Christian hate: Sarah Palin supports ...

Christian hate: Sarah Palin supports anti-gay Chick-fil-A

There are 5255 comments on the Examiner.com story from Jul 30, 2012, titled Christian hate: Sarah Palin supports anti-gay Chick-fil-A. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

Palin tweeted a photo of herself and husband Todd clutching bags from the anti-gay chicken franchise.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#3644 Sep 22, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. But Mona assumes she knows what people mean. She thinks about her next childish cut down or burn before making sure she knows what she's talking about.
Might point out I try to avoid Chinese products and will spend a few dollars extra if I can find a US made components, and if not Then I go for Malaysian or other country with China being dead last.
Only exception is one of my friends(adopted) little girls as she cute and loves everyone.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3645 Sep 22, 2012
californio wrote:
<quoted text>Might point out I try to avoid Chinese products and will spend a few dollars extra if I can find a US made components, and if not Then I go for Malaysian or other country with China being dead last.
Only exception is one of my friends(adopted) little girls as she cute and loves everyone.
Absolutely agree.
Makes sense

Dearborn, MI

#3646 Sep 23, 2012
9/21/2012 1:00 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF.


Mitt Romney's Son
Signed 'Abortion' Clause
In Surrogate Birth Contract


EXCLUSIVE

TMZ has learned Mitt Romney's son Tagg -- who had twins this year through a surrogate -- signed an agreement that gave the surrogate, as well as Tagg and his wife, the right to abort the fetuses in non-life threatening situations ... and Mitt Romney covered some of the expenses connected with the arrangement ... and it may boil down to an incredibly stupid mistake.

The twin boys -- David Mitt and William Ryder -- were born on May 4, 2012. We've learned Tagg and his wife Jen, along with the surrogate and her husband, signed a Gestational Carrier Agreement dated July 28, 2011. Paragraph 13 of the agreement reads as follows:

"If in the opinion of the treating physician or her independent obstetrician there is potential physical harm to the surrogate, the decision to abort or not abort is to be made by the surrogate."

Translation: Tagg and Jen gave the surrogate the right to abort the fetuses even if her life wasn't in danger. All the surrogate has to show is "potential physical harm," which could be something like preeclampsia -- a type of high blood pressure that could damage the mother's liver, kidney or brain, but is not necessarily life-threatening.

Paragraph 13 goes on:

"In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision to abort or not to abort is to be made by the intended parents. In such a case the surrogate agrees to abort, or not to abort, in accordance with the intended parents' decision."

And there's another relevant provision in Paragraph 13:

"Any decision to abort because of potential harm to the child, or to reduce the number of fetuses, is to be made by the intended parents."

Translation: Tagg and his wife, Jen, had the right to abort the fetuses if they felt they would not be healthy.

Sources connected with Mitt Romney tell TMZ, Mitt was involved in the surrogate arrangement because he paid some of the expenses connected with the agreement. We do not know if Mitt Romney read the contract or knew the terms.

Mitt has said, "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother." Otherwise, Romney is against abortion.

Now for the stupid mistake. We've learned Tagg chose the same surrogate in 2009, who gave birth to a boy. Attorney Bill Handel -- a nationally-known expert in surrogacy law who put the deal together between Tagg and the surrogate -- tells TMZ when the 2009 contract was drafted there was no Paragraph 13 providing for abortion because Tagg and his wife didn't want it.

Handel says in 2011, when the second contract was being drafted, everyone involved "just forgot" to remove Paragraph 13. Handel says, "No one noticed. What can I say?" .

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/09/20/mitt-romney-son...

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3647 Sep 23, 2012
Makes sense wrote:
9/21/2012 1:00 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF.


Mitt Romney's Son
Signed 'Abortion' Clause
In Surrogate Birth Contract


EXCLUSIVE

TMZ has learned Mitt Romney's son Tagg -- who had twins this year through a surrogate -- signed an agreement that gave the surrogate, as well as Tagg and his wife, the right to abort the fetuses in non-life threatening situations ... and Mitt Romney covered some of the expenses connected with the arrangement ... and it may boil down to an incredibly stupid mistake.

