How can people really vote for Santorum

[Missourian]

How about the Obama quote?

How can you forget the bible and gun clingers quote, support of the assault weapons ban and his handgun questionnaire from Illinois?

"FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate.

A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:

a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.


BITTER-GATE


April 11th produced "Bittergate." The Huffington Post website posted an explanation Obama gave at a private fundraiser in San Francisco of the challenges he faced with working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana. "It's not surprising they get bitter," he said, referring to decades of constrained economic opportunities. "They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."



Barack Obama on Gun Control

The one where he said he would just keep issuing waivers, blah blah.

That was Romney, not Obama.


Q: You've said some things about the Massachusetts law worked; other things didn't work as well. On the individual mandate, the government saying that people have to buy health insurance--was that one of the things that worked in Massachusetts?

ROMNEY: One thing I'd do on day one if I'm elected president is direct my secretary of health and human services to put out an executive order granting a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states. It is bad law, it will not work, and I'll get that done on day one. Now, what we faced in our state is different than what other states face.

2011 GOP debate in Simi Valley CA at the Reagan Library, Sept. 7, 2011

Couple that with Norm Coleman, a top Romney advisor confirming Obamacare will not be repealed by the next republican president and what does that tell you?

 

[Missourian]

Except Santorum said states should have to right to ban birth control.

I expect better from you, are you really this poorly informed?

Or is this from the Romney negative ad disinformation playbook?

What he said was states already do have the power to ban birth control, just like they have the power to ban alcohol, smoking, bath salts, and pseudo ephedrine...but that they should not and would not.

Santorum: " “I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’

<SNIP>

Santorum: "Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.’’


Rick Santorum: &lsquo;The idea I&rsquo;m coming after your birth control is absurd&rsquo; - She the People: - The Washington Post


Please, let's stick to the facts and leave the disinformation to the liberals.

You're wanting me to how down to the religious right and I won't do it. It is you who is not informed if you think Santorum didn't say that about birth control. There are scores of sources quoting him as saying he thinks states should have the right to ban birth control. He is contradicting himself in your link.

Huff Po and Msnbc.

Read the original article, not the liberal sound bite.

 

[Missourian]

Except Santorum said states should have to right to ban birth control.

I expect better from you, are you really this poorly informed?

Or is this from the Romney negative ad disinformation playbook?

What he said was states already do have the power to ban birth control, just like they have the power to ban alcohol, smoking, bath salts, and pseudo ephedrine...but that they should not and would not.

Santorum: " “I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’

<SNIP>

Santorum: "Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.’’


Rick Santorum: &lsquo;The idea I&rsquo;m coming after your birth control is absurd&rsquo; - She the People: - The Washington Post


Please, let's stick to the facts and leave the disinformation to the liberals.

You're wanting me to how down to the religious right and I won't do it. It is you who is not informed if you think Santorum didn't say that about birth control. There are scores of sources quoting him as saying he thinks states should have the right to ban birth control. He is contradicting himself in your link.

I don't want you to bow down to anyone.

I want you to assess the facts without bias...nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Meister]

Where did he say one religion has to be in charge? But, if you absolutely insist on an example of something that has nothing to do with what is being discussed, I would simply point to Tibet, and walk away.

The clause that is actually in the constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise thereof. Telling people that religion is not allowed in public is prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In fact, there is another clause in the constitution specifically prohibits any religious test for public office to federal government. That actually prohibits a test that would require people in office from not deferring to their religious beliefs. That makes an absolute separation between religious belief and government unconstitutional, even while building a wall between church and state.

Go take a look at a wall sometime. My guess is you won't ever find one that cannot be climbed over or gone around.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing religious displays in public, it's when religion becomes law that the problems start. Just ask Ireland. I'm not too sure on the law now, but in the recent past it was illegal to have condoms. Why? Because Catholic doctrine was also law.

Tibet only has one religion. As far as I'm aware there were no other religions other than Buddism...so that is not a good example.

That's why we have a separation between church and state. Having said that...it's a two way street, Grump.

Just a side note, Grump....your example is exactly what our FF's had in mind when they put that into the First Amendment. Our court judges has legislated it to go a lot further with those words than what was originally intended.

 

[Dr Grump]

This thread has become too much about each other's personality and not enough about the policies of Mr Santorum. So now it is here.

What does that last sentence mean?

As for what it is about, pull your head in....

 

[Dr Grump]

Where did he say one religion has to be in charge? But, if you absolutely insist on an example of something that has nothing to do with what is being discussed, I would simply point to Tibet, and walk away.

The clause that is actually in the constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise thereof. Telling people that religion is not allowed in public is prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In fact, there is another clause in the constitution specifically prohibits any religious test for public office to federal government. That actually prohibits a test that would require people in office from not deferring to their religious beliefs. That makes an absolute separation between religious belief and government unconstitutional, even while building a wall between church and state.

