How can people really vote for Santorum

rick santorum saying America was great before 1965 civil rights act lol
this is who conservatives vote for
 
"“I don’t believe that the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said in an interview today on ABC’s “This Week” program. “The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square.”

For simple minded robot liberals this simply means all religions are welcome in the united states of America.

JFk speech was not about that lol
'Err...uhmmm? Where in that post was JFK mentioned? What it hidden behind some silent vowel?
 
Then you doom the United States to further failure.

No, actually, I don't.

I would change my mind, though, if Santorum, or any of his supporters, were to explain how strengthening the 1950's version of "family" will lead to creating millions of jobs for people out of work.
Whom said anything of the 1950's? 1850's? 1750's?

Does the date matter? As a matter of course? No, it doesn't. The fact is that Government has taken on the role where it doesn't belong by design.

There is no substitute for good parenting skills. Centralized Planning, One Size Fits All, has done enough damage. You want Robots, open a Factory.
 
No, actually, I don't.

I would change my mind, though, if Santorum, or any of his supporters, were to explain how strengthening the 1950's version of "family" will lead to creating millions of jobs for people out of work.
Whom said anything of the 1950's? 1850's? 1750's?

Does the date matter? As a matter of course? No, it doesn't. The fact is that Government has taken on the role where it doesn't belong by design.

There is no substitute for good parenting skills. Centralized Planning, One Size Fits All, has done enough damage. You want Robots, open a Factory.
Absolutely. Family planning planning belongs in the family and Government stay the Hell out of it.
 
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.

Did ya' see who the current President is?
'nuff said?


US: $15,488,891,296,248 - Debt as of March 2012
The Concord Coalition

Being against Obama is a stupid reason for voting for a man who's stuck in the 17th century. The GOP has failed to come forward with a credible, viable candidate. It's a joke. And after all that chest-thumping on November 5, 2008. The Republicans are eating their own. Obama will win by a landslide.
 
Last edited:
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.
Apparently, you haven't taken a good look at the vapid, vain, incoherent, over-his-head Marxist ideologue currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania.

How'd that happen?

oh so you would trade a leftwing bigger government for a religious big government guy?

Funny how you always seem to defends these pukes

That is what you call a conundrum.
 
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.

Did ya' see who the current President is?
'nuff said?


US: $15,488,891,296,248 - Debt as of March 2012
The Concord Coalition

Being against Obama is a stupid reason for voting for a man who's stuck in the 17th century. The GOP has failed to come forward with a credible, viable candidate. It's a joke. And after all that chest-thumping on November 5, 2008. The Republicans are eating their own. Obama will win by a landslide.

he wants women to get married at age 20, stay home and have 10 kids
 
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.

Did ya' see who the current President is?
'nuff said?


US: $15,488,891,296,248 - Debt as of March 2012
The Concord Coalition

Being against Obama is a stupid reason for voting for a man who's stuck in the 17th century. The GOP has failed to come forward with a credible, viable candidate. It's a joke. And after all that chest-thumping on November 5, 2008. The Republicans are eating their own. Obama will win by a landslide.

How is mitt romney stuck in the 17th century?
 
"“I don’t believe that the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said in an interview today on ABC’s “This Week” program. “The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square.”

For simple minded robot liberals this simply means al religions are welcome in the united states of America.

That's not what Kennedy said in his speech.... you know. the one Santorum said makes him want to puke. Santorum either doesn't understand what Kennedy said, doesn't believe in separation of church and state, or both.

The case was SALAZAR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL. v. BUONO in which the Interior Department over the objections of many veterans organizations was ordered by the 9th Circuit Court to take down a white cross in the Mojave Desert in California that was placed there 80 years ago as a memorial to soldiers of World War I. The ACLU claimed the cross was a violation of the separation of church and state which they also claim is specified in the First Amendment which it is not. The Supreme Court has now reversed the liberal 9th Circuit and said the lower court went too far and remanded the case back to the lower court.

In this case the ACLU made their usual arguments confusing a recognition of God with "an establishment of religion" as prohibited in the First Amendment. Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the white latin cross in the desert was not just a memorial to soldiers but also a religious symbol. But in a surprise opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts in full, Justice Kennedy wrote this: "the Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society."

Finally the court gets it right. Liberals have argued for many years since the New York Board of Regents school prayer decision in 1962 that any prayer, religious symbol, or even a reference to God on public land is a violation of the First Amendment but they have had to ignore history and really stretch their arguments to go after their real goal of banishing God from the public square. Kennedy's opinion is just common sense based on history. The authors of the Constitution did not intend to make secular humanism the official religion of America any more than any other denomination. What they intended and wrote was to prohibit a government-endorsed natonal religion similar to the Church of England under King George III. But only 11 years before the draft of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and delegates to the Continental Congress wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." They firmly placed God above the state as the author of human rights. Both the House and Senate have paid chaplains. The House Chaplain, Father Daniel Coughlin, is a native of Chicago and in the 1990s was Pastor of St. Francis Xavier Parish in La Grange, Illinois. Every session of hte House and Senate opens with a prayer. Every session of the Supreme Court opens with the words, "God save this honorable court." Every President from Geoge Washington through Barack Obama has taken an oath of office at their Inauguration that ends with the words "so help me God." Our coins and currency carry the motto "In God We Trust." That is important, that we trust in God and not in the state.

The ACLU has tried for many years to change the meaning of the First Amendment by making up a false history about what the founders intended. It worked with the 9th Circuit Court but not this time with the Supreme Court and this time Justice Kennedy and his common sense were helpful to allowing God to stay in the public arena.

Justice Kennedy Gets it Right - Illinois Review

I see no problem generally. Do you have a link to what actually upset Santorum?
 
