How can people really vote for Santorum

[Intense]

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.

I'm saying very plainly that If Their Constitutions cannot Establish Justice and Unalienable Rights, we have no business spending a dime, nor a minute defending the Tyranny they create. Either they recognize Human Rights or they don't.

 

[Intense]

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

Really. Who is the Idiot here? Trick Question, don't sweat it, we already know.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

As it should be...

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing religious displays in public, it's when religion becomes law that the problems start. Just ask Ireland. I'm not too sure on the law now, but in the recent past it was illegal to have condoms. Why? Because Catholic doctrine was also law.

Tibet only has one religion. As far as I'm aware there were no other religions other than Buddism...so that is not a good example.

 

[Intense]

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.

your lying or just stupid:

While they have direct access to the president, they lack operational authority over governmental agencies and often have little or no budget line

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_(political_term)

seriously you are ******* dumb:

As head of the Office of Homeland Security during the George W. Bush administration, Tom Ridge found that these reasons significantly limited his ability to influence policy.[24] As "drug czar", William Bennett also noticed that the lack of direct authority, inability to dispense grants, and relative small staff was a "potentially debilitating institutional weakness" that he needed to overcome

I mean it punch yourself in the face for being that stupid.All you have is what your talking heads fed you on the tv or radio. You are a brainless **** who can't even think for themselves. You are just embarrassing.

List of Obama’s Czars

Friday, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:26 AM EDT

As of July 20, 2009:

• The Brainroom counts 32 czars in the Obama administration, based on media reports from reputable sources that have identified the official in question as a czar.

• In addition, President Obama has said that he will create the position of cyber czar, and there have been media reports that there could be a health insurance czar and a copyright czar. When and if those positions are filled, that would bring the total to 35.

• Since czar isn’t an official job title, the number is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.

NOTE: positions that also existed under previous administrations are indicated with an *.

1. Afghanistan Czar – Richard Holbrooke

Title: Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Salary: unknown

Reports to: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Appointed: January 2009

Department that might have handled similar issues: State

• Will work with CENTCOM head Gen. David Petraeus to integrate U.S. civilian and military efforts in the region.

• 45 years of experience have made him a fixture of the Democrats’ foreign policy establishment.

• Was U.S. ambassador to U.N., 1999-2001

• Brokered the 1995 Dayton Peace Accords in Bosnia

• Also served as Assistant secretary of state, East Asia and the Pacific (1976 to 1980); worked in foreign service (1962 to 1976)

• From 1972 through 1976, was the editor of Foreign Policy magazine.

2. AIDS Czar * – Jeffrey Crowley

Title: Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy

Salary: $102,000

Reports to: President Obama (as part of the Executive Office of the President’s Domestic Policy Council)

Appointed: February 2009

Department that might have handled similar issues: Health and Human Services

• Coordinates HIV/AIDS policy domestically and internationally.

• Senior Research Scholar at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute and a Senior Scholar at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center.

• Was Deputy Executive Director for Programs at the National Association of People with AIDS

• Has Master of Public Health from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health

3. Auto Recovery Czar – Ed Montgomery

Title: Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers

Salary: unknown

Reports to: Larry Summers, the president’s top economic adviser, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis

Appointed: March 2009

Department that might have handled similar issues: Labor

• Will work to leverage government resources to support the workers, communities and regions that rely on the American auto industry.

• Was Deputy Secretary and Chief Economist at the Labor Department (1997 to 1998)

• Is Dean of the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of Maryland (2003 to present)

• Has PhD in economics from Harvard

• In 2008, made $1,200 in political donations, all of which went to Obama’s presidential campaign.

• Wife is the granddaughter of a General Motors worker from Portland, Mich.

• Drives a 2000 Lincoln

4. Border Czar * – Alan Bersin

Title: Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs

Salary: unknown

Reports to: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

Appointed: April 2009

Agencies that might have handled similar issues: Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

• Will coordinate all of the department’s border security and law-enforcement efforts.

• Essentially had the same job under President Clinton; served as Attorney General Janet Reno’s special representative on border issues, a job that he held while retaining the position of U.S. attorney for San Diego.

• This time, boss will be Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who will expect him to handle illegal immigration and drug violence issues along the Mexican-American border

• Previous experience: Chairman of the San Diego Regional Airport Authority (2006 to 2009); Secretary of Education for California (2005 to 2006); Superintendent of San Diego Public Schools (1998 to 2005); U.S. Attorney for San Diego (1993 to 1998)

• Graduate of Harvard and Yale Law School

• Talking about border security shortly before he was named Clinton border czar in 1995, said he wanted to focus on suspected smugglers of both drugs and people and was not interested in prosecuting “economic migrants.”

