View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 25th, 2014, 8:25 pm



Reply to topic  [ 232 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 16  Next
 Thoughts on Santorum 
Author Message
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
One can only hope! He stands up for the people, whether he sides with them or not. He is definitely PRO American, and PRO American resources, and will put people to work instead of perpetually talking about it, and giving welfare instead.

_________________
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 11th, 2012, 9:39 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2701
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
I really have no idea what to make of Santorum's rise.

I believe that if he were to win the nomination, it would go down as one of the worst defeats in US history. Worse than 64 and 84.


February 15th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2701
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Ok, maybe he actually has a bit of sense:



February 15th, 2012, 9:49 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Interesting take on Santorum:

Cato Institute wrote:
Santorum Is Severely Wrong
by Gene Healy

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power.
Added to cato.org on February 13, 2012

This article appeared in Washington Examiner on February 13, 2012.

"I am severely conservative," Mitt Romney told the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference Saturday. Way to sell it, governor!

Clearly the Romney-2012 Presidential Unit still has a few bugs in its pandering software. The former Massachusetts governor's robotic awkwardness helped propel Rick Santorum to a string of victories in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado last week, and a new Pew Research Center poll has him with a slight lead on Romney among Republican voters nationally.

To borrow from Mitt's rhetorical stylings, I'm not severely conservative, but I do have a case of Stage IV libertarianism. And anyone who shares that condition will find Santorum's rise particularly vexing. The former senator from Pennsylvania is libertarianism's sweater-vested arch-nemesis.

In a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg last summer, Santorum declared, "I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement."

In that regard, Santorum has a pretty impressive record. By voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, he helped give President Obama the power to micromanage the nation's schools from Washington; and by supporting a prescription drug entitlement for Medicare, he helped saddle the taxpayers with a $16 trillion unfunded liability.

Santorum voted for the 2005 "bridge to nowhere" highway bill, has backed an expanded national service program, and his compassionate conservatism has the Bono seal of approval: "On our issues, he has been a defender of the most vulnerable." Rick Santorum: He's from the government, and he's here to help.

Santorum's 2012 campaign platform even includes a pledge to "re-direct funds within HHS, so it can create public/private partnerships... for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood."

If you liked what the feds did to the housing market, wait till you see what they can do for your marriage.

The Tea Party movement was supposed to represent an end to this sort of moralistic Big Government conservatism. Animated by "fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets," as the Tea Party Patriots' credo put it, the movement had supposedly put social issues on the back burner to focus on the crisis of government growth.

At one time, Santorum seemed to share this view of the Tea Party — and it troubled him. In that same talk in Harrisburg, he said, "I've got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it."

Santorum needn't have worried: In this year's contests, he's regularly drawn more support from Tea Party voters than Ron Paul, who has been described as the "intellectual godfather of the Tea Party movement."

Exit polls show Santorum beating Paul among self-described Tea Party supporters in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, trailing him only in independent-heavy New Hampshire and Nevada.

A recent Time magazine symposium asked leading thinkers on the Right, "What Is Conservatism?" Anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist offered this answer: "Conservatives ask only one thing of the government. They wish to be left alone."

Tell that to Santorum, whose agenda rests on meddling with other people, sometimes with laws, sometimes with aircraft carrier groups.

"This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do," Santorum complained to NPR in 2006, "that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues... that is not how traditional conservatives view the world."

That version of conservatism has a new standard bearer, and he's rising in the polls.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=14103

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


February 16th, 2012, 1:01 pm
Profile
Online
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3142
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
TheRealWags wrote:
Interesting take on Santorum:

Cato Institute wrote:
Santorum Is Severely Wrong
by Gene Healy

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power.
Added to cato.org on February 13, 2012

This article appeared in Washington Examiner on February 13, 2012.

"I am severely conservative," Mitt Romney told the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference Saturday. Way to sell it, governor!

Clearly the Romney-2012 Presidential Unit still has a few bugs in its pandering software. The former Massachusetts governor's robotic awkwardness helped propel Rick Santorum to a string of victories in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado last week, and a new Pew Research Center poll has him with a slight lead on Romney among Republican voters nationally.