Go take a look at a wall sometime. My guess is you won't ever find one that cannot be climbed over or gone around.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing religious displays in public, it's when religion becomes law that the problems start. Just ask Ireland. I'm not too sure on the law now, but in the recent past it was illegal to have condoms. Why? Because Catholic doctrine was also law.

Tibet only has one religion. As far as I'm aware there were no other religions other than Buddism...so that is not a good example.

Condoms were illegal because the Catholics said so? That probably explains the opposition of the feminist movement to condoms in the 1800s, everyone knows that those feminists are in the pay of the Catholic church.



Maybe you should go learn some history before you start blaming a single group for everything you perceive to be a problem.

By the way, how is Tibet not a good example of a government that is controlled by religion that is peaceful? Would you prefer the example of the Saracens who invaded Israel and allowed bith Christains and Jews to be fully productive members of their Islamic society?

Of course it was Catholic doctrine that outlawed contraception in Ireland. Look it up. And you're telling me to learn something.

With regard to Tibet, that wasn't my original point. My point was can you name a country where one religion reigns supreme at hte cost of other/minoirty religions. As far as I'm aware only Buddhists exist in Tibet although I'm sure there are a large number of athiests thanks to the Chinese now running the joint. Maybe you need to get your point right before giving off an example...

 

[rdean]

he's white

 

[Intense]

he's white

But..... But..... What would Miss Nancy say to that RD???

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-ssWdavr9U&feature=related]Miss Sally Romper Room Magic Mirror - YouTube[/ame]
Miss Sally Romper Room Magic Mirror

 

[eots]

I just dont understand how a logical person can vote for this guy. I'm trying to find a reason on why so many people would actually think this guy is any good. This guy is far gone.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Do6xGh04aA&feature=related]Racist Americans - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

sadly some of these people vote...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSMZ2I_o7eQ&feature=related]Hidden camera Amrican & Muslim - YouTube[/ame]

 

[candycorn]

1. i guess you hate separation of church and state
2. people going to college
3. A person not interested in helping blacks for equality
4. bigot against gays
5. stoping contraception
6. thinks college is a liberal conspiracy

I would think that if you had a stronger front-runner, Santorum would have been out of it after New Hampshire. Give him credit that he sees the flaws of Mitt Romney. That he thinks his views are a good prescription for what ails America is silly but his ego won't let him step aside.

How people vote for him? Lack of choices which is a sad commentary on GOP politics in and of itself.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I just dont understand how a logical person can vote for this guy. I'm trying to find a reason on why so many people would actually think this guy is any good. This guy is far gone.

You can tell it's election time.


The truly deep down dumb as a waterlogged stump muther fukkers come out in hoards.


welcome to usmb for the election time stumpy.


How can people vote for
A person that executed a citizen w/o a trial
Lied to get the church to back him then used that lie to make up a "The gop hates women" strain to take eyes of the fucked economy.
Resigned the Patriot Act
Expanded the powers of the EPA to the point they get to make shit up as they go along.
Passed tyranny in the form of helping people.
Pissed on ALL of our best allies.

etc
etc
on infinitude.

 

[JoeB131]

I just dont understand how a logical person can vote for this guy. I'm trying to find a reason on why so many people would actually think this guy is any good. This guy is far gone.

Well, how about this.

He's a Republican who actually understands that if you don't have a viable middle class, the country is in serious trouble.

Unlike Romney who thinks as long as he can buy enough polo ponies, all is right in the world.

Now, I do worry about the fact he's a little fanatical in his Catholicism, but he doesn't think anything that crazy, like he's wearing Magic Underpants and he's going to be a God on his own world after he dies.

But the reality is, I've been hearing the "Republicans are going to take away your right to an abortion" nonsense for 32 years now.

 

[JoeB131]

1. i guess you hate separation of church and state
2. people going to college
3. A person not interested in helping blacks for equality
4. bigot against gays
5. stoping contraception
6. thinks college is a liberal conspiracy

I think that we send more people to college than the economy has a need for, and we waste a lot of money doing it.

Education is going to be the next big economic bubble that's going to burst.

As for those other things, those were groups that were never going to vote for a Republican anyway. You think the gays are going to vote for Romney? Or the Blacks?

 

[JoeB131]

Two pages in and no "conservative" will say why someone should vote for Santorum. I'm not surprised.

Well, leave it to the liberal to explain it then.

People vote for Santorum, and would in the General Election, because they relate to him and believe he shares the same values they do. By voting in this manner, voters feel more comfortable about not knowing all the intricacies of an issue, because if Santorum has the same values they do, he would decide as they would on an issue.

I said why they do, but not why they should.

Here's the thing for me. I would say Romney is closer to my views on issues, but I think he's just an absolutely horrible human being. And A Mormon. But I repeat myself.

I don't agree with Santorum on religious issues or social issues that much, but I think he's a man of integrity. He lives and dies by what he believes in. I'd rather have a man who believes in something than a man who believes what his handlers and image makers tell him he believes.

