Good thing she never had a chance at winning.
Sorry honey. We’re still “supporting” their stupid ObamaCare decision.
I am glad these things are coming out early in the game, and people are saying how they feel way upstream to allow us to make intelligent decisions and determine which candidate or candidates most closely align with our own viewpoints.
Not a my house she doesn’t.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Good thing she never had a chance at winning.
_______________________________________
Maybe she could endorse pro-dope positions and go for the libertarian vote.
What exactly does “support their decision” mean?
I don’t marry people, I don’t have a bakery or floral shop. I have never been invited to a same-sex wedding, so I am at a loss as to how I would need to support their decision.
Two-sided issue. On the one hand, she’s saying “support the way our system works.” On the other, she’s accepting what could be a loaded, politically and ideologically liberal court if Obama gets to appoint just one more justice—which means she’s accepting perversion of the system while pretending all is well.
Wrong Answer, Sweetheart.
This just illustrates the fact that decades of voting for the “lesser of evils” is just pushing the GOP further and further to the left.
A contradiction that has already proven a total failure in Indiana.
She is unfit to serve.
She is already over, and she just started.
Wasn’t Carly Fiorina’s campaign interesting? While it lasted.
Carly Fiorina: “I very much hope that we would come to a place now in this nation where we can support their (the SCOTUS) decision and at the same time support people to have, to hold religious views and to protect their right to exercise those views.”
Am I reading this wrong? It sounds like she believes the SCOTUS is going to force homosexual marriage on the nation. Otherwise, why would we need to support religious views “at the same time?” She’s also clearly in the tank for the black robed legislators. A law abiding, moral person would (truthfully) say the US Constitution does not give homosexuals the right to marry any more than it gave women to vote UNTIL it was amended.
Any justice who votes to impose homosexual marriage on all the states is essentially a law breaker. They are breaking the supreme law of the land. Try as they might, homosexual marriage is simply not in the supreme contract between We the People and the federal government.
An honest person (and justice) would uphold the law. If the homosexualists don’t like it, they have the same legal, moral recourse as anyone else who wants to change the US Constitution. They can try to amend it.
If Supreme Court provokes Islam...
She should stick to attacking Hitlery.
“If Nebuchadnezzar rules for worshiping the image, we should support his decision”
Damnation, way to shoot the foot in the face of the base.
NO!
NAY!
NEVER!
she is disqualifying herself.
Social conservative she apparently is not.