How can people really vote for Santorum

[DontBeStupid]

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.

I'd vote for a bowl of tapioca pudding over President Obama. And I don't really much care for tapioca.

Therefore, I could easily vote for Rick Santorum, even though I don't always agree with the things he says or does.

What are some things you do agree with?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Religion teaches much...largest of which is responsibility, and honor.

People can be honourable and responsible without being religious.

It's arrogant and insulting to think otherwise.

 

[Dr Grump]

You're mistaken. Obama is not the only far left person in his administration. He sidestepped founder-intended Congressional approval for administrative advisers and brought an entire bevy of czars into his circle whose resumes include former Communist Party membership, Alinsky methodologists, and people whose credo is to replace earning a living in the free market with an options system that includes syphoning working conservatives' saved money off and rout it to able-bodied freeloaders who already have a good living living off several welfare checks plus the food stamp bonanza they wangled out of otherwise-intelligent people.

You're merely annoyed because we are refusing to be financially routed by you and your narcissistic family parasites who differ only in modus operandi from the $80-dollar-an-hour panhandler who miraculously and quickly recovers from his life-threatening injuries confining him to a wheelchair at 5 o'clock and disappears into the nearest pub or casino on well-heeled shoes he/she concealed in her stolen shopping cart or rag bag, every day.

Get back to me after you've shaved and washed your filthy mouth and mind out with soap and water.

You have no idea what a Marxist or a Communist is if you think Obama even remotely ressembles one...

 

[uscitizen]

And those would be? What exactly?

Try Limited government, individual responsibility. You know? Liberty to succeed, liberty to fail, pick up and try again without Government intrusion.

Have those gone out of style?

What has that got to do with Santorum wanting to "strengthen traditional families" ?

And just what is a traditional family?

No divorced parents?
Father working a union job with good health care benefits and mother taking care of the kids?

 

[elvis]

So Santorum doesn't believe in separation of Church and State, as his stances on birth control and other issues clearly illustrate. His reaction to JFK solidifies that. good to know.

I think it's more that his version of Separation of Church and State differs from Yours. Bring it back to Locke. Would You want Judges Dictating on Matters of Salvation, or matters of Doctrine or Dogma? No. Would you want Clergy Dictating on Matters of State, with Force of Law? No. It's in the specifics, the details, that you would find agreement.

I don't want someone governing based on his interpretation of the Bible... which Santorum clearly would.

 

[Intense]

Both are inexorably intertwined...there's no escaping it. To separate the two as has been done means the doom of all the Founders fought for.

Agreed. JFK did imply that it was wrong to take Orders, Direction from the Pulpit, both Directly and Indirectly. He may have gone further, if Voice is Council or Advice, we Each have a Right to that Under Free Speech. The Churches possess no negative Rights in Voice, Speech, Value, Ethics, Ideal, in Thought, in Word, in Action.

When considering Remedy, Correct Action, when is it not Important to consider Each Factor, and weigh and measure It's Relevance? When is it more important who the messenger is, that what the message is? Why confuse the messenger with the message at all? If it's the piece of the puzzle you are looking for, what could be more important? Are we speaking of Justice or Vanity?

I can say this much? To the left side of the aisle...the latter applies...it shows in thier vocalizations/actions.

Religion teaches much...largest of which is responsibility, and honor.

Now whom could be against such results from a leader?

Fears of theocracy are unfounded...unless you reside in Iran or some such other insane place where the rules of liberty don't apply.

Right, Exactly. When Christ said, Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and God, what is God's, he distinguished between Church and State. Witness, Testimony, Conscience, belong to God First, in All things. Locke, coined it in Separation of Church and State. The problem is that it doesn't mean what the Populists think it means. Wrong Action remains wrong action, no matter what the excuse, there is no separating it from God or Justice just because your Boss, your Government, your Religious Leader told you so. There is no Free Pass. I can understand why some would want it that way, but Cause and Effect are evidence against such stupidity. There is no substitute for studying the ramifications of what you do, before acting.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Try Limited government, individual responsibility. You know? Liberty to succeed, liberty to fail, pick up and try again without Government intrusion.