To borrow from Mitt's rhetorical stylings, I'm not severely conservative, but I do have a case of Stage IV libertarianism. And anyone who shares that condition will find Santorum's rise particularly vexing. The former senator from Pennsylvania is libertarianism's sweater-vested arch-nemesis.

In a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg last summer, Santorum declared, "I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement."

In that regard, Santorum has a pretty impressive record. By voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, he helped give President Obama the power to micromanage the nation's schools from Washington; and by supporting a prescription drug entitlement for Medicare, he helped saddle the taxpayers with a $16 trillion unfunded liability.

Santorum voted for the 2005 "bridge to nowhere" highway bill, has backed an expanded national service program, and his compassionate conservatism has the Bono seal of approval: "On our issues, he has been a defender of the most vulnerable." Rick Santorum: He's from the government, and he's here to help.

Santorum's 2012 campaign platform even includes a pledge to "re-direct funds within HHS, so it can create public/private partnerships... for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood."

If you liked what the feds did to the housing market, wait till you see what they can do for your marriage.

The Tea Party movement was supposed to represent an end to this sort of moralistic Big Government conservatism. Animated by "fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets," as the Tea Party Patriots' credo put it, the movement had supposedly put social issues on the back burner to focus on the crisis of government growth.

At one time, Santorum seemed to share this view of the Tea Party — and it troubled him. In that same talk in Harrisburg, he said, "I've got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it."

Santorum needn't have worried: In this year's contests, he's regularly drawn more support from Tea Party voters than Ron Paul, who has been described as the "intellectual godfather of the Tea Party movement."

Exit polls show Santorum beating Paul among self-described Tea Party supporters in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, trailing him only in independent-heavy New Hampshire and Nevada.

A recent Time magazine symposium asked leading thinkers on the Right, "What Is Conservatism?" Anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist offered this answer: "Conservatives ask only one thing of the government. They wish to be left alone."

Tell that to Santorum, whose agenda rests on meddling with other people, sometimes with laws, sometimes with aircraft carrier groups.

"This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do," Santorum complained to NPR in 2006, "that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues... that is not how traditional conservatives view the world."

That version of conservatism has a new standard bearer, and he's rising in the polls.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=14103

This article very clearly articulates something that has been baffling to me. How do people claim that Santorum is the great conservative in the race, but ignore his voting record that is most definitely not small-gov't conservative, while at the same time criticizing Romney for not having a conservative record? To me, neither are particularly conservative when it comes to small-gov't.

_________________
"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


February 16th, 2012, 2:07 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9494
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Are you a fan of Coke or Pepsi? Slightly different flavor, but essentially the same thing. Some people are pretty damn passionate about their flavor of choice, of course marketing might have a little to do with that.

Oh wait, I didn't mean Coke and Pepsi, I meant Republican or Democrat.

The whole damn country better wake up and realize they are just slightly different flavors from one another with different marketing. Just like Coke and Pepsi, the ads change over time but the flavor doesn't. Sure we have Diet Pepsi and Coke Zero, but are they really all that different of a choice?

This thread is like arguing the nuiances of that flavor, but in the end mean nothing. The standards, "well at least he is better than this guy". Is that what we have come to?

Here is your pattern. The other "guy" gets elected, and then reelected. Then you "guy" gets elected and then reelected. And then the other guy... Well you get the picture.

So what will you do? You will vote for your side (or against the other side). You will care more about winning than results (cause just look at the results these two parties have produced the last 100 years). The next election cycle you will do the same thing.

It is silly and the definition of insanity. I can tell you which party will win this election and the next and the one after that without even knowing the candidates.

So what will it be? Coke or Pepsi? Isn't the world a better place with more beverage choices than just Coke or Pepsi?

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


February 16th, 2012, 2:58 pm
Profile WWW
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3827
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
I vote Mt. Dew. IE Ron paul. common....try and tell me he's not definitively different!!

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


February 16th, 2012, 3:25 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9494
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
regularjoe12 wrote:
I vote Mt. Dew. IE Ron paul. common....try and tell me he's not definitively different!!


