Santorum booed for his positions on same-sex marriage, legal pot (New Hampshire colle

[rdean]

Boooooooo
b!

 

[Avorysuds]

Santorum is a bigot... I wonder if the news will pick up on it or is they save all bigot "news" for Paul's 22 year old news letters that he didn't write.

Yeah. Ron Paul didn't write his own newsletter. But Santorum is a bigot for supporting the family.

Paul didn't write his newsletters, but you're to much of an ass about it to take his word for it. Santorum wants’ to treat Gays as if they are not citizens so yes, he is a bigot. The constitution does not discriminate on sex, race or sexuality, Santorum does... The main issues is that Santorum wants to discriminate on a federal level and even worse by injecting his religious beliefs into law.

If Government were not involved in marriage then there would be no tax breaks and so on, meaning it wouldn’t matter if 423,823,892,398 people wanted to get married in a giant group marriage…

Santorum also loves big Government education, another family institution I know you love.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I agree with him when it comes to gays, but disagree with him on the pot. Pot is better for you then getting drunk or smoking cigs!

So my feelings about this are kind of 50/50 on him. Still like Ron Paul better overall.

I don't see any problem with Marijuana either. It's only dangerous when dealers put all kinds of chemicals in it.

 

[LibertyForAll]

if we had a government mandate that congress had to do bong hits there would be less war and they wouldn't pass half the bullshit they do now.

 

[Lakhota]

'I Don't Understand Why People Say I'm Irritated'

 

[Seawytch]

Who is harmed by gay marriage?

If the gay agenda was to destroy the instituion of marriage, I have terrible news for them. YOU'RE TOO LATE!

We straight people have already destroyed it. Hell, Newt Gingrich has made a mockery of it all by himself. More than you can ever hope to.

Sorry about that!

"Who is harmed by" is a lame argument. That isn't how this works.
Who is harmed by a court ruling that gay marriage is an inalienable right? All the voters who voted otherwise. It is the suspension of democracy.

So, if a state like...oh say California, decided to vote to ban all handguns, that would be okay with you?

Oh, and it's not a "lame" argument...it is how it will be decided in court. Those opposed to gay marriage must demonstrate a societal harm in allowing them. Good luck with that.

 

[NoNukes]

I agree with him when it comes to gays, but disagree with him on the pot. Pot is better for you then getting drunk or smoking cigs!

So my feelings about this are kind of 50/50 on him. Still like Ron Paul better overall.

Marijuana may impair coordination and memory tasks.

Marijuana use increases certain toxins in the bloodstream worse than cigarettes

Marijuana use decreases penis size in young males.

So you and others can die of lung cancer if you smoke, die behind the wheel of a car if you or another driver drinks, or go by cirrhosis of the pickled liver; but if you smoke pot, you will just have a lousy sex life.

Laws of mercy, Matthew. Be careful of what you teach younger males.

You know very little about sex and marijuana.

 

[beagle9]

Your quote -Jesus never said "spread my message by using force and government." He said "spread my message by teaching and loving others." Are you a Christian or aren't you?

Jesus purpose upon the earth within his time period, cannot be compared to our purpose upon this earth within this time period (i.e. before Jesus there was John the Baptist who had a different calling and purpose, and of course those who had come before him), because then Jesus walked the earth physically, and his purpose was different back then than ours is today, as he is God who had come to enter the world as a man, and he had done this to walk with man as a living example of the word of God unto all who came within the reach of his gospel, and did witness the miracles performed within that time period, or would hear about him and believe his message concerning sin and the results of it upon man later on throughout time. His work was finished exactly as it was claimed by him, in which did just exactly as he said it would do in scripture that we read about unto this very day. Violence has been very much a part of the history of this world since that time period, where as Christians yes have had to enter into many wars since then, and they have as well created and run governments also, and they have very much assisted in wars everywhere in the world as a part of their standing up for those who are oppressed and enslaved by evilness and sinfulness in which oppresses them or enslaves them, and if they (the christians) die in those struggles for mankind and peace in the world until his return, then it was their purpose to do so, just as it was for Jesus who had shown the way to the light before them by his sacrifice for all whom will and do suffer the agony of Sin or Sinfulness in their lives via the oppressor, or by their own weaknesses in which had enslaved them (otherwise he had died to save us, just as we die or have died to save others as well in the world).

Are we to be enslaved upon this earth without resistance of I ask of you? Is this what you try and infer that Jesus would have wanted for us until his return or that this was what his purpose for us was upon the earth over 2000 years ago until now ?