Have those gone out of style?

What has that got to do with Santorum wanting to "strengthen traditional families" ?

And just what is a traditional family?

No divorced parents?
Father working a union job with good health care benefits and mother taking care of the kids?

I would assume no family with gay or single parents.

 

[uscitizen]

Agreed. JFK did imply that it was wrong to take Orders, Direction from the Pulpit, both Directly and Indirectly. He may have gone further, if Voice is Council or Advice, we Each have a Right to that Under Free Speech. The Churches possess no negative Rights in Voice, Speech, Value, Ethics, Ideal, in Thought, in Word, in Action.

When considering Remedy, Correct Action, when is it not Important to consider Each Factor, and weigh and measure It's Relevance? When is it more important who the messenger is, that what the message is? Why confuse the messenger with the message at all? If it's the piece of the puzzle you are looking for, what could be more important? Are we speaking of Justice or Vanity?

I can say this much? To the left side of the aisle...the latter applies...it shows in thier vocalizations/actions.

Religion teaches much...largest of which is responsibility, and honor.

Now whom could be against such results from a leader?

Fears of theocracy are unfounded...unless you reside in Iran or some such other insane place where the rules of liberty don't apply.

Right, Exactly. When Christ said, Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and God, what is God's, he distinguished between Church and State. Witness, Testimony, Conscience, belong to God First, in All things. Locke, coined it in Separation of Church and State. The problem is that it doesn't mean what the Populists think it means. Wrong Action remains wrong action, no matter what the excuse, there is no separating it from God or Justice just because your Boss, your Government, your Religious Leader told you so. There is no Free Pass. I can understand why some would want it that way, but Cause and Effect are evidence against such stupidity. There is no substitute for studying the ramifications of what you do, before acting.

"There is no substitute for studying the ramifications of what you do, before acting."

Like invading Iraq or nation building in Afghanistan?

 

[Intense]

So Santorum doesn't believe in separation of Church and State, as his stances on birth control and other issues clearly illustrate. His reaction to JFK solidifies that. good to know.

I think it's more that his version of Separation of Church and State differs from Yours. Bring it back to Locke. Would You want Judges Dictating on Matters of Salvation, or matters of Doctrine or Dogma? No. Would you want Clergy Dictating on Matters of State, with Force of Law? No. It's in the specifics, the details, that you would find agreement.

I don't want someone governing based on his interpretation of the Bible... which Santorum clearly would.

It's a possibility, yet he would very quickly run into opposition on most fronts, should he act against the consent of the Governed. God only knows why Obama hasn't already. Too many co conspirators, in high places maybe.

 

[freedombecki]

a mile left? he has moved to the center if anything, like all Presidents must do now in order to hold office.

Its rather tiring watching you wannabe <insulting term omitted> attempting to make what you state as a fact.

No you are not pragmatic, you are reactionary at best, Partisan at best. The only real reason you oppose him are for a few reasons:

You are a <disparaging personal falsehood omitted>
You are a <disparaging reference omitted>, which includes <disparaging reference omitted>.
Or your oppose him because of your real convictions and policies. Which i have found few and far between that these people actually exist.

Now i know i said <disparaging personal falsehood omitted> but dont take it personally, its just a list that you may or may not have things in common with.

Case and point with the Debt ceiling issue. <Empirical error omitted> where willing to risk the world markets and economies because of your hatred of the President ( whatever personal reason you have). Thats not pragmatic, how you went about the issue wasn't either.

You are more dangerous than good, short sighted, just overall counterproductive, and would be laughed out of Washington once the once the doors closed.

You're mistaken. Obama is not the only far left person in his administration. He sidestepped founder-intended Congressional approval for administrative advisers and brought an entire bevy of czars into his circle whose resumes include former Communist Party membership, Alinsky methodologists, and people whose credo is to replace earning a living in the free market with an options system that includes syphoning working conservatives' saved money off and rout it to able-bodied freeloaders who already have a good living living off several welfare checks plus the food stamp bonanza they wangled out of otherwise-intelligent people.

