View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 28th, 2014, 10:28 am



Reply to topic  [ 232 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 16  Next
 Thoughts on Santorum 
Author Message
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Before I comment on Santorum, I must address something said earlier by Blueskies about Ron Paul. To say, "I still don't know how RP is considered "weak" on foreign policy." has got to be one of the most naive statements I've ever seen on this board. To use his own words, Ignorance truly must be bliss since thinking that RP is anything other than "weak" on foreign policy is several levels beyond ignorance. I guess allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon is considered "strong" foreign policy in unicorn ranch fantasyland though. :roll:

As for Santorum, I'm not much of a fan since he places too high of an emphasis on social issues for my tastes. He also supported big government programs and earmarks while in the Senate, which isn't very fiscally conservative in my book. Then again, nearly every member of Congress including Ron Paul has attached earmarks to bills, so I can't fault him too much for that.

Earlier, Touchdown Jesus posted wrong information about the death of Santorum's child. He later corrected it, but the original post contained blatant lies and distortions that have been sweeping across the libtard lamestream media echo chamber for the past several days. I believe it originated on Jezebel, but I'm not certain. Regardless, this is the type of thing that will happen with every GOP candidate from now until the election. Just look at what happened to Herman Cain with allegations which were never proven. The truth doesn't matter to the lamestream media. They only wish to advance their agenda through any means necessary.

In the end, I'm going to vote for whomever the GOP nominee is, even if it's Romney or Paul. Hell, I would vote for a ham sandwich over 0bama since a ham sandwich would only grow mold in the oval office instead of doing any further damage to the country. Unfortunately, I know a few conservatives who will sit the election out if Romney or Paul get the nod. I don't know any who would do likewise if Santorum, Newt, or Perry get the nomination, but I suppose there are some out there.

_________________
Image


January 7th, 2012, 3:37 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
I've actually considered the sitting out myself, just because I couldn't find anyone who truly represented what I stand for. But that's irresponsible to think that way, especially when you look at the damage that Barak, Harry, and Pelosi (not so much now) continue to do to our Constitution and sovereignty as a nation.

That's my largest concern is correcting the ills that have gone wrong. I still don't fully know whom I like, because no one other than Cain has really illustrated a plan that is sound, ethical, and looking out for the interest of the US. I would also say that a strong US is better for the world than a weak one, so in the short term, I would hope the NEW Potus would drill, and pipeline, and cut regulations so that American companies can ramp up. Poor people don't employ people, they create more people because sex is a form of recreation, and welfare is a reward for children. It sounds judgmental but it's actually truth. The 1% employee and pay for more than any 99% ever thought about. Having said that, we can adjust those issues once we climb out of this hole BO and the least ethical Congress has dug us in.

One thing I like about Santorum, is that you KNOW WHERE HE STANDS. You don't have to like it, but you aren't guessing as to what he believes, and he's given himself NO WIGGLE room to say one thing to this group, and another to that. This is what I believe and that's it. Having said that it may be polarizing but any candidate that tries to draw us away from a entitlement society is going to do that. The media scream the loudest and represent those who nurse off the government teet, so that it APPEARS that America wants all these things. It's BRAINWASHING 101. Create jobs, encourage TRUE education, and allow people the opportunity to make their own way, and watch America grow strong. Continue in D, and watch BO DRIVE us into a Ditch!

Oh and about the evangelical I was talking about above, just saw this on AOL.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... 90491.html

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


January 7th, 2012, 4:42 pm
Profile
Online
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3113
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
WarEr4Christ wrote:
TDJ: I see that we aren't really communicating because I can't see your perspective and you can't see mine. I will admit that in the course of trying to describe what I was talking about such terms like commarade due see totally inappropriate. My mistake!

As for the term Christophobic, this is a totally appropriate term to be used in an era wher monacres are given as a way of demeaning a particular group. Think homophobe, germophobe, etc. The Liberal left, and GLTG group have been throwing the homophobe term around for years, and it gives a negative connotation to anyone who does not support the alternate lifestyle. Therefore making them a lesser person because they are "tolerant" another such term.

It's obvious that we'll never agree on things, and the bold part here is the main reason why. I don't care one way or another about the religious stuff. But what gets me really angry is the anti-gay sentiment. It's no different than being anti-black, or anti-hispanic or being racist in any other way. Homophobic absolutely has a negative connotation, because homophobes discriminate against a person because of what they are. Gay is not a choice. Just like straight is not a choice. It's who you are. We are all attracted to different people for various reasons, and most times can't explain why. For example, if attraction were really a choice, I could simply chose to be attracted to one particular woman or another. But that's not how it works. Sometimes we see a person and are instantly attracted to them. Others are not. Hence some people finding Pam Anderson types attractive, while others think that look is ugly (myself included - I prefer brunettes). The point is, attraction is not a choice. It's part of who we are and we can't control it. So a person being attracted to someone of the the same sex as them is not a choice, and it's bigotry to discriminate against them because of it. It really is not different than being a racist in my opinion, and it pisses me off.

