of them, then giving it back and telling them what to do with it. What Congress knows about the needs of any one state could dance on the head of a pin.

Thing about power going to Washington...it doesn't come back where we can see and decide on it locally. But that's where we have to live with it.

making the assumption that we cannot tell the difference between santorum, perry, cain, romney, Paul, bachmann or any republican/conservative/rightie. is insulting, but I guess thats ok huh



tazzygirl -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 9:58:15 PM)

And people assume that what comes out of his crazy face is what all conservatives think.

Lucy's response...

making the assumption that we cannot tell the difference between santorum, perry, cain, romney, Paul, bachmann or any republican/conservative/rightie. is insulting, but I guess thats ok huh



Notsweet -> RE: Possible rhetorical question, but... (1/14/2012 10:08:08 PM)

Oh, so you're saying that that IS what all conservatives think.
I see.
What am I thinking now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And people assume that what comes out of his crazy face is what all conservatives think.

Lucy's response...

making the assumption that we cannot tell the difference between santorum, perry, cain, romney, Paul, bachmann or any republican/conservative/rightie. is insulting, but I guess thats ok huh



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.699707E-02