You're merely annoyed because we are refusing to be financially routed by you and your narcissistic family parasites who differ only in modus operandi from the $80-dollar-an-hour panhandler who miraculously and quickly recovers from his life-threatening injuries confining him to a wheelchair at 5 o'clock and disappears into the nearest pub or casino, every day.

Get back to me after you've shaved and washed your filthy mouth and mind out with soap and water.

really? Czar argument? Thats just really sad, and ignores history of past presidents who have had them as well. You are just in the mind frame that Czar is dirty because you think Obama is a Commie. I see you are not working with a full deck here.

Oh <inappropriate religious reference omitted> you really are hitting all the talking points here. Seriously this is sad that you think this way and have been brainwashed like this.

Ah the free market calling card, which you know needs government regulation in order to not eat itself like it did in 08. The issue with that is finding the correct balance of regulation in order to make the economy thrive.
But it seems like you are too <specious reference omitted> to understand this simple concept.

Yeah sure <sic>thats why i am upset, No i am upset you decided to play Russian roulette with the world economies because you <inflammatory reference omitted>.

Please <patronizing suggestion omitted>.

And allow your pandering to foist a failed system on my fellow Americans in order to decimate the essence and soul of my ancestors?

Under no circumstances, sir.

 

[elvis]

Exactly. How could we have Freedom of Speech, without Supporting Freedom of Conscience.

NO one is stopping freedom of speech. We just don't want a zealot like Santorum governing from his version of the Bible.

And he says he would?

How about Obama's version (if one could lay thier finger on it), but from where i sit? Obama's version is destroying the Republic, and the will of a Free Republic for something lower of an EU lack of quality of Socialism.

I'm not talking about Obama.

 

[Intense]

I can say this much? To the left side of the aisle...the latter applies...it shows in thier vocalizations/actions.

Religion teaches much...largest of which is responsibility, and honor.

Now whom could be against such results from a leader?

Fears of theocracy are unfounded...unless you reside in Iran or some such other insane place where the rules of liberty don't apply.

Right, Exactly. When Christ said, Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and God, what is God's, he distinguished between Church and State. Witness, Testimony, Conscience, belong to God First, in All things. Locke, coined it in Separation of Church and State. The problem is that it doesn't mean what the Populists think it means. Wrong Action remains wrong action, no matter what the excuse, there is no separating it from God or Justice just because your Boss, your Government, your Religious Leader told you so. There is no Free Pass. I can understand why some would want it that way, but Cause and Effect are evidence against such stupidity. There is no substitute for studying the ramifications of what you do, before acting.

Like invading Iraq or nation building in Afghanistan?

Had we supported a Constitution in Both of those Countries that Advocated Unalienable Right's, Human Right's, I think the outcome would have been much different. We just switched Dictators, Totalitarian Rule and Injustice Remain the same> I really want to thank the State Department for playing such an Influential Role there. So Much for Equal Justice.

 

[007]

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.

See my sig line... idiot...

 

[Intense]

a mile left? he has moved to the center if anything, like all Presidents must do now in order to hold office.

Its rather tiring watching you wannabe <insulting term omitted> attempting to make what you state as a fact.

No you are not pragmatic, you are reactionary at best, Partisan at best. The only real reason you oppose him are for a few reasons:

You are a <disparaging personal falsehood omitted>
You are a <disparaging reference omitted>, which includes <disparaging reference omitted>.
Or your oppose him because of your real convictions and policies. Which i have found few and far between that these people actually exist.

Now i know i said <disparaging personal falsehood omitted> but dont take it personally, its just a list that you may or may not have things in common with.

Case and point with the Debt ceiling issue. <Empirical error omitted> where willing to risk the world markets and economies because of your hatred of the President ( whatever personal reason you have). Thats not pragmatic, how you went about the issue wasn't either.