The twin boys -- David Mitt and William Ryder -- were born on May 4, 2012. We've learned Tagg and his wife Jen, along with the surrogate and her husband, signed a Gestational Carrier Agreement dated July 28, 2011. Paragraph 13 of the agreement reads as follows:

"If in the opinion of the treating physician or her independent obstetrician there is potential physical harm to the surrogate, the decision to abort or not abort is to be made by the surrogate."

Translation: Tagg and Jen gave the surrogate the right to abort the fetuses even if her life wasn't in danger. All the surrogate has to show is "potential physical harm," which could be something like preeclampsia -- a type of high blood pressure that could damage the mother's liver, kidney or brain, but is not necessarily life-threatening.

Paragraph 13 goes on:

"In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision to abort or not to abort is to be made by the intended parents. In such a case the surrogate agrees to abort, or not to abort, in accordance with the intended parents' decision."

And there's another relevant provision in Paragraph 13:

"Any decision to abort because of potential harm to the child, or to reduce the number of fetuses, is to be made by the intended parents."

Translation: Tagg and his wife, Jen, had the right to abort the fetuses if they felt they would not be healthy.

Sources connected with Mitt Romney tell TMZ, Mitt was involved in the surrogate arrangement because he paid some of the expenses connected with the agreement. We do not know if Mitt Romney read the contract or knew the terms.

Mitt has said, "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother." Otherwise, Romney is against abortion.

Now for the stupid mistake. We've learned Tagg chose the same surrogate in 2009, who gave birth to a boy. Attorney Bill Handel -- a nationally-known expert in surrogacy law who put the deal together between Tagg and the surrogate -- tells TMZ when the 2009 contract was drafted there was no Paragraph 13 providing for abortion because Tagg and his wife didn't want it.

Handel says in 2011, when the second contract was being drafted, everyone involved "just forgot" to remove Paragraph 13. Handel says, "No one noticed. What can I say?" .

