How can people really vote for Santorum

[freedombecki]

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.

Failed? A system of balance never fails.

There is nothing balanced about redistributing someone's earnings without his prior authorization and eliminating the Bill of Rights' intent in doing so.

There is balance in the outcome of the Federalist discussion conducted 224 years ago to work out differences among the new states under a Constitution that would answer and provide a guiding document on the conduct of government in this nation.

 

[The T]

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.

Anyone under the umbrella of the executive that is answerable only TO the executive and not vetted is a danger to this Republic.

Obama is replete with them.

 

[The T]

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.

Failed? A system of balance never fails.

There is nothing balanced about redistributing someone's earnings without his prior authorization and eliminating the Bill of Rights' intent in doing so.

There is balance in the outcome of the Federalist discussion conducted 224 years ago to work out differences among the new states under a Constitution that would answer and provide a guiding document on the conduct of government in this nation.

That would as a matter of course suppose men of honor were in office.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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?

I didn't say they weren't in existence. But today there is more variety in family structure. That's the world we live in. I fail to see how trying to change that will lead to fixing all the problems this country has. How does Santorum's view of family lead to job creation? No one is even attempting to explain that, not even Santorum.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

where are you and Santorum getting this "public square" thing?

The public square...the area in front of town hall where public meetings are held.

It's another way of saying "involvement of the individual in directing the affairs of government".

nobody is stopping nor wants to. You just made up an argument

No one wants to? Can we bet on that?

 

[freedombecki]

Failed? A system of balance never fails.

There is nothing balanced about redistributing someone's earnings without his prior authorization and eliminating the Bill of Rights' intent in doing so.

There is balance in the outcome of the Federalist discussion conducted 224 years ago to work out differences among the new states under a Constitution that would answer and provide a guiding document on the conduct of government in this nation.

That would as a matter of course suppose men of honor were in office.

Men are honorable when the Fourth Estate sticks to the facts and eschews collusion with political parties and criminals.

 

[Missourian]

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?

.

Check out the third video in post 18 of this thread. He absolutely would. In fact, he said he felt like "throwing up" when Kennedy said he wanted the separation of church and state.

Again, Santorum felt like "throwing up" when Kennedy said he wanted the separation of church and state to be absolute.

 

[DontBeStupid]

11 pages in and the two reasons being put forward to vote for Santorum are:

1) His stance on church and state
2) He is not Obama

No one is attempting to show how either of these reasons would help the country though.

Pretty interesting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How can people really vote for Santorum

It is truly a mystery.

As with those who vote for Santorum, social conservatives must be motivated by ignorance and hate.

Ignorance and hate is your stock in trade. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have to resort to lies about what Santorum, or other Christians, actually stand for. Learn what his positions are and attack him based on knowledge.

Ignorance of the Constitution and the doctrine of the rule of law, hate for those who are different or who elect to believe differently, or to not believe at all.

How about taking the rule of law and misapplying it by calling it a doctrine. I think turning the government into a religion, the way you do, is just as dangerous, if not more so, than turning religion into the government. I think that is why the 1st Amendment specifically prohibits both establishing a church, or prevents the government from prohibiting the exercise of religion. The Founders, as usual, were a lot smarter than you.

In many respects social conservatism is as old as Western Civilization itself, with its endemic religious arrogance and intolerance.

That was hilarious. Western Civilization is not nearly as intolerant or arrogant as Eastern civilization. Then again, you never have studied history, so you wouldn't know that simple fact.

Needless to say, social conservatives are free to believe as they see fit, provided they understand they may not compel others to believe as they do by attempting to codify religious dogma into secular law, thus violating the First Amendment’s admonishment that church and State must not be conjoined:

What about you and your constant attempts to impose your stupid and confining views on others? (Take note here that by you I am speaking directly to one person.)

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

That social conservatives disagree with this settled law or consider the Supreme Court ‘wrong’ is of course irrelevant – it is indeed the law of the land, and they must abide by it accordingly.

Unlike, as an example, social liberals who disagree with established law?

Social conservatives will often complain that existing case law on the issue ‘denies them a voice in the public square,’ nothing could be further from the truth. There is nothing prohibiting a person of faith expressing that faith in any venue, public or private. That the Constitution forbids religious expression as a matter of official public policy is in no way a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

I don't know of anyone who complains that the law, as it exists, denies them a voice. What they argue, correctly, in my opinion, is that people are trying to change the law to deny them a voice. Understanding the difference is what makes some social liberals who oppose everything Santorum stands for agree with him when he says that this needs to stop.

What we see, then, with regard to Santorum and his supporters, is a classic manifestation of the authoritarianism of the right, the conservative desire to compel everyone to conform to a social and religious worldview predicated on religious dogma, not fact, not the law, and not on sound public policy.

Everyone knows that progressives would never do that.

