- This topic has 1,076 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
markmax33.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 16, 2011 at 4:30 PM #721345August 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM #720139
Arraya
Participant[quote=SK in CV]
Ummm…which polls is he continually at the top of? I haven’t seen any. There are a handful of things I agree with him on. But on a whole lot of others, the dude is as wacked as Bachmann or Palin or Perry. (Gold standard? really???, almost as stupid as the trading chickens for medical services standard.)[/quote]
Come on Sk – he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.
August 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM #720230Participant[quote=SK in CV]
Ummm…which polls is he continually at the top of? I haven’t seen any. There are a handful of things I agree with him on. But on a whole lot of others, the dude is as wacked as Bachmann or Palin or Perry. (Gold standard? really???, almost as stupid as the trading chickens for medical services standard.)[/quote]
Come on Sk – he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.
August 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM #720830Participant[quote=SK in CV]
Ummm…which polls is he continually at the top of? I haven’t seen any. There are a handful of things I agree with him on. But on a whole lot of others, the dude is as wacked as Bachmann or Palin or Perry. (Gold standard? really???, almost as stupid as the trading chickens for medical services standard.)[/quote]
Come on Sk – he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.
August 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM #720987Participant[quote=SK in CV]
Ummm…which polls is he continually at the top of? I haven’t seen any. There are a handful of things I agree with him on. But on a whole lot of others, the dude is as wacked as Bachmann or Palin or Perry. (Gold standard? really???, almost as stupid as the trading chickens for medical services standard.)[/quote]
Come on Sk – he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.
August 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM #721350Participant[quote=SK in CV]
Ummm…which polls is he continually at the top of? I haven’t seen any. There are a handful of things I agree with him on. But on a whole lot of others, the dude is as wacked as Bachmann or Palin or Perry. (Gold standard? really???, almost as stupid as the trading chickens for medical services standard.)[/quote]
Come on Sk – he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.
August 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM #720144njtosd
Participant[quote=jpinpb]I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.
And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. [/quote]
FWIW – a molar pregnancy does not result in a fetus, but an unformed cluster of cells. Removal of the mass would not be considered an abortion, because there would be no fetus to abort. A better example of a pregnancy that would compromise the mother’s health would be an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia/eclampsia occurring prior to the date that a fetus could be successfully delivered by C-section.
August 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM #720235Participant[quote=jpinpb]I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.
And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. [/quote]
FWIW – a molar pregnancy does not result in a fetus, but an unformed cluster of cells. Removal of the mass would not be considered an abortion, because there would be no fetus to abort. A better example of a pregnancy that would compromise the mother’s health would be an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia/eclampsia occurring prior to the date that a fetus could be successfully delivered by C-section.
August 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM #720835Participant[quote=jpinpb]I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.
And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. [/quote]
FWIW – a molar pregnancy does not result in a fetus, but an unformed cluster of cells. Removal of the mass would not be considered an abortion, because there would be no fetus to abort. A better example of a pregnancy that would compromise the mother’s health would be an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia/eclampsia occurring prior to the date that a fetus could be successfully delivered by C-section.
August 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM #720992Participant[quote=jpinpb]I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.
And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. [/quote]
FWIW – a molar pregnancy does not result in a fetus, but an unformed cluster of cells. Removal of the mass would not be considered an abortion, because there would be no fetus to abort. A better example of a pregnancy that would compromise the mother’s health would be an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia/eclampsia occurring prior to the date that a fetus could be successfully delivered by C-section.
August 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM #721355Participant[quote=jpinpb]I just have such a hard time seriously considering Ron Paul mostly b/c of his stand on abortion.
And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
Off the top of my head, molar pregnancy comes to mind. [/quote]
FWIW – a molar pregnancy does not result in a fetus, but an unformed cluster of cells. Removal of the mass would not be considered an abortion, because there would be no fetus to abort. A better example of a pregnancy that would compromise the mother’s health would be an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia/eclampsia occurring prior to the date that a fetus could be successfully delivered by C-section.
August 16, 2011 at 6:03 PM #720149SK in CV
Participant[quote=Arraya]
Come on Sk – he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.[/quote]I’m absolutely not saying that. I was just challenging the assertion that he’s continually showed up at the top of polls. I don’t believe he has. He came in 2nd in Iowa, which did warrant a whole lot more coverage. He’s not, and will never be a favorite of the powerful Republican party interests, so their subsidiary at Fox News will barely give him the time of day. That doesn’t excuse the other news entities. He did deserve more. Conspiracy? Eh. I don’t know. Old and wrinkled and wacked will never be the hot seller that pretty and wacked is. Maybe if he had bulging eyes or bigger tits he’d get further.
August 16, 2011 at 6:03 PM #720240Participant[quote=Arraya]
Come on Sk – he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.[/quote]I’m absolutely not saying that. I was just challenging the assertion that he’s continually showed up at the top of polls. I don’t believe he has. He came in 2nd in Iowa, which did warrant a whole lot more coverage. He’s not, and will never be a favorite of the powerful Republican party interests, so their subsidiary at Fox News will barely give him the time of day. That doesn’t excuse the other news entities. He did deserve more. Conspiracy? Eh. I don’t know. Old and wrinkled and wacked will never be the hot seller that pretty and wacked is. Maybe if he had bulging eyes or bigger tits he’d get further.
August 16, 2011 at 6:03 PM #720840Participant[quote=Arraya]
Come on Sk – he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.[/quote]I’m absolutely not saying that. I was just challenging the assertion that he’s continually showed up at the top of polls. I don’t believe he has. He came in 2nd in Iowa, which did warrant a whole lot more coverage. He’s not, and will never be a favorite of the powerful Republican party interests, so their subsidiary at Fox News will barely give him the time of day. That doesn’t excuse the other news entities. He did deserve more. Conspiracy? Eh. I don’t know. Old and wrinkled and wacked will never be the hot seller that pretty and wacked is. Maybe if he had bulging eyes or bigger tits he’d get further.
August 16, 2011 at 6:03 PM #720997Participant[quote=Arraya]
Come on Sk – he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.[/quote]I’m absolutely not saying that. I was just challenging the assertion that he’s continually showed up at the top of polls. I don’t believe he has. He came in 2nd in Iowa, which did warrant a whole lot more coverage. He’s not, and will never be a favorite of the powerful Republican party interests, so their subsidiary at Fox News will barely give him the time of day. That doesn’t excuse the other news entities. He did deserve more. Conspiracy? Eh. I don’t know. Old and wrinkled and wacked will never be the hot seller that pretty and wacked is. Maybe if he had bulging eyes or bigger tits he’d get further.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.