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/09/20/mitt-romney-son...
Lol. Grasping at straws.
According to this very report Romney stated he was in favor of abortion in the case of rape, incest, or the HEALTH and life of the mother.
Everyone already knows Romney flip flopped on the abortion issue. Most people voting Republican have already stated Romney wasn't their first choice, Obama just happens to be their last.
So what relevance does this report/post really have?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#3648 Sep 23, 2012
Makes sense wrote:
9/21/2012 1:00 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF.
Mitt Romney's Son
Signed 'Abortion' Clause
In Surrogate Birth Contract
EXCLUSIVE
TMZ has learned Mitt Romney's son Tagg -- who had twins this year through a surrogate -- signed an agreement that gave the surrogate, as well as Tagg and his wife, the right to abort the fetuses in non-life threatening situations ... and Mitt Romney covered some of the expenses connected with the arrangement ... and it may boil down to an incredibly stupid mistake.
The twin boys -- David Mitt and William Ryder -- were born on May 4, 2012. We've learned Tagg and his wife Jen, along with the surrogate and her husband, signed a Gestational Carrier Agreement dated July 28, 2011. Paragraph 13 of the agreement reads as follows:
"If in the opinion of the treating physician or her independent obstetrician there is potential physical harm to the surrogate, the decision to abort or not abort is to be made by the surrogate."
Translation: Tagg and Jen gave the surrogate the right to abort the fetuses even if her life wasn't in danger. All the surrogate has to show is "potential physical harm," which could be something like preeclampsia -- a type of high blood pressure that could damage the mother's liver, kidney or brain, but is not necessarily life-threatening.
Paragraph 13 goes on:
"In the event the child is determined to be physiologically, genetically or chromosomally abnormal, the decision to abort or not to abort is to be made by the intended parents. In such a case the surrogate agrees to abort, or not to abort, in accordance with the intended parents' decision."
And there's another relevant provision in Paragraph 13:
"Any decision to abort because of potential harm to the child, or to reduce the number of fetuses, is to be made by the intended parents."
Translation: Tagg and his wife, Jen, had the right to abort the fetuses if they felt they would not be healthy.
Sources connected with Mitt Romney tell TMZ, Mitt was involved in the surrogate arrangement because he paid some of the expenses connected with the agreement. We do not know if Mitt Romney read the contract or knew the terms.
Mitt has said, "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother." Otherwise, Romney is against abortion.
Now for the stupid mistake. We've learned Tagg chose the same surrogate in 2009, who gave birth to a boy. Attorney Bill Handel -- a nationally-known expert in surrogacy law who put the deal together between Tagg and the surrogate -- tells TMZ when the 2009 contract was drafted there was no Paragraph 13 providing for abortion because Tagg and his wife didn't want it.
Handel says in 2011, when the second contract was being drafted, everyone involved "just forgot" to remove Paragraph 13. Handel says, "No one noticed. What can I say?" .
Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/09/20/mitt-romney-son...
And Obama Father was a dead beat dad who ran off and left him. How is either revelant to the election?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#3649 Sep 23, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. Grasping at straws.
According to this very report Romney stated he was in favor of abortion in the case of rape, incest, or the HEALTH and life of the mother.
Everyone already knows Romney flip flopped on the abortion issue. Most people voting Republican have already stated Romney wasn't their first choice, Obama just happens to be their last.
So what relevance does this report/post really have?
I admit Mitt Romney was my last choice of those who ran for the Republican nomination. Barely above Obama.
I do envy the liberals in this as they have a candidate they love and will follow blindly while Im going to be holding my nose when I vote.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3650 Sep 23, 2012
californio wrote:
<quoted text>I admit Mitt Romney was my last choice of those who ran for the Republican nomination. Barely above Obama.
I do envy the liberals in this as they have a candidate they love and will follow blindly while Im going to be holding my nose when I vote.
I agree.
At least Ron Paul has had some influence on the Republican Party at this point.
I personally think we need to get CPR candidates elected to lower to middle level government, so that third party electors can be appointed. If that happens, by 2016, we could possibly elect a third party President that represents a larger percentage of Americans.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#3651 Sep 23, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. But Mona assumes she knows what people mean. She thinks about her next childish cut down or burn before making sure she knows what she's talking about.
THAT'S funny, Dr. Swamp Thing.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3652 Sep 23, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>THAT'S funny, Dr. Swamp Thing.
That's not a denial.
And you still haven't addressed My other posts.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#3653 Sep 23, 2012
californio wrote:
<quoted text> Mine was put together at a friends house. I prefer to make my own. I can give you some pointers if you want to make your own.
Assembling a computer is not difficult. Manufacturing the components is... and it is extremely dirty and toxic. That's why companies contract it out to China.

The hard drive in my computer is made by Hitachi, a Japanese company. But where was it actually manufactured??????? China. My cellphone is a Samsung, a Korean company. But where was it actually manufactured?????? China.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3654 Sep 23, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>That's not a denial.
And you still haven't addressed My other posts.
I wonder why that is?
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#3655 Sep 23, 2012
californio wrote:
<quoted text> I admit Mitt Romney was my last choice of those who ran for the Republican nomination. Barely above Obama.
I do envy the liberals in this as they have a candidate they love and will follow blindly while Im going to be holding my nose when I vote.
So you're not really voting FOR Romney... you're just voting against Obama. And you offered to give me pointers on how to build a computer?
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#3656 Sep 23, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not a denial.
And you still haven't addressed My other posts.
Oh well, excuse me your highness.

Pardon me for not responding to your whining about insignificant CRAP. It wouldn't matter if I did. A person who is whacky enough to hom skool their spawn (just to avoid discussions about tolerance for people who are different) is not interested in facts. Nothing I or anyone else could say will change your mind. You don't even agree with the accepted positions of your own medical profession (as if you really are a doctor)! Clearly, you are not reasonable.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3657 Sep 23, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>So you're not really voting FOR Romney... you're just voting against Obama. And you offered to give me pointers on how to build a computer?
Makes sense to me.
It's like making the decision to step into an enclosure with a skunk instead of stepping into an enclosure with a rattlesnake after being previously bitten by a rattlesnake.
When that's the only two choices, the skunk gets the vote.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3658 Sep 23, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>Oh well, excuse me your highness.