• Often tied to the 1994 border policy called “Operation Gatekeeper.” The policy shifted the U.S. focus from the arresting of immigrants who actually crossed the border to an increased border presence designed to stop border crossing in the first place. When Bersin left the position in 1998, border arrests were on pace for an 18-year low of just more than 200,000. Latino groups complained that Operation Gatekeeper was immoral, saying the program monitored the border near San Diego but simply forced illegal immigrants to other, more dangerous areas.

• Has given more than $50,000 to political campaigns since 1999, almost all of it to Democrats.

5. California Water Czar – David J. Hayes

Title: Deputy Interior Secretary

Salary: unknown

Reports to: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar

Appointed: June 2009

Confirmed by Senate (as Deputy Interior Security): May 20, 2009

Department that might have handled similar issues: Interior

• Charged with coordinating federal agencies to ease California’s water shortage

• Graduate of Stanford Law School; clerked for U.S. District Court for the D.C., has been a partner at two big D.C. law firms

• Was deputy interior secretary under Bruce Babbitt during Clinton administration

• From 1993 to 1995, was chairman of the board at the Environmental Law Institute, a non-profit research center.

• As a lobbyist, represented the Southern California Metropolitan Water District in 2001

• In August 2008, wrote a policy report while working at the Progressive Policy Institute accusing the Bush administration of leaving a “damaging legacy” in their natural resource management policies

• Donated $2,300 to Clinton during 2008 campaign; after she withdrew, donated $2,300 to Obama

List of Obama’s Czars – Glenn Beck

Top 5 Czars. You claim they have no Power, correct? How much does your credibility need to go into negative numbers before you get a clue? Do you want to buy a Vowel??? Does picking on Becki give you illusion that you are not Retarded? Why the need to be so absurd in your claims??? You want to make Obama's 32 Czars an issue in the 2012 Campaign. Be my guest.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

personal abusive attacks are not allowed, if you cannot debate,take it to the flame zone.

Another rule that has just been instigated...?

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

My question is how in the hell would someone vote for obama again?

Put Santorum as his opposition....and watch....

 

[Intense]

Since Santorum is going to govern by religion and not the constitution, and since the Pope is considered by Catholics to be Jesus Christ in the flesh, we can expect the Pope to running America should San Whore Um win.

You got that so wrong it is pathetic.

Ok. I admit it's quite a claim. Tell me what's wrong with it.

I don't see Santorum claiming to run the Country under the direction of the Pope at all. I see him using his best reason and Conscience, as I would hope of any Head of State. You are projecting your fears. If you think about it, the job description is to make the best calls you can, within your Constitutional Authority.

 

[Intense]

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.

My question is how in the hell would someone vote for obama again?

Put Santorum as his opposition....and watch....

That may be. I will support the Republican Nominee, whom ever it is. I hope, at this point it's Romney. Either we Unite, no matter who it is, or we lose, we lose possibly much more than the Election.

 

[elvis]

You got that so wrong it is pathetic.

Ok. I admit it's quite a claim. Tell me what's wrong with it.

I don't see Santorum claiming to run the Country under the direction of the Pope at all. I see him using his best reason and Conscience, as I would hope of any Head of State. You are projecting your fears. If you think about it, the job description is to make the best calls you can, within your Constitutional Authority.

I don't like "family values" candidates in general and for him to go after JFK on an issue like that is ridiculous.

 

[elvis]

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.

My question is how in the hell would someone vote for obama again?

Put Santorum as his opposition....and watch....

Pretty much.

 

[Dr Grump]

My question is how in the hell would someone vote for obama again?

Put Santorum as his opposition....and watch....

That may be. I will support the Republican Nominee, whom ever it is. I hope, at this point it's Romney. Either we Unite, no matter who it is, or we lose, we lose possibly much more than the Election.

You would a lot more under Santorum..

Roe vs Wade would be under the gun, gay marriage....all personal choices would be in the firing line...Prayer in school would be back...gak!

 

[Intense]

Ok. I admit it's quite a claim. Tell me what's wrong with it.

I don't see Santorum claiming to run the Country under the direction of the Pope at all. I see him using his best reason and Conscience, as I would hope of any Head of State. You are projecting your fears. If you think about it, the job description is to make the best calls you can, within your Constitutional Authority.

I don't like "family values" candidates in general and for him to go after JFK on an issue like that is ridiculous.

Like you, I see JFK, trying to downplay himself as a Catholic bot Minion of the Pope. I think he just didn't think it through. I don't hold it against him. Santorum pointed out a flaw in his reasoning. I don't know what is behind the intensity of the comment, nor do I pretend to. I do know that be it in Court or on the Street, I do not support any relevant position or information censored, because a controlling authority does not approve of the source. How is Anyone to factor in the best solution when impertinent information is withheld? How are we to know the true feelings and concerns of the Community, with a gag order on what is supposed to be protected Free Speech?

 

[Intense]

Put Santorum as his opposition....and watch....