As a side, but related, anecdote: over the holidays I watched the film The Help. Good movie by the way. I was struck by something after watching that movie. It really wasn't that long ago when it was ok to openly discriminate against people simply because of the color of their skin. Think about it. It was only the 1960's when this was still going on quite a bit. Fast forward to the 1980's, and racism was largely considered a terrible thing and was not considered acceptable in most places in the US. Yes, racism still existed, but it was not generally considered ok. That was in only 20 years. I view the current discrimination against gays similarly. I think in 20 years time, we'll look back at the current discrimination and bigotry towards gays with the same scorn we do toward the racism of the 60's. It's equally ugly, and is a terrible, terrible thing. Being bigoted toward a person simply because of who they are, for any reason, is not acceptable.

Here's a link to a great Lewis Black rant on Santorum and gays that I think is great. It does have some strong language, so if that bothers you, be forewarned. Relevant sections starts at the 2:30 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk

Anyway, I might as well stop posting in this thread, because the bigotry on display just makes my blood boil.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


January 7th, 2012, 6:05 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Sadly, you are correct as we will not see from the same side, but the Gay life style is not genetic, it is a choice. But we can argue that point till we're both blue in the face, and that would be pointless, and just ruin our "lb thread" friendship and it's not worth it to me. So let's just agree to disagree on this.

I'm not saying that Santorum has my vote, but he has caught my attention and I was wondering what others thought, mainly because the media has done so little to illustrate his points, and reasoning for being POTUS.

In the end, I think the smart thing to do is vote for whoever gets the nod against Obama.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


January 7th, 2012, 7:39 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Touchdown Jesus, while I understand what you're saying about gays, I have to disagree with you. I have no issue with homos sticking their dingalings into whatever orifice they prefer in the privacy of their own homes. My problem is with them demanding that others view their behavior as acceptable and normal. It is not. It is depraved, sick, vile, disgusting, perverted, and abnormal. I have the right to say that under the 1st Amendment, but the homo agenda wants to remove that right. I hate political correctness and will fight it at every opportunity.

On the flip side, some consider my viewing of porn to be depraved, sick, vile, disgusting, perverted, and abnormal as well. That is their right and I wouldn't have it any other way. I have the right to view it, while others have the right to object to it. What's so difficult to comprehend about that?

_________________
Image


January 8th, 2012, 1:46 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
I just wanted to add that a libtard recently advocated that pedophilia be reclassified as "intergenerational intimacy". I'm sure those people can't help being attracted to who they are either, but is it acceptable? Once again, I find it depraved, sick, vile, disgusting, perverted, and abnormal, so does that make me intolerant and a bigot? Where does it end? Sex with goats? Or sex with an unwilling participant? See what I mean?

_________________
Image


January 8th, 2012, 3:00 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Wags and I discussed or argued over this point a few years ago, but I did a comparison of the Ancient Roman empire, and the current American society and it was quite scary and similar.

Rome had a republic form of government, complete with a Senate and President, they called Caesar. Romes standard (flag) was the Eagle, the USA has the Same Emblem. Rome was defeated by unsecure borders and corruption within, the USA has unsecure borders, and corruption within. Rome allowed a corrupted society, and even encouraged it, including Pedophilia, beastiality, and homosexuality. Rome had a strong military that proved to be useless because the leaders that led it or gave the orders failed to lead. And much more.

I am not saying that the USA is the new and improved Rome, but what I am saying is that the same ills that brought down the mighty Roman empire, are the same ills that are unraveling this country, and we are on the fast track to destruction. A kingdom divided will not stand, and we are split just about 50 - 50 Conserv. and Liberal at this point.

Just some things to think about.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


January 8th, 2012, 9:28 am
Profile
Online
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3113
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
slybri19 wrote:
I just wanted to add that a libtard recently advocated that pedophilia be reclassified as "intergenerational intimacy". I'm sure those people can't help being attracted to who they are either, but is it acceptable? Once again, I find it depraved, sick, vile, disgusting, perverted, and abnormal, so does that make me intolerant and a bigot? Where does it end? Sex with goats? Or sex with an unwilling participant? See what I mean?

The simple answer is that pedophilia is a crime. Homosexuality isn't. That's the key distinction. There's really nothing else that needs to be said about it. One is illegal, one is not. Simple as that.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


January 8th, 2012, 11:05 am
Profile
Online
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3113
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
slybri19 wrote:
Touchdown Jesus, while I understand what you're saying about gays, I have to disagree with you. I have no issue with homos sticking their dingalings into whatever orifice they prefer in the privacy of their own homes. My problem is with them demanding that others view their behavior as acceptable and normal. It is not. It is depraved, sick, vile, disgusting, perverted, and abnormal. I have the right to say that under the 1st Amendment, but the homo agenda wants to remove that right. I hate political correctness and will fight it at every opportunity.