He is about as different as they come in this race. Still a soft drink, but not that brown/black color and a flavor easily distinguished from the other two.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


February 16th, 2012, 3:32 pm
Profile WWW
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
This article very clearly articulates something that has been baffling to me. How do people claim that Santorum is the great conservative in the race, but ignore his voting record that is most definitely not small-gov't conservative, while at the same time criticizing Romney for not having a conservative record? To me, neither are particularly conservative when it comes to small-gov't.

Maybe because he's "social" conservative...... dontknow.gif

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


February 16th, 2012, 4:56 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Pablo wrote:
Are you a fan of Coke or Pepsi? Slightly different flavor, but essentially the same thing. Some people are pretty damn passionate about their flavor of choice, of course marketing might have a little to do with that.

Oh wait, I didn't mean Coke and Pepsi, I meant Republican or Democrat.

The whole damn country better wake up and realize they are just slightly different flavors from one another with different marketing. Just like Coke and Pepsi, the ads change over time but the flavor doesn't. Sure we have Diet Pepsi and Coke Zero, but are they really all that different of a choice?

This thread is like arguing the nuiances of that flavor, but in the end mean nothing. The standards, "well at least he is better than this guy". Is that what we have come to?

Here is your pattern. The other "guy" gets elected, and then reelected. Then you "guy" gets elected and then reelected. And then the other guy... Well you get the picture.

So what will you do? You will vote for your side (or against the other side). You will care more about winning than results (cause just look at the results these two parties have produced the last 100 years). The next election cycle you will do the same thing.

It is silly and the definition of insanity. I can tell you which party will win this election and the next and the one after that without even knowing the candidates.

So what will it be? Coke or Pepsi? Isn't the world a better place with more beverage choices than just Coke or Pepsi?

Well said. No matter what letters are at the end of a politician's name, they're still the same. They've all been bought and paid for by the time they get in office, then spend the time they're there to doll out paybacks and increase their own wealth.

Pablo wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
I vote Mt. Dew. IE Ron paul. common....try and tell me he's not definitively different!!

He is about as different as they come in this race. Still a soft drink, but not that brown/black color and a flavor easily distinguished from the other two.

Yep. As much as I'd love for Ron Paul to win (I'd also love to see Buddy Roemer), he still wouldn't be able to accomplish what he set out to do. IMO people give the POTUS too much credit and/or blame. The real power of our Govt is, unfortunately, in Congress...and we've all seen they're approval rates the last decade ](*,)

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


February 16th, 2012, 5:04 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3827
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Quote:
Yep. As much as I'd love for Ron Paul to win (I'd also love to see Buddy Roemer), he still wouldn't be able to accomplish what he set out to do. IMO people give the POTUS too much credit and/or blame. The real power of our Govt is, unfortunately, in Congress...and we've all seen they're approval rates the last decade



and yet we consistantly re-ellect these chumps over and over again.......sigh.


I HATE the fact that you are 100% right wags. HATE IT.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


February 16th, 2012, 5:38 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
But can I ask you guys this question, or questions....

1. Do you want a President who passionately loves this country, or wishes to sell it out?

I know this seems perspectively challenged or "right leaning" but I am only using a famous quote to illustrate the point.

* The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.
Vladimir Lenin
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... z1maICRv1l


The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.
Vladimir Lenin
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... z1maIRx74q


Both of these quotes come from one of the most NOTORIOUS Communist men in all of history. Under his leadership, and then that of those who followed him:
1. Millions died
2. The Party Leadership lived in luxury, all beneath did NOT
3. Everything was middle of the road. Stores had days for bread, days for Toilet Paper, days for meat, and so on. The State provided everything and none of it was really any good.

Obama is creating a State Run society: The government under his "leadership" has created, or wants to create:

1. State issued Jobs
2. State issued housing
3. State issued food benefits
4. State issued healthcare
5. State issue utility coverage
6. State issued cell phones

In other words the State runs EVERY aspect of our lives. For that segment of society that has grown up suckling on the government teet, this is great news because that means it's the good life, without the requirement or dignity of work. I'm not being melodramatic, I am calling your attention to the legislation that has been passed during his term. The tactic to force this has been "DEBAUCHING" the currency. If he continues to spend his way into fixing the economy, we will be lost. Common sense tells us that you don't do things that way.