You are more dangerous than good, short sighted, just overall counterproductive, and would be laughed out of Washington once the once the doors closed.

You're mistaken. Obama is not the only far left person in his administration. He sidestepped founder-intended Congressional approval for administrative advisers and brought an entire bevy of czars into his circle whose resumes include former Communist Party membership, Alinsky methodologists, and people whose credo is to replace earning a living in the free market with an options system that includes syphoning working conservatives' saved money off and rout it to able-bodied freeloaders who already have a good living living off several welfare checks plus the food stamp bonanza they wangled out of otherwise-intelligent people.

You're merely annoyed because we are refusing to be financially routed by you and your narcissistic family parasites who differ only in modus operandi from the $80-dollar-an-hour panhandler who miraculously and quickly recovers from his life-threatening injuries confining him to a wheelchair at 5 o'clock and disappears into the nearest pub or casino, every day.

Get back to me after you've shaved and washed your filthy mouth and mind out with soap and water.

really? Czar argument? Thats just really sad, and ignores history of past presidents who have had them as well. You are just in the mind frame that Czar is dirty because you think Obama is a Commie. I see you are not working with a full deck here.

Oh jesus you really are hitting all the talking points here. Seriously this is sad that you think this way and have been brainwashed like this.

Ah the free market calling card, which you know needs government regulation in order to not eat itself like it did in 08. The issue with that is finding the correct balance of regulation in order to make the economy thrive.
But it seems like you are too stupid to understand this simple concept.

Yeah sure thats why i am upset, No i am upset you decided to play Russian roulette with the world economies because you hate a man.

Please go away.

When the Czars are not vetted and their Powers know no limits, they are an offense to the Republic. I don't care who is President.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

See my sig line... idiot...

I would be interested in hearing how Santorum's positions on issues are better than Obama's. In your opinion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

On the other hand, being against Santorum is s stupid reason for voting for a guy who thinks it is legal to target Americans for killing on US soil.

 

[uscitizen]

Right, Exactly. When Christ said, Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and God, what is God's, he distinguished between Church and State. Witness, Testimony, Conscience, belong to God First, in All things. Locke, coined it in Separation of Church and State. The problem is that it doesn't mean what the Populists think it means. Wrong Action remains wrong action, no matter what the excuse, there is no separating it from God or Justice just because your Boss, your Government, your Religious Leader told you so. There is no Free Pass. I can understand why some would want it that way, but Cause and Effect are evidence against such stupidity. There is no substitute for studying the ramifications of what you do, before acting.

Like invading Iraq or nation building in Afghanistan?

Had we supported a Constitution in Both of those Countries that Advocated Unalienable Right's, Human Right's, I think the outcome would have been much different. We just switched Dictators, Totalitarian Rule and Injustice Remain the same> I really want to thank the State Department for playing such an Influential Role there. So Much for Equal Justice.

You are saying we should have written a constitution for them and enforced it with our military?
They have to write that themselves unless you want Afghanistan to be a subservient colony of the US or somesuch.
Had they written it I am sure we would have supported it.

 

[Missourian]

Santorum is correct, it is unconstitutional to attempt to impose an absolute wall of separation between religion (church) and government policy (state).

Why is it unconstitutional? Can you name one society where one religion over rides all others, and it is a peaceful and harmonious place to live? There is a reason your FF's put that little clause in there...they knew, having come from Puritan stock, what happens when a particular religion gets its way..

Let's not stuff around here. When Santorum says religion should have some say in government, he is talking about one religion is particular. The guy is a moonbat....

First, the Founding Fathers put that little clause nowhere but in a letter...a personal correspondence.

Second, all that Santorum is saying is that my opinion and ideology is no less valid simply because it is based in part on the philosophy of Jesus, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

 

[saveliberty]

Gee, we have a whole group of people who can vote for Obama. Worst president in the modern era.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I see never say anything intelligent is weighing in. What different types of families do you support that were not in existence in the past?