On the flip side, some consider my viewing of porn to be depraved, sick, vile, disgusting, perverted, and abnormal as well. That is their right and I wouldn't have it any other way. I have the right to view it, while others have the right to object to it. What's so difficult to comprehend about that?

You hit the nail right on the head here. I'm not advocating for anyone's views being pushed on anyone else. I don't care what you think of people. If you think homosexuality is depraved, sick, vile, disgusting, perverted, and abnormal, that's your right and I don't care. What I do care about is people being disallowed from having the same rights as everyone else. I recognize that there are those who are trying to push the gay lifestyle into others lives, and I don't agree with that. All I want is for gay people to have the same rights as everyone else. Nothing more.

Oh, I also hate political correctness and I think it's ridiculous. this isn't about a PC issue. It's about basic human rights and not being discriminated against.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


January 8th, 2012, 11:10 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2622
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Quote:
To say, "I still don't know how RP is considered "weak" on foreign policy." has got to be one of the most naive statements I've ever seen on this board. To use his own words, Ignorance truly must be bliss since thinking that RP is anything other than "weak" on foreign policy is several levels beyond ignorance. I guess allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon is considered "strong" foreign policy in unicorn ranch fantasyland though.


I don't think weak/strong are effective words. Better is intelligent vs non-intelligent, wherein the intelligent option is the one that most benefits the interests of the US in the long-run.

Let's look at this issue from three prongs:

1) Is Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon?

There is no solid evidence to suggest that they are. There is only vague rumors from the same people who told you Hussein's WMD stockpile was a major threat to the world (that is to say, people with no credibility).

Did you know that the media has been claiming that Iran is "about to have a nuclear weapon" for 17 years? No joke, check this out: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=um ... apon&hl=en

At this point, these people have no credibility, and its all propaganda until they can really prove something.

2) If Iran had a nuclear weapon, would it pose a security risk to the US?

The answer here is probably yes, but people grossly over exaggerate the danger.

If terrorists wanted to nuke the US, they could've already done it. Many regiemes around the world have nukes (including hostile North Korea), not to mention all those nukes the Soviets "misplaced" when their empire collapsed.

Let's just say there is a 1% chance a terrorist will detonate a nuke inside the US in the next 30 years. If Iran acquires a nuclear missile, lets say this probability increases by 0.1%. How much is that worth?

Is it worth another war? I don't think so.

We've already wasted $4 trillion dollars and countless lives on fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. What has it gotten us? Absolutely nothing.

If you could say that we could prevent Iran from acquiring a nuke in a very cheap and efficient way through covert means or diplomacy--I'd support that.

But beating the drums of war is just stupid. Especially given how overstretched and bankrupt this country is.

3) Blowback

This is a concept I think many people fail to understand, but its pretty intuitive.

The primary reason Iran wants a nuke is because we are threatening a war with them over the possibility of getting a nuke. The more we threaten to attack, the more likely they are to develop a nuke. If you told me you were going to come over to my house and kill me, I'd be more likely to go and buy a gun than if you did not make threats against my life.

The easiest way to dissuade Iran from getting a nuke would be to assure them that we respect their sovereignty and have no intention of attacking them militarily. Then, they would have no reason to acquire such a weapon.


January 9th, 2012, 2:43 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11935
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
WarEr4Christ wrote:
http://righttruejustfair.blogspot.com/2012/01/yourre-not-boss-of-me.html

Here is a link to a dear friend of mine that has spoken at some TEA party rallies here in Indiana. He does offer a lot of insight and smarts to the conversation. If the TEA party as a whole were to jump behind the candidate that best represented their goals, and that doesn't mean 100%, that means best meets, then we could have a strong choice. Palin supports Santorum, and so that says a lot about him in terms of his drive for this country, regardless of what you think about her. Now draw in the Evangelical vote, and you have a very strong candidate that could really do much to restore what's been destroyed in this country. Sadly, I believe we've already been hamstrung by the bumbling idiot, and his congressional minions, but who knows.

FWIW Sarah might, but her hubby apparently doesn't...
CSM wrote:
Todd Palin endorses Newt Gingrich. Is Sarah next?

Newt Gingrich gleefully tweeted that Todd Palin has endorsed him for president. Why does he care? Well, Todd's endorsement could be seen as a proxy endorsement from Sarah Palin.

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / January 9, 2012

Todd Palin has endorsed Newt Gingrich, if you haven’t heard. ABC News broke this story earlier today. The former Alaska First Dude said everybody in the GOP race was fine, but that he admired the way Mr. Gingrich had soldiered forward following the resignation of his staff last summer.