"“I don’t believe that the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said in an interview today on ABC’s “This Week” program. “The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square.”

For simple minded robot liberals this simply means al religions are welcome in the united states of America.

That's not what Kennedy said in his speech.... you know. the one Santorum said makes him want to puke. Santorum either doesn't understand what Kennedy said, doesn't believe in separation of church and state, or both.

The case was SALAZAR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL. v. BUONO in which the Interior Department over the objections of many veterans organizations was ordered by the 9th Circuit Court to take down a white cross in the Mojave Desert in California that was placed there 80 years ago as a memorial to soldiers of World War I. The ACLU claimed the cross was a violation of the separation of church and state which they also claim is specified in the First Amendment which it is not. The Supreme Court has now reversed the liberal 9th Circuit and said the lower court went too far and remanded the case back to the lower court.

In this case the ACLU made their usual arguments confusing a recognition of God with "an establishment of religion" as prohibited in the First Amendment. Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the white latin cross in the desert was not just a memorial to soldiers but also a religious symbol. But in a surprise opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts in full, Justice Kennedy wrote this: "the Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society."

Finally the court gets it right. Liberals have argued for many years since the New York Board of Regents school prayer decision in 1962 that any prayer, religious symbol, or even a reference to God on public land is a violation of the First Amendment but they have had to ignore history and really stretch their arguments to go after their real goal of banishing God from the public square. Kennedy's opinion is just common sense based on history. The authors of the Constitution did not intend to make secular humanism the official religion of America any more than any other denomination. What they intended and wrote was to prohibit a government-endorsed natonal religion similar to the Church of England under King George III. But only 11 years before the draft of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and delegates to the Continental Congress wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." They firmly placed God above the state as the author of human rights. Both the House and Senate have paid chaplains. The House Chaplain, Father Daniel Coughlin, is a native of Chicago and in the 1990s was Pastor of St. Francis Xavier Parish in La Grange, Illinois. Every session of hte House and Senate opens with a prayer. Every session of the Supreme Court opens with the words, "God save this honorable court." Every President from Geoge Washington through Barack Obama has taken an oath of office at their Inauguration that ends with the words "so help me God." Our coins and currency carry the motto "In God We Trust." That is important, that we trust in God and not in the state.

The ACLU has tried for many years to change the meaning of the First Amendment by making up a false history about what the founders intended. It worked with the 9th Circuit Court but not this time with the Supreme Court and this time Justice Kennedy and his common sense were helpful to allowing God to stay in the public arena.

Justice Kennedy Gets it Right - Illinois Review

I see no problem generally. Do you have a link to what actually upset Santorum?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo5OwuryDfo]John F. Kennedy - Address on Religion - YouTube[/ame]

the absolute part.
 
Did ya' see who the current President is?
'nuff said?


US: $15,488,891,296,248 - Debt as of March 2012
The Concord Coalition

Being against Obama is a stupid reason for voting for a man who's stuck in the 17th century. The GOP has failed to come forward with a credible, viable candidate. It's a joke. And after all that chest-thumping on November 5, 2008. The Republicans are eating their own. Obama will win by a landslide.

he wants women to get married at age 20, stay home and have 10 kids
He does? Can you cite where he has infactically stated this?
 
rick santorum saying America was great before 1965 civil rights act lol
this is who conservatives vote for

Personally, I think the USA being Rooted in Unalienable Rights, was in Itself Remarkable. We have been a World Leader ever since, a Catalyst for Growth, Change, Development, Invention, Discovery, and the Leader in Human Right's Causes. Don't be such an Idiot.
 
I won't hesitate to vote for Santorum.

Santorum is honest about his position, unlike the OP.

Romney is to timid and insecure to voice a single controversial position.

He'll regurgitate whatever focus group tested positions the GOP establishment whispers in his ear.
 
rick santorum saying America was great before 1965 civil rights act lol
this is who conservatives vote for

Personally, I think the USA being Rooted in Unalienable Rights, was in Itself Remarkable. We have been a World Leader ever since, a Catalyst for Growth, Change, Development, Invention, Discovery, and the Leader in Human Right's Causes. Don't be such an Idiot.
Which in anyone's venacular means individual liberty.
 
Santorum is an idiot. JFK didn't say anything about expelling faith.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf7R6KSgvhM]Santorum: JFK's 1960 Speech On Religion Made Me Want To Throw Up - YouTube[/ame]
 
Then you doom the United States to further failure.

No, actually, I don't.

I would change my mind, though, if Santorum, or any of his supporters, were to explain how strengthening the 1950's version of "family" will lead to creating millions of jobs for people out of work.
Whom said anything of the 1950's? 1850's? 1750's?

Does the date matter? As a matter of course? No, it doesn't. The fact is that Government has taken on the role where it doesn't belong by design.

The date does matter.

In this day and age there are different kinds of families other than husband, wife and 7 kids. A politician that doesn't recognize that and support that, doesn't share my beliefs and therefore won't get my vote.

But again I'll say, if you can explain to me how "strengthening traditional families" will lead to job creation, I will re-consider.
 
No, actually, I don't.

I would change my mind, though, if Santorum, or any of his supporters, were to explain how strengthening the 1950's version of "family" will lead to creating millions of jobs for people out of work.
Whom said anything of the 1950's? 1850's? 1750's?

Does the date matter? As a matter of course? No, it doesn't. The fact is that Government has taken on the role where it doesn't belong by design.

The date does matter.

In this day and age there are different kinds of families other than husband, wife and 7 kids. A politician that doesn't recognize that and support that, doesn't share my beliefs and therefore won't get my vote.

But again I'll say, if you can explain to me how "strengthening traditional families" will lead to job creation, I will re-consider.

Do principles change because of the date? Really?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top