[natehale1971]

And finally, this is an education matter, not a political one. So why in the hell is the party that wants to keep government limited, putting there nose in something they are obviously unqualified for?

How about the fact that there are schools and judges who are throwing children and teachers out of school for praying over their meals, or brining a bible to school to read?


That's not true for all of the candidates. When asked if abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, Bachmann responded that she is "100 per cent pro-life". Herman Cain is also pro-life. He has repeatedly stated that life begins at conception, and that if he was elected President, he would sign legislation to protect the sanctity of life. But again, my point is that party who wants to (by your words) govern the least and have limited powers is once again telling people what to do or not do.

And as I stated, the Party does not want to outlaw abortion. That was what you said. Not that people are pro-life. Outlawing abortion is not on the table, except in the minds of the left who see any kind of laws ristricting abortion as a wild pack of people with pitchforks and torches.

Yes they wanted to ban partial-birth abortion, because it's a horrendous practice that EVEN THE GUY WHO CREATED IT stated puts the life of the mother in danger. And that it is an abhorent and unnecessary practice.

Several of the leading republicans are against embryonic stem cells - which by the way don't come from fetuses but embryos that are no older than 5 days since fertilized. Fetus don't form until their 9th week. But again that's not the point.


So they changed the name and benefits - discrimination. Let's allow blacks to vote, but we'll call it something else.

And once again the race card get's thrown in to the fray and why politcal discussions can't be civil anymore.


I'm talking about marriage like it pertains to you and me and should be for anyone. Several of the candidates don't agree however and feel its up to them to decide who gets to call each other a husband or wife. Again, intrusive.

What we call marriage in today's world is a civil union. You have to go to the government and buy a liscene to 'get married'... but without that lisence you aren't legally married. That's not marriage in my book. Putting the goverment involved in marriage you have what we have today.

I agree with you on the last part though. I'll take it step further and include religion as well though.

The government shoud have nothing to do with Marriage, it's a religious insitution... it's something taht you and your partner (or partners) are coming together infront of God to join your lives together. And allowing the government to get involved is just plan wrong.


I checked on Margaret Sanger. Apparently she lived in the 1920s... and Planned Parenthood today has stated they "finds these views objectionable and outmoded".

But yet they are still doing the kinds of things she wanted, like i said ealier 50% of african-amercan pregnanices are ending in abortion, and Planned Parenthood sets up their clinics in minority neighborhoods, and focus their advertisements towards miniorities. They might find those views objectionable, they are still doing what she wanted Planned Parenthood to do in the first place.


Services provided at locations include contraceptives (birth control); emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations, and abortion.

this isn't true... sever different groups have shown that Planned Parenthood does not provide screenings that they are claiming too. i just did a google search for planned parenthood and cancer screenings. and while they claim to be giving them, you are hard pressed to find any of their clinics carrying them out.

And the you also have the fact that Planned Parenthood makes more than enough money on their own to support what they are doing, and that they just don't need Federal funding.


Doesn't this conflict with governing the least and having limited powers? There is a distinct separation between church and state, and they want to change that to allow religion in.

Interestingly though, nominee Gingrich would bring back school prayer with a Constitutional amendment and thinks that federal aid should go only to schools that allow voluntary prayer. WTF?

Let's see... are you saying that stop sending money to schools that throw kids and teachers out of school for praying is a bad thing? By a school doing that, they are poking their noses in to people's personal lives. just like you think the Republicans are wanting to do when it comes to other things as well. And the seperation of Church and State statement was about limiting the power of the STATE in influencing or controlling the church. Not the Church influencing the state.

And they aren't trying to change things to allow religion in, they are trying to allow people to not be punished for being religious. Because the way our country is suppose to be, you are allowed to be as religoius (or not) as you want to be.


I'm only going by what the next hopeful presidents have said.

And I'm going by what I have seen, heard and done. I'm a conservative and proud of it. And having someone call me a bigoit, a racist or homophobe is just plan wrong. Because I'm not, and the ones who I do know who are bigoited, racist and homophobic are not Conservatives but quite the other side of the isle. Anyone who thinks that an entire group of people are incapable of taking care of themselves without the nanny state to lead them about by the hand is the real hateful bigoit in my opinion.