Now word comes out that in North Dakota alone, we have 25 TIMES more oil than was predicted. That's 2500% more than what USGS predicted. By opening up these fields, which happened to be on private land, that's how Maobama's people couldn't stop the drilling, they have effectively reduced the State of ND jobless rate to 3.5%. Several billion dollars have been placed into the State Rainy Day fund, and more. This is the kind of prosperity that we as a Nation could have, if we removed the current leadership and his Csars and Capitol Hill Cronies.

Santorum has voted questionably in many things, and I do not know them all, but I do know of a very SOLID answer he gave when asked about a Labor Union Bill that he voted for. IF I REMEMBER THIS CORRECTLY, when he was asked why he voted in favor of the bill, when so many of his party were against it, he stated that he was employed by the people of Pennsylvania, and they wanted him to vote yes by like 80% or something. How is that not refreshing? A man sent to Washington to do the will of the people and he DOES IT.

I'm not saying Romney, or Gingrich don't love their country, I just am concerned with a man that ships his money off shore to avoid taxes. Gingrich strikes me as a Martz type hot head, and Paul concerns me with his foreign policy. Santorum is PRO US, PRO Israel, and willing to make the choices necessary to get people working as soon as possible.

I also think that Santorum will electrify the Conservative Christian base, if he should get the nod. The media seems to be saying Santorum would be an easy win for Obama, but I don't think so at all. This would really be a David vs. Goliath fight, but I'd take David any day!!!!

So the question I guess would be would you rather have a man who is passionate for his country, socially conservative, and willing to use American resources instead of having Brazilian oil companies drill our oil fields and sell it back to us, or would you want the New Milleniums version of Vlad. Lenin?

_________________
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 16th, 2012, 6:15 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2701
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Comparing Obama to Lenin is an insult to Lenin. Obama is not Lenin, he is not a Leninist. While his rhetoric may be different, he has governed no different from GWB. Obama is not a radical leftist, and claiming that he is just makes you sound like a fool. Government provided jobs, rent, etc have been around for 70 years, and Obama has not significantly expanded them.

Santorum's social conservative status will get him killed. If was a social moderate, he might have a shot. To win an election you need moderate voters. Moderates are not social conservatives.


February 16th, 2012, 8:39 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
So I'm a fool? Obama is not not a radical leftist? Compared to whom?

Obama has CONSISTENTLY circumvented the American Constitution, in order to appoint his CZARS, now we have the discussion about religious freedoms, (see appropriate thread), and he's governed no different from GWB?

I'm sorry, are you new to the board? I'm really not trying to be a jerk, and I don't wish for this to be offensive, but I am really dumbfounded by your response.

Obama has spent MORE, TRILLIONS MORE, that Bush ever did. The Bush money of 700 Billion has been PAID back.

Obama has socialized the medicine,
Obama has governmentized the car industry except Ford,
Obama has made perma-unemployment an almost reality,
Obama has put more people on welfare because of failed economic policies (see uncontrolled spending, lack of common sense, debauch the economy)
Obama has been CLOSELY associated with Soros, and the terrorists.
Obama has been strongly supported by the Communist Party, and EVEN had a COMMUNIST as a CZAR (see Van Jones)
And let's not even bring up ACORN, (Another Criminal Organization Run by Nimcompoops)

You are correct in that government employment has been around for 70 years, but not to this level. (See 30k IRS jobs)

Again:
State run jobs
State run schools
State run food programs
State run housing
State run health care
State run lives (remember the whole tell on your neighbor thingy? See Communist "Block Captains")

Obama has NOT run his Presidency along the lines of GW. Bush has character, and honor, and stood by his guns, regardless of the political cost. The supposed WMD's the didn't exist, actually DO exist and was reported by the NYT as recently as a few years ago. I think I posted on it within the last year. (I know the character part personally, as my cousin was Barbara Bush's personal assistant for 6 years.)

Obama may not be cut out version of a Lenninist, but he is definitely a party man.

I'm sorry that you can't see it, but I am also dumbfounded that you would call me a fool based upon reality. Santorum's Social Conservativism would not get him killed as you suggest, because unlike what the media is reporting, I would hazzard to guess the MAJORITY of America is CONSERVATIVE. We want to be left alone so that we can live our lives without government restrictions (within reason), government intrusion, and much more. In fact, I'd like to say this again but in a much less argumentative tone. Where are Illinois Eric and the Lomas Browns, who were both highly upset with Bush's Patriot Act that was NO WHERE NEAR as Intrusive as what is coming down the pike now.

