Mitt Romney: unelectable?

[nursebenjamin]

Does Mitt Romney's flavor of Christianity make him unelectable to the office of President?

[dianaiad]

Now as to your stance here....It wasn't all THAT long ago that having HUBBY see the baby born was 'simply not done.' As in...gaspingly 'you did WHAT???" in terms of western culture. In fact, it was quite a new thing when my own husband saw my oldest child born; and the hospital had some pretty strict rules about it. As well, the assumption was, as it had been for many years up to that point, that mamma was going to bottle feed. The battle I had with the establishment regarding THAT one was pretty epic.

Culture changes, and what people see as outrageous ALSO changes.

Agreed. I'm talking about culture here and now of course.

As for me, I think that making small children dress up and go to a funeral for several hours and wonder why everybody was acting funny about a small box in the front of the room--with absolutely no explanation of who was IN that small box...expected to stay quiet, polite, and understand the really strange ceremonial aspects of burying dead babies; THAT'S outrageous.

Agreed, long burial ceremonies don't make much sense anyway in my opinion.

For millenia people have been using different ways of saying goodbye to their loved ones; the way they treat their dead reflects upon their culture, and their own personal beliefs.

Agree, though we are talking about here and now and not about millenia.

What happened here with the Santorums was their way of dealing with a very sad, very real, family tragedy--and you, sir, have absolutely no right to judge their actions.

Actually ... I do when it is the same guy who wants to become the President of the United States and ban contraceptives. Also, where is your lovely free speech guaranteed by the Constitution?

Exactly where it should be. You will notice that I'm exercising that particular right, right now.

Where you went over the line is in declaring that someone who behaves in a way you do not approve of doesn't have the right to BECOME President.

These are PEOPLE. Not lab animals, and that baby was a human child, not a failed experiment.

If those people knew about the most likely outcome of the pregnancy from the doctors and still decided not to terminate the pregnancy, then it is precisely a failed experiment. The experiment was originally preset to fail and still parents proceeded on it and ultimately hurt the child as well as their own mental health.

I see....

You have a perception of human beings that I can neither understand nor share. Having a child is NOT an experiment, 'failed' or not. If I were in the shoes of those parents, I would have made the same decision regarding the pregnancy.

In fact, I DID make a very similar one. The result is a very healthy 6'6" Truck driver who listens to Plato in Greek while he drives.

In other words, you are, I firmly believe, way out of line here.

Go vote for it in another thread please, so I can have some better understanding of where I am on this issue.

....and where is your respect for free speech? YOU are the one who brought this issue up in this thread.

However, the vituperative nature of your opinion, and the reactions to it, are a bit overwhelming. (shrug)

I think I will content myself with the belief that you are way out on an extremist limb here with your opinions, and leave it at that.

[JohnPaul]

100%atheist wrote:

Actually ... I do when it is the same guy who wants to become the President of the United States and ban contraceptives. Also, where is your lovely free speech guaranteed by the Constitution?

If you had said at the beginning that you opposed Santorum because of his stand that states should have the right to ban contraception, I would have agreed with you 100 percent. Instead, you went off on a completely irrelevant and false tangent.

I will agree that the 1st Amendment gives you the right of free speech if you will agree that the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a gun. Even with these Constitutional rights, you can't tell malicious lies about people and I can't shoot you for doing it.

John

[100%atheist]

Where you went over the line is in declaring that someone who behaves in a way you do not approve of doesn't have the right to BECOME President.

First, is is not 'someone'.
And second, where did I exactly declare that? About someone having no right to become President if I disagree with him? Maybe I am dumb, but not THAT dumb.

These are PEOPLE. Not lab animals, and that baby was a human child, not a failed experiment.

If those people knew about the most likely outcome of the pregnancy from the doctors and still decided not to terminate the pregnancy, then it is precisely a failed experiment. The experiment was originally preset to fail and still parents proceeded on it and ultimately hurt the child as well as their own mental health.

I see....

You have a perception of human beings that I can neither understand nor share. Having a child is NOT an experiment, 'failed' or not. If I were in the shoes of those parents, I would have made the same decision regarding the pregnancy.

But they didn't really have a child... well maybe for a couple hours. They just hurt everyone with their failed pregnancy. Look, genetic deceases have been discovered long after invention of Christianity, so is illogical to believe that God is aware of them and can miraculously intervene. The chances that the pregnancy would go well and the baby will survive the infancy are essentially none in such cases.

