Now, I'm a just wandering past here, but I have to say, this argument and many like it that you seem to be making strike me as odd. I don't know who here said that he could do such things, just that the common thought is that he would want to.
And why is that? It should strike you as odd that people should have these kinds of ideas. Its akin to people currently saying that Obama is a Marxist or a Communist.
Not to mention the president is a very powerful position. He might not have the power to regress the world three hundred years and throw us into a new dark age, but that does not mean he would not be immensely harmful to the nation and the world.
This is why there is a clear division of power within the government. This is why congress is there in the first place.
Some other thoughts that crossed my mind:
So yeah, the problem is not about having birth control, it is the effect of having birth control that is creating this illusion of "sexual freedom" for younger women. Combine this with a lack of morals/parenting on both sides and you get a generation of children being raised without knowing what it takes to make a relationship work.
Are you stating here that birth control actually increases the amount of unwanted pregnancies, or are you stating that a society that is hostile to unmarried births is preferable to a society that is accepting? Because for both of these statements you will have to excuse me for asking for sources.
Yes, birth control increases the amount of unwanted pregnancies through simple numbers. By increasing the amount of people wanting to have sex (because its now safe), you are also increasing the chances of "accidents" happening. "Oh, I didn't take the pill." "The condom broke." "The Pill didn't work" (give me proof that it is 100% effective).
Such religious intolerance!
I understand this is your idea of a punchline, but there is no joke. There was no talk of religion in the quoted post, so I can only assume you are having issues reading, it might do you good to look closer at what people say and assume
less.
I suppose it is because I read a little too much into things!
at least give a guy a fair shake. If we disqualified candidates on what they have said before that sounds highly strange, then we'd have literally nobody to elect. Go throughout the history of any candidate and you are likely to find statements that are troubling to some degree, depending on your perspective.
How do you expect anyone to vote for anyone? There is literally no other way to tell what they plan other then by looking at their actions in the past and their words. In both of these Santorum has been in my opinion less then sanitary. Very few leaders have done everyone they have promised, this is true, but it does not mean that you should ignore everything they say. Seriously, what metric do you use? Who do you want to vote for and why?
Currently I am in the "get Barack Obama out of office at all costs" metric. Welcome to politics I suppose.
Seriously though, he would be the best choice to actually follow through on his claims of fiscal responsibility.
Wrong. That is what the media wants you to believe.
Although we all know the big liberal media is always lying to us, do you... Have... Anything at all to back that up?
Fuck, so long as we discount anything that could count as a actual source, let me tell you. Most people I have talked to that do not live in america and dislike america specifically mention Bush as the point where they started disliking america.
[/quote]
Look at the whole media explosion over Sarah Palin being tapped VP wrought. Remember, VP is a pretty useless position, yet the media could just not stop talking negatively about Sarah Palin.
Look at the whole circus that came to town when Barack Obama won the nomination. A candidate whom only had a few years of back-benching in the senate, and prior to that.. what? Community organizing? Yet it was a bad thing that a useless position like VP be filled by Sarah Palin, who had real experience in managing organizations (mayor, senator), yet was somehow less experienced than Barack Obama?
Look at the contrast to when Bush when to war and when Obama to war.
Etc etc. I'll stop there because I don't want to derail this thread (my apologies if I already did!)