And here's a question for you:

If I refuse to purchase the government healthcare, am I to be booked on Federal Charges? Because that's more than likely what will happen, and I tell you now, I WILL NOT BE BUYING GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE.

So if this is what a fool looks like, I guess I'm a fool, and happy to be so!!!

_________________
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 16th, 2012, 10:56 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9494
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
WarEr4Christ wrote:
But can I ask you guys this question, or questions....

1. Do you want a President who passionately loves this country, or wishes to sell it out?

I know this seems perspectively challenged or "right leaning" but I am only using a famous quote to illustrate the point.

* The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.
Vladimir Lenin
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... z1maICRv1l


The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.
Vladimir Lenin
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... z1maIRx74q


Both of these quotes come from one of the most NOTORIOUS Communist men in all of history. Under his leadership, and then that of those who followed him:
1. Millions died
2. The Party Leadership lived in luxury, all beneath did NOT
3. Everything was middle of the road. Stores had days for bread, days for Toilet Paper, days for meat, and so on. The State provided everything and none of it was really any good.

Obama is creating a State Run society: The government under his "leadership" has created, or wants to create:

1. State issued Jobs
2. State issued housing
3. State issued food benefits
4. State issued healthcare
5. State issue utility coverage
6. State issued cell phones

In other words the State runs EVERY aspect of our lives. For that segment of society that has grown up suckling on the government teet, this is great news because that means it's the good life, without the requirement or dignity of work. I'm not being melodramatic, I am calling your attention to the legislation that has been passed during his term. The tactic to force this has been "DEBAUCHING" the currency. If he continues to spend his way into fixing the economy, we will be lost. Common sense tells us that you don't do things that way.

Now word comes out that in North Dakota alone, we have 25 TIMES more oil than was predicted. That's 2500% more than what USGS predicted. By opening up these fields, which happened to be on private land, that's how Maobama's people couldn't stop the drilling, they have effectively reduced the State of ND jobless rate to 3.5%. Several billion dollars have been placed into the State Rainy Day fund, and more. This is the kind of prosperity that we as a Nation could have, if we removed the current leadership and his Csars and Capitol Hill Cronies.

Santorum has voted questionably in many things, and I do not know them all, but I do know of a very SOLID answer he gave when asked about a Labor Union Bill that he voted for. IF I REMEMBER THIS CORRECTLY, when he was asked why he voted in favor of the bill, when so many of his party were against it, he stated that he was employed by the people of Pennsylvania, and they wanted him to vote yes by like 80% or something. How is that not refreshing? A man sent to Washington to do the will of the people and he DOES IT.

I'm not saying Romney, or Gingrich don't love their country, I just am concerned with a man that ships his money off shore to avoid taxes. Gingrich strikes me as a Martz type hot head, and Paul concerns me with his foreign policy. Santorum is PRO US, PRO Israel, and willing to make the choices necessary to get people working as soon as possible.

I also think that Santorum will electrify the Conservative Christian base, if he should get the nod. The media seems to be saying Santorum would be an easy win for Obama, but I don't think so at all. This would really be a David vs. Goliath fight, but I'd take David any day!!!!

So the question I guess would be would you rather have a man who is passionate for his country, socially conservative, and willing to use American resources instead of having Brazilian oil companies drill our oil fields and sell it back to us, or would you want the New Milleniums version of Vlad. Lenin?


This IS exactly my point and why this country will never get anywhere. It is a sad commentary and each side can't seem to recognize that they simply cancel each other out and nothing constructive will ever get done. It is why I can predict the next X amount of presidential elections. You've got two sides entrenched and then the swing votes who act exactly like swings once they get fed up enough of the current party in office.

Has Coke or Pepsi reduced the size of gov't while in control? Has Coke or Pepsi reduced the debt while in office? Has Coke or Pepsi really done anything but maintain the status quo while in office? Do you really believe Coke loves this country while Pepsi hates it?

Sad, really sad.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


February 17th, 2012, 10:48 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 232 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 16  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.