 

[editec]

How can people really vote for Santorum

They can be sympathetic to his POV, that's how.

Hard as it is for some of us to believe, Creepy Ricky's message of fear and hate for women resonates in the hearts of many Americans.

 

[Two Thumbs]

How can people really vote for Santorum

They can be sympathetic to his POV, that's how.

Hard as it is for some of us to believe, Creepy Ricky's message of fear and hate for women resonates in the hearts of many Americans.

Plz link any statement or near evidence that he fears and hates women.

since he's married, with children, this evidence will have to go well beyond moronic assumption.

and the term; war on women is not acceptable as it's utter horseshit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing religious displays in public, it's when religion becomes law that the problems start. Just ask Ireland. I'm not too sure on the law now, but in the recent past it was illegal to have condoms. Why? Because Catholic doctrine was also law.

Tibet only has one religion. As far as I'm aware there were no other religions other than Buddism...so that is not a good example.

Condoms were illegal because the Catholics said so? That probably explains the opposition of the feminist movement to condoms in the 1800s, everyone knows that those feminists are in the pay of the Catholic church.



Maybe you should go learn some history before you start blaming a single group for everything you perceive to be a problem.

By the way, how is Tibet not a good example of a government that is controlled by religion that is peaceful? Would you prefer the example of the Saracens who invaded Israel and allowed bith Christains and Jews to be fully productive members of their Islamic society?

Of course it was Catholic doctrine that outlawed contraception in Ireland. Look it up. And you're telling me to learn something.

With regard to Tibet, that wasn't my original point. My point was can you name a country where one religion reigns supreme at hte cost of other/minoirty religions. As far as I'm aware only Buddhists exist in Tibet although I'm sure there are a large number of athiests thanks to the Chinese now running the joint. Maybe you need to get your point right before giving off an example...

Condoms were pretty much illegal all over the civilized world in the early 1900s because opposition to them was broad based. You can whine about Ireland and blame the Catholics if you want, but the fact that they were illegal here at the same time, a position supported by the feminists, makes your position, at best, anecdotal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

they have little to no money, They can not create policies, They can not give out grants. They have little to no staff.

I offered a link, you offered well...nothing

Funny, you never disputed my statement, in fact, you actually admitted I was right, Now you are complaining because I didn't go to Wikipedia to prove that, even though he doesn't have any powers, according to you, he actually told the banks what salaries they could get away with paying. Are you trying to say that didn't happen now?

the only way that would happen is if who ever he reports to told him he could. Otherwise he doesnt have the power too.

Honestly i am just being lazy and not researching what you claim, because i dont really care. I'm smart enough not to just take your word for it, because you tend to skew things because of your bias...

Shrug.

Damn.

Czars only report to one person, if they report. The constitution specifically requires anyone who is involved in making policy be subject to the advise and consent of the Senate. You can claim the don't have power, but here is clear evidence they do.

Kenneth Feinberg set bonuses at banks.

U.S. Pay Czar Said Set to Release Bonus Details - NYTimes.com

George Mitchell was solely responsible for negotiating MidEast policy and did not even report to the Secretary of State, who supposedly has that job.

Middle East Envoy George Mitchell - TIME

Howard Schmidt was tasked with was tasking with rewriting the entire US cyber security policy of the government.

Cybersecurity czar's first task: reboot policy - CSMonitor.com

Feel free to repost the Wikipedia link that says they don't have any power, no budget, and don't set policy if it makes you fell better, but I think I just trumped it with 3 separate real world links that prove they do set policy.

 

[The T]

Funny, you never disputed my statement, in fact, you actually admitted I was right, Now you are complaining because I didn't go to Wikipedia to prove that, even though he doesn't have any powers, according to you, he actually told the banks what salaries they could get away with paying. Are you trying to say that didn't happen now?

the only way that would happen is if who ever he reports to told him he could. Otherwise he doesnt have the power too.

Honestly i am just being lazy and not researching what you claim, because i dont really care. I'm smart enough not to just take your word for it, because you tend to skew things because of your bias...

Shrug.

Damn.

Czars only report to one person, if they report. The constitution specifically requires anyone who is involved in making policy be subject to the advise and consent of the Senate. You can claim the don't have power, but here is clear evidence they do.

Kenneth Feinberg set bonuses at banks.

U.S. Pay Czar Said Set to Release Bonus Details - NYTimes.com

George Mitchell was solely responsible for negotiating MidEast policy and did not even report to the Secretary of State, who supposedly has that job.

Middle East Envoy George Mitchell - TIME

Howard Schmidt was tasked with was tasking with rewriting the entire US cyber security policy of the government.

Cybersecurity czar's first task: reboot policy - CSMonitor.com

Feel free to repost the Wikipedia link that says they don't have any power, no budget, and don't set policy if it makes you fell better, but I think I just trumped it with 3 separate real world links that prove they do set policy.

And what of the Watermelon Van Jones whom Obama was forced to let go leading the OWS garbage?