Santorum, Kiss Your Good Reputation Bye-bye: Romney to get More 'Aggressive'

[candycorn]

umm umm, best selling books..

not until he started RUNNING for President did they sell because before then NOBODY ever heard of the man...but hey..

Not true at all. He gave the Keynote speech at the DNC convention in 2004. To rave reviews by all who heard it.

You were not paying attention.

oh boy, he gave a speech in 2004... so because of that ALL the people should of remembered him.
good grief.

No, not "all the people", just those interested in Politics.

You were not paying attention.

I imagine in some parallel universe there is some liberal and smart version of you. They are asking who Marco Rubio is and who Kris Kobach is.

 

[Sallow]

THAT is the kind of comment that brings you such accolades, Stephanie. Your depth of thought is remarkable.

SO? Is it rubbing some skin off your ass or something?

The accolades of liberals aside, Stephanie, you are exctly correct on the matter.

At least Gordon Gecko did not use the power of the federal government to simply take over companies by the force of law like someone recently did.

 

[candycorn]

Then let it be blurred.

There is no more grave responsibility than committing troops to battle. I feel very comfortable in letting that line be blurred.

Wow. The fact that you cannot understand how crucial the separation our president has with the military and how devastating blurring that line can be is scary. It is ESSENTIAL to the position.

Agreed, but then again, Stalin is a big hero to a lot of these ideologues on the left.

Really name "alot" of people who idolize Josef Stalin.

 

[FA_Q2]

Then let it be blurred.

There is no more grave responsibility than committing troops to battle. I feel very comfortable in letting that line be blurred.

Wow. The fact that you cannot understand how crucial the separation our president has with the military and how devastating blurring that line can be is scary. It is ESSENTIAL to the position.

History reports a different story than you want to portray. We've had military men (and will have military women at some point I'm confident) as POTUS before. On the whole, they've been either to the liberal or moderate end of the spectrum.

Your'e worried about nothing.

In fact, I would submit that you have seen since 2001 the danger of having presidents--yes plural--that have no real understanding of combat. We're in Afghanistan for what exactly? I can't think of any good reason to be there now. Can you? When Saddam was found in Iraq, we should have been demobilizing that very evening.

When you have some skin in the game, you take the game much more seriously.

Your academic argument has not been born out by history. Sorry.

We will always have military men and women that served because service is NOT something that precludes you from becoming president. What is dangerous is making that a REQUIREMENT. Most countries that have such a requirement are dictatorships.

It is interesting you mention the wars we are in because they were started by someone that served in the military. So much for that argument. Seems that those military commanders are more than willing to start a war we should not be in.

 

[candycorn]

Wow. The fact that you cannot understand how crucial the separation our president has with the military and how devastating blurring that line can be is scary. It is ESSENTIAL to the position.

History reports a different story than you want to portray. We've had military men (and will have military women at some point I'm confident) as POTUS before. On the whole, they've been either to the liberal or moderate end of the spectrum.

Your'e worried about nothing.

In fact, I would submit that you have seen since 2001 the danger of having presidents--yes plural--that have no real understanding of combat. We're in Afghanistan for what exactly? I can't think of any good reason to be there now. Can you? When Saddam was found in Iraq, we should have been demobilizing that very evening.

When you have some skin in the game, you take the game much more seriously.

Your academic argument has not been born out by history. Sorry.

We will always have military men and women that served because service is NOT something that precludes you from becoming president. What is dangerous is making that a REQUIREMENT. Most countries that have such a requirement are dictatorships.

It is interesting you mention the wars we are in because they were started by someone that served in the military. So much for that argument. Seems that those military commanders are more than willing to start a war we should not be in.

Bush was AWOL most of the time...be serious. That chuckle was worth this sanctimonious temper tantrum you're throwing. He has never seen blood spilled on a battlefield. Never cared to. Never had to. The same can be said for Mr. Obama but there IS something to be said for his not pretending and dressing in a flight suit.

We have sufficient, insurmountable structural obstacles in place to prevent dictatorship from ever coming to this country without a total armed overthrow of the government.

The most grave duty of a Commander in Chief is placing men and women in harm's way. He should know how it really works. I would wager that Obama and Bush actually believe a lot of what they see in the movies is actually possible and can't understand why one platoon isn't taking out entire battalions of enemy infantry.

Not only do I think it should be a requirement that they serve, I also think 2 years of compulsory military duty for all Americans is necessary.

 

[candycorn]

Wow. The fact that you cannot understand how crucial the separation our president has with the military and how devastating blurring that line can be is scary. It is ESSENTIAL to the position.

Agreed, but then again, Stalin is a big hero to a lot of these ideologues on the left.

Really name "alot" of people who idolize Josef Stalin.

We're waiting...tick tock.

 

[Newby]

Don't.

Because when that motherfucker died..it was like New Year's eve around here.

Something most of yas will never get.

My post had nothing to do with OBL, only you. Are you a black American, Sallow?

My real life pic is in my profile. And it's pretty clear..I ain't black.

What does that have to do with anything?

It was the only logical thing I could write off your completely blind devotion to Obama too. Guess that means there's nothing logical about it.

 

[candycorn]

My post had nothing to do with OBL, only you. Are you a black American, Sallow?

My real life pic is in my profile. And it's pretty clear..I ain't black.

What does that have to do with anything?

It was the only logical thing I could write off your completely blind devotion to Obama too. Guess that means there's nothing logical about it.

Blind devotion/hatred does get old quickly, I've got to agree with your point there.

 

[Newby]

My real life pic is in my profile. And it's pretty clear..I ain't black.

What does that have to do with anything?

It was the only logical thing I could write off your completely blind devotion to Obama too. Guess that means there's nothing logical about it.

Blind devotion/hatred does get old quickly, I've got to agree with your point there.

Hell just froze over...

 

[candycorn]

It was the only logical thing I could write off your completely blind devotion to Obama too. Guess that means there's nothing logical about it.

Blind devotion/hatred does get old quickly, I've got to agree with your point there.

Hell just froze over...