The government is centrally involved in teaching the message in this country, by way of influence and power over the people, where as the majority and/or the minorities (all depending on who control's this government, and from what angle in this nation at any time they do it), causes the government to spend millions upon getting the message out afterwards, in hopes that it will stick, just as it has been for many years now with or without the majorities permission, in which it felt that it has had to do since the early 60's now. The government was dealing with some very serious issues back then, but did it take it to far, or go about it all the wrong way, and did it allow the devil to sneak through within it all ??? Was this why so many have chosen to get into government over the years now, otherwise seeing the power in it all, and were they after that power in hopes to control the would be newly created and newly taught messages, in which they would want enforced and taught now in this nation by their newly controlled government from a minority standpoint, and this over the will of the silenced majority?

So what you are basically saying to me, is keep your hands off of my secularized government, who is teaching what we want it to teach under our(?) control right now, but what I am saying to you, is that you are not the majority view in my understanding and opinion of it all, or as I and many in a majority do see it, and nor do you truly represent the majority in this nation and their standing up for what was known in knowledge by them in which was good, yet the trick is for you, is to keep convincing people like me and the silenced majority in this nation, that we are now in the minority through rogue court decisions and a media blitz that accompanies those court decisions afterwards (even if such decisions were wrong on many issues that were knee jerk reactions by rogue weakened down judges as were being then dealt with), and that your false majority controls the government in this country, in order to then hold back the true majority in elections etc. and/or over many other important issues and milestones that are to be reached for as a majority, by destroying most everything this nation has stood for over the many years it has co-existed in a healthy balance together, but now to replace it with what?

Jesus knew he could win without the government on his side (of course), and he did win because he was God himself, but we are not God, we are mortal and seek God's wisdom always in many issues involving our nations continued freedoms, health and stability, so when we see and know the things in which God does not approve of in our midst, then know this, that God does not expect man to have a good friend to be found for example in a dog, and yet to then end up with fleas as a result of this friendship between the two of them, yet he instead guides our wisdom and understanding upon how to understand the meaning of these fleas, and next how to ease the suffering of the dog by helping him get rid of the fleas, where as then everyone is happy as a result of afterwards, cept maybe the fleas. Humans and their conditions are much more complicated than the analogy made between the man and the dog of course, because we are always trying to work with each other in order to preserve all life, for those who choose freedom, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness when it comes to humans and human compatibility in life as we know it within this world and within this nation.

 

[Silkcity19]

Here's another great Ricky read

The Rick Santorum that America doesn't know | Philly | 01/04/2012

 

[Crackerjack]

Your quote -Jesus never said "spread my message by using force and government." He said "spread my message by teaching and loving others." Are you a Christian or aren't you?

Jesus purpose upon the earth within his time period, cannot be compared to our purpose upon this earth within this time period (i.e. before Jesus there was John the Baptist who had a different calling and purpose, and of course those who had come before him), because then Jesus walked the earth physically, and his purpose was different back then than ours is today, as he is God who had come to enter the world as a man, and he had done this to walk with man as a living example of the word of God unto all who came within the reach of his gospel, and did witness the miracles performed within that time period, or would hear about him and believe his message concerning sin and the results of it upon man later on throughout time. His work was finished exactly as it was claimed by him, in which did just exactly as he said it would do in scripture that we read about unto this very day. Violence has been very much a part of the history of this world since that time period, where as Christians yes have had to enter into many wars since then, and they have as well created and run governments also, and they have very much assisted in wars everywhere in the world as a part of their standing up for those who are oppressed and enslaved by evilness and sinfulness in which oppresses them or enslaves them, and if they (the christians) die in those struggles for mankind and peace in the world until his return, then it was their purpose to do so, just as it was for Jesus who had shown the way to the light before them by his sacrifice for all whom will and do suffer the agony of Sin or Sinfulness in their lives via the oppressor, or by their own weaknesses in which had enslaved them (otherwise he had died to save us, just as we die or have died to save others as well in the world).

Are we to be enslaved upon this earth without resistance of I ask of you? Is this what you try and infer that Jesus would have wanted for us until his return or that this was what his purpose for us was upon the earth over 2000 years ago until now ?

The government is centrally involved in teaching the message in this country, by way of influence and power over the people, where as the majority and/or the minorities (all depending on who control's this government, and from what angle in this nation at any time they do it), causes the government to spend millions upon getting the message out afterwards, in hopes that it will stick, just as it has been for many years now with or without the majorities permission, in which it felt that it has had to do since the early 60's now. The government was dealing with some very serious issues back then, but did it take it to far, or go about it all the wrong way, and did it allow the devil to sneak through within it all ??? Was this why so many have chosen to get into government over the years now, otherwise seeing the power in it all, and were they after that power in hopes to control the would be newly created and newly taught messages, in which they would want enforced and taught now in this nation by their newly controlled government from a minority standpoint, and this over the will of the silenced majority?