In fact, I DID make a very similar one. The result is a very healthy 6'6" Truck driver who listens to Plato in Greek while he drives.

Congratulations! Something tells me that is wasn't a VERY similar one.

In other words, you are, I firmly believe, way out of line here.

Go vote for it in another thread please, so I can have some better understanding of where I am on this issue.

....and where is your respect for free speech? YOU are the one who brought this issue up in this thread.

However, the vituperative nature of your opinion, and the reactions to it, are a bit overwhelming. (shrug)

I think I will content myself with the belief that you are way out on an extremist limb here with your opinions, and leave it at that.

I really can't see where is my extremism on this issue. ... and what is has against respect for free speech? I offer you and everyone to control my opinion that you can change if a good majority of people will say that 'no, what Rick did isn't weird' and that my 'normal' is way off. You are one of such people, perhaps JohnPaul. Let's vote and see if it is just a matter of opinion or a matter of someone's weird perception of morals. It can be mine and I will accept it. Where is extremism? Can you take back your extremism charge please? Thank you.

[100%atheist]

100%atheist wrote:

Actually ... I do when it is the same guy who wants to become the President of the United States and ban contraceptives. Also, where is your lovely free speech guaranteed by the Constitution?

If you had said at the beginning that you opposed Santorum because of his stand that states should have the right to ban contraception, I would have agreed with you 100 percent. Instead, you went off on a completely irrelevant and false tangent.

Except for my admitted over-the-top necrophilia accusation, I don't really see why is it irrelevant and false? If Rick Santorum believes that this is how people should deal with their dead babies, I rightfully want to know why would I do it. I don't know, maybe it will improve my Karma or what? Why is it so outrageous to discuss it while it was absolutely fine to publicize it??? If you don't want people to discuss your private life then shut your mouth about it. They didn't, so what is so outrageous about discussing it??? I am really lost on this.

Also, if you are an elected official or a candidate, then by law you don't have the same privacy protection as a regular citizen.

I will agree that the 1st Amendment gives you the right of free speech if you will agree that the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a gun. Even with these Constitutional rights, you can't tell malicious lies about people and I can't shoot you for doing it.

John

If it were up to me, you could own a whole tank, and I guess you actually can. Just please don't drive it in my front yard on an early morning, or I'll own a Bazooka. Seriously, if there are groups aimed to outlaw all ownership of guns right away, I am not with them. On another note, I find that your stance on 1st/2nd Amendments sounds like you will let me speak if I let you shoot me, but probably you didn't mean it... but the rest of it sounds like a direct physical intimidation deserving a report to moderators....
Would you please clarify your self.
Thank you.

[JohnPaul]

100%atheist wrote:

Actually ... I do when it is the same guy who wants to become the President of the United States and ban contraceptives. Also, where is your lovely free speech guaranteed by the Constitution?

If you had said at the beginning that you opposed Santorum because of his stand that states should have the right to ban contraception, I would have agreed with you 100 percent. Instead, you went off on a completely irrelevant and false tangent.

Except for my admitted over-the-top necrophilia accusation, I don't really see why is it irrelevant and false? If Rick Santorum believes that this is how people should deal with their dead babies, I rightfully want to know why would I do it. I don't know, maybe it will improve my Karma or what? Why is it so outrageous to discuss it while it was absolutely fine to publicize it??? If you don't want people to discuss your private life then shut your mouth about it. They didn't, so what is so outrageous about discussing it??? I am really lost on this.

Also, if you are an elected official or a candidate, then by law you don't have the same privacy protection as a regular citizen.

I will agree that the 1st Amendment gives you the right of free speech if you will agree that the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a gun. Even with these Constitutional rights, you can't tell malicious lies about people and I can't shoot you for doing it.

John

If it were up to me, you could own a whole tank, and I guess you actually can. Just please don't drive it in my front yard on an early morning, or I'll own a Bazooka. Seriously, if there are groups aimed to outlaw all ownership of guns right away, I am not with them. On another note, I find that your stance on 1st/2nd Amendments sounds like you will let me speak if I let you shoot me, but probably you didn't mean it... but the rest of it sounds like a direct physical intimidation deserving a report to moderators....
Would you please clarify your self.
Thank you.

I think the wording of my comparison of the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights made it very clear that it was intended to show that there were limits on both rights. You can't use the 1st Amendment to tell slanderous lies and I can't use my gun to shoot people except in clear and direct self-defense.

John