 

[The T]

There is nothing balanced about redistributing someone's earnings without his prior authorization and eliminating the Bill of Rights' intent in doing so.

There is balance in the outcome of the Federalist discussion conducted 224 years ago to work out differences among the new states under a Constitution that would answer and provide a guiding document on the conduct of government in this nation.

That would as a matter of course suppose men of honor were in office.

Men are honorable when the Fourth Estate sticks to the facts and eschews collusion with political parties and criminals.

Nicely stated. Open and honest they haven't been in decades.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

they dont have powers........sigh seriously

Do you so seriously regard an unlimited budget, hewn from the funding of America's military men, as not having any power?

The president has written this particular set of yahoos a series of blank checks which exceed any semblance of a budget this particular President has no intention of writing or keeping with the simplistic mind that nobody will notice he has exceeded a budget since he has seen to it there is no budget. You are not so naive you think his oversight was accidental, do you? You fulfilled his whim by not noticing the money these czars have at their disposal at Presidential order and rerouting finagling like calling the Treasury in purpose to make things happen when he feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeels like it. Why do you think he earned the moniker 'boiking' around here? The reason is because others do notice. But not you. You're not about to notice this travesty and excessive usurpation of a White House demanding lavish stipends to be taken out against the taxpaying American for his every convenience of selfish and self-serving whims.

 

[Missourian]

11 pages in and the two reasons being put forward to vote for Santorum are:

1) His stance on church and state
2) He is not Obama

No one is attempting to show how either of these reasons would help the country though.

Pretty interesting.

1) See to your settings man....11 pages?...for me your post is the first one on the 5th page.

2) You left out the best reason...the guy is honest to a fault. When's the last time you saw a presidential candidate with that problem. He tells you exactly what he believes and why...and what his policy will or won't be and why, even when it is unpopular.

That's what everyone on my side of the table says they want...but we see that it's just lip service, because many support the guy with no principles that is willing to be on every side of any issue...to say anything it takes to get power.

 

[The T]

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.

they dont have powers........sigh seriously

Do you so seriously regard an unlimited budget, hewn from the funding of America's military men, as not having any power?

The president has written this particular set of yahoos a series of blank checks which exceed any semblance of a budget this particular President has no intention of writing or keeping with the simplistic mind that nobody will notice he has exceeded a budget since he has seen to it there is no budget. You are not so naive you think his oversight was accidental, do you? You fulfilled his whim by not noticing the money these czars have at their disposal at Presidential order and rerouting finagling like calling the Treasury in purpose to make things happen when he feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeels like it. Why do you think he earned the moniker 'boiking' around here? The reason is because others do notice. But not you. You're not about to notice this travesty and excessive usurpation of a White House demanding lavish stipends to be taken out against the taxpaying American for his every convenience of selfish whims.

"Let them eat whatever they can find as long as it is government approved..."​

(Image; EIB )​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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....

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.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Learn what his positions are and attack him based on knowledge.

You mean like this?

Santorum believes that if you cut taxes for the wealthy, this will lead to job creation.

Santorum believes in cutting spending for all Social Programs.

Santorum believes in repealing Obamacare without having a new plan in place.

Santorum believes a balanced budget amendment is needed and that spending should be capped at 18% of GDP.

Santorum believes a couple that has been committed to each other for over a decade should not have their marriage recognized by the state.

Santorum believes single moms breed criminals.

Santorum believes in cutting Social Security and pushing the retirement age to later in life.

Santorum believes in cutting the EPA.

Santorum believes in invading Iran.

I won't attack him. I will instead challenge you to pick any of these beliefs and explain to us all how it will benefit the country.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Talk about stupid arguments, this is a perfect example of one.

 

[uscitizen]

11 pages in and the two reasons being put forward to vote for Santorum are:

1) His stance on church and state
2) He is not Obama

No one is attempting to show how either of these reasons would help the country though.

Pretty interesting.

1) See to your settings man....11 pages?...for me your post is the first one on the 5th page.

2) You left out the best reason...the guy is honest to a fault. When's the last time you saw a presidential candidate with that problem. He tells you exactly what he believes and why...and what his policy will or won't be and why, even when it is unpopular.

That's what everyone on my side of the table says they want...but we see that it's just lip service, because many support the guy with no principles that is willing to be on every side of any issue...to say anything it takes to get power.

Your post is on the 11th page for me as well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Failed? A system of balance never fails.
jesus christ on a stick you are stupid

Systems of balance never fail? Ever here of entropy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

they dont have powers........sigh seriously

No powers? Feinberg unilaterally set pay scales at any bank that accepted a government bailout, which is even more amazing if you are right that he didn't have the power to do it. Maybe you should write to Byrd and tell him to relax, all those czars really can't do anything, so he needn't scold Obama for ignoring the constitution by giving them jobs that normally belong to cabinet level officials.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Rdean certainly thinks we should have.