So what you are basically saying to me, is keep your hands off of my secularized government, who is teaching what we want it to teach under our(?) control right now, but what I am saying to you, is that you are not the majority view in my understanding and opinion of it all, or as I and many in a majority do see it, and nor do you truly represent the majority in this nation and their standing up for what was known in knowledge by them in which was good, yet the trick is for you, is to keep convincing people like me and the silenced majority in this nation, that we are now in the minority through rogue court decisions and a media blitz that accompanies those court decisions afterwards (even if such decisions were wrong on many issues that were knee jerk reactions by rogue weakened down judges as were being then dealt with), and that your false majority controls the government in this country, in order to then hold back the true majority in elections etc. and/or over many other important issues and milestones that are to be reached for as a majority, by destroying most everything this nation has stood for over the many years it has co-existed in a healthy balance together, but now to replace it with what?

Jesus knew he could win without the government on his side (of course), and he did win because he was God himself, but we are not God, we are mortal and seek God's wisdom always in many issues involving our nations continued freedoms, health and stability, so when we see and know the things in which God does not approve of in our midst, then know this, that God does not expect man to have a good friend to be found for example in a dog, and yet to then end up with fleas as a result of this friendship between the two of them, yet he instead guides our wisdom and understanding upon how to understand the meaning of these fleas, and next how to ease the suffering of the dog by helping him get rid of the fleas, where as then everyone is happy as a result of afterwards, cept maybe the fleas. Humans and their conditions are much more complicated than the analogy made between the man and the dog of course, because we are always trying to work with each other in order to preserve all life, for those who choose freedom, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness when it comes to humans and human compatibility in life as we know it within this world and within this nation.

Ah, a Dominionist. Got it.

You never answered my question: What if the majority chose to repeal the First Amendment?

 

[beagle9]

I don't answer what if questions....

 

[Crackerjack]

I don't answer what if questions....

You mean you don't if it gives you the answer you won't like. Your cowardice is noted.

So let's try this: was it okay for the majority of Americans to be in favor of the enslavement of other human beings in the past, simply because they were the majority?

 

[JoeB131]

he didn't say a word against gays, he asked the crowd a question. They yelled "that's irrelevant" but it is relevant and it pissed them off.

At that very moment he may not have, but he's said more than enough in the past. It's why his name is now synonymous with a frothy mix...just google him.

It is irrelevant. What does polygamy have to do with same sex legal marriage which is what her question was about?

It's called a slippery slope fallacy for a reason.

Honestly, do you think this makes gay people look good? Remind everyone of the sort of icky aspects of the whole thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Santorum is a social conservative train wreck for the republican party, they will destroy him, he has given them plenty of ammunition.

Republicans do just fine running social conservatives....

It's when they don't (like McCain) that they have problems.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't answer what if questions....

You mean you don't if it gives you the answer you won't like. Your cowardice is noted.

So let's try this: was it okay for the majority of Americans to be in favor of the enslavement of other human beings in the past, simply because they were the majority?

Yes, it is wrong to inslave any human being, period. I just wish we would of left such the heck alone in peace!

 

[G.T.]

I dont bring politics into my real life relationships, etc.

But anyone (I know) starts yammering against Gays having equal rights, I'd pretty much smack the fucking taste out of their mouths.

 

[JoeB131]

I dont bring politics into my real life relationships, etc.

But anyone (I know) starts yammering against Gays having equal rights, I'd pretty much smack the fucking taste out of their mouths.

They do have equal rights. They are free to marry any non-relative of the oppossite gender they like, as long as they are not legally married to someone else at the time.

Now, if you want to go to brass tacks, if you make gay marriage legal as a "right", then incestuous or polygamous marriages should also be a "right".

If your standard is "I want to", then how do you argue one is okay and not the other?

But if you want to argue that society has a right to set limits, then you better be ready for them to set limits you don't like.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I dont bring politics into my real life relationships, etc.

But anyone (I know) starts yammering against Gays having equal rights, I'd pretty much smack the fucking taste out of their mouths.

They should have equal rights as human beings, but there activity should remain behind closed doors.

 

[G.T.]

I dont bring politics into my real life relationships, etc.

But anyone (I know) starts yammering against Gays having equal rights, I'd pretty much smack the fucking taste out of their mouths.

They do have equal rights. They are free to marry any non-relative of the oppossite gender they like, as long as they are not legally married to someone else at the time.

Now, if you want to go to brass tacks, if you make gay marriage legal as a "right", then incestuous or polygamous marriages should also be a "right".

If your standard is "I want to", then how do you argue one is okay and not the other?

But if you want to argue that society has a right to set limits, then you better be ready for them to set limits you don't like.

why is incestuous or polygamous the same as gay? its not. but id be fine w/polygamous anyhow.

 

[G.T.]

I dont bring politics into my real life relationships, etc.

But anyone (I know) starts yammering against Gays having equal rights, I'd pretty much smack the fucking taste out of their mouths.

They should have equal rights as human beings, but there activity should remain behind closed doors.

then why shouldnt yours?