Pardon me for not responding to your whining about insignificant CRAP. It wouldn't matter if I did. A person who is whacky enough to hom skool their spawn (just to avoid discussions about tolerance for people who are different) is not interested in facts. Nothing I or anyone else could say will change your mind. You don't even agree with the accepted positions of your own medical profession (as if you really are a doctor)! Clearly, you are not reasonable.
Priceless!!!
Typical Liberal!!
When you have no answers, the questions were insignificant crap! Lmao!!!!!!!!!
I really don't care if you believe I'm a doctor or not. It is funny that it seems to bother you so much however.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#3659 Sep 23, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're not really voting FOR Romney... you're just voting against Obama. And you offered to give me pointers on how to build a computer?
I am as I often do voting for the lesser of two evils.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#3660 Sep 23, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
At least Ron Paul has had some influence on the Republican Party at this point.
I personally think we need to get CPR candidates elected to lower to middle level government, so that third party electors can be appointed. If that happens, by 2016, we could possibly elect a third party President that represents a larger percentage of Americans.
The USA is the only major Democracy where you only have a choice between two parties. In almost every major country there at least four parties that will win seats in any election.
Take the UK there are 11 parties that have at least one member in the House of commons. even if the Conservative hold a majority.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#3661 Sep 23, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh well, excuse me your highness.
Pardon me for not responding to your whining about insignificant CRAP. It wouldn't matter if I did. A person who is whacky enough to hom skool their spawn (just to avoid discussions about tolerance for people who are different) is not interested in facts. Nothing I or anyone else could say will change your mind. You don't even agree with the accepted positions of your own medical profession (as if you really are a doctor)! Clearly, you are not reasonable.
ever see the test score of students who are home schooled versus those that go to public schools?

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3662 Sep 23, 2012
californio wrote:
<quoted text>The USA is the only major Democracy where you only have a choice between two parties. In almost every major country there at least four parties that will win seats in any election.
Take the UK there are 11 parties that have at least one member in the House of commons. even if the Conservative hold a majority.
Exactly.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3663 Sep 23, 2012
californio wrote:
<quoted text>The USA is the only major Democracy where you only have a choice between two parties. In almost every major country there at least four parties that will win seats in any election.
Take the UK there are 11 parties that have at least one member in the House of commons. even if the Conservative hold a majority.
1. Term limits for politicians.
2. Repeal of lifetime salaries/pensions for politicians.
3. Restriction to one topic/subject per bill presented.
4. Elimination of Affirmative Action. Elimination of questions regarding race, gender, or sexual orientation from applications. Applicants should be chosen based on qualifications and Merritt.
5. Enforce immigration laws.
6. Rewarding USA production, tax foreign production.
7. Repeal all restrictions/laws infringing the second amendment.
8. Elect average people to represent average people.
9. Place a cap on campaign funds that can be spent for any given election.
10. The US Constitution and the legally ratified amendments should be followed to the letter.
11. I have no problem with the requirement of photo ID to vote. Tax payers would be charged less in the long run if the government provided free photo IDs to those who can't afford them.
12. Eliminate all unnecessary government jobs and agencies.
13.Allow third party candidates to participate in Presidential Debates.
14. Utilize domestic oil sources that are not being utilized.
15. Switch to a flat tax system with no deductions, starting at 15%, decreasing every 10 years as reliance on government assistance is phased out.

That's a few of my beliefs and ideas for a renewed America.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 17 min More Trump Lies 262,268
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Judgement 25,284
News Comey, Rogers appearance before House Intellige... 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 5
News Blaming conservatives, Trump signals new openne... 2 hr Fit2Serve 29
News Paul Ryan budget proposal threatens housing aid... 2 hr Alex Wong 141
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) 3 hr Tm Cln 3,412
News Trump charges, without evidence, millions voted... 5 hr Sandra 95
More from around the web