Gingrich’s campaign has “burst out of the political arena and touched many Americans,” Mr. Palin told ABC.

Of course, Palin père had not actually talked to the Gingrich team before giving them the nod, which is, um, unusual in endorsement politics. But the ex-speaker quickly said that he’s proud to have the endorsement of the world-class snowmobiler who happens to be Sarah Palin’s husband.

“Honored to be endorsed by Todd Palin. President Obama has failed. We need a Bold Reagan Conservative in the White House,” tweeted Newt.

Does this matter? Twitter was aflame with humor about this move on Monday, with many jokes running along the lines of, “Bet this wraps up the South Carolina snow machine vote,” or “Todd Palin endorses Newt: Hopes to be Secretary of Duct Tape.”

Ha ha. We’re here to say it matters more than you think. OK, maybe it’s not a huge deal, but it has some significance. Otherwise Gingrich, who is a pretty shrewd guy, would just have let the accolade drop unanswered.

The point to be made here is in fact relatively obvious: Gingrich hopes to equate Todd’s nod with Sarah. A Palin endorsement would be a big help for someone whose campaign could be ended by a poor showing in South Carolina. It would give Gingrich more tea party bona fides in his competition with Rick Santorum for the non-Mitt Romney primary slot.

Sarah Palin herself has been coy about an endorsement. Recently she even warned the GOP against alienating Ron Paul’s voters, lest the Texas libertarian bolt and mount a third-party bid. It’s possible she won’t endorse anyone, or is holding off until she sees whether social conservatives rally around a single candidate in their effort to deny Mr. Romney the nomination.

Endorsements matter, after all. As New York Times polling analyst Nate Silver points out, they are important measures of party and institutional support. They may not win votes per se, but they communicate a candidate’s relative strength to the media and political insiders.

And in Mr. Silver’s rough listing of how important endorsements are, the nod of former national candidates ranks as high as any. (No, we know she didn’t run this year – she was a VP candidate in 2008. Remember?)

According to Washington Post political blogger Chris Cillizza, the most important kind of an endorsement is a symbolic one, such as Ted Kennedy endorsing Barack Obama in 2008. Mr. Obama touted Mr. Kennedy’s backing as evidence that he was the candidate of the old guard, true Democrats. A Palin endorsement might have something of the same cachet on the GOP side.

Are we getting ahead of ourselves here? Todd may have been freelancing. Right now, he may be getting in trouble with his wife. But it’s hard to not see him as a stand-in for Sarah, providing Gingrich with a sort of semi-Palin endorsement that allows the former Alaska governor to still stand somewhat outside the current Republican contest.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/T ... Sarah-next

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


January 9th, 2012, 6:22 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
I saw that yesterday, and I also listened to an interview with Gingrich, and I've got to say that if he faced Obama in a debate, he'd blow him away, AS LONG AS the questions weren't geared in Obama's favor.

that's the difficult part, because we all know that the media is liberally biased, so they will side on their golden child, or slant, lie, decieve as necessary to get us 4 more years of "change."

Capitalism to Socialism: that's a change
grow the economy to reverse the economy: that's a change

so far these are changes that the USA could do without, I'd say!

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


January 10th, 2012, 9:49 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Blueskies, I would prefer to keep this thread on topic about Santorum, but I want to respond to one thing in your previous post before I move on. If you or anyone else seriously believes that Iran has begun enriching uranium deep inside a mountain for peaceful purposes only, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. That is all.

_________________
Image


January 10th, 2012, 4:40 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
They say you can tell a lot about a man, based upon whom he chooses to surround himself with. In stark comparison to our current POTUS, who has surrounded himself with Ayers, Soros, and many other really shady people, who have a notable hate for America, especially our Constitution, there is a story like this.

So instead of attacking the man, I wanted to ask if we could set our sights higher and compare agendas. Obama, his Czars, and Judicial supporters are showing continued disregard for the Constitution, even going so far as to trash the one we have when asked by countries like Egypt, about how to craft one. So just by their actions and statements alone we can see that in truth they are an enemy of the State.

But by comparison you have a man running for President that may not hold your "social" views, but has an obvious love for this country, and wishes to return it strength by actually working within our Constitution for the people. Here is a story of just one man that happens to be surrounding Senator Santorum, and I find it blatantly obvious of the stark differences between the two: Obama and Santorum.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/08/ ... d%3D134031

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


February 9th, 2012, 9:13 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Yea, Santorum had a very impressive clean sweep Tuesday night and he is now rising in the polls. He may become the new Anybody But Mitt candidate, but time will tell. Personally, I still prefer Newt, but Rick would be my second choice ahead of Romney. With that said, Rick really hasn't been vetted yet, so get ready for non-stop Romney attack ads against him. If Santorum can weather that, he should be fine.

_________________
Image


February 11th, 2012, 1:15 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 232 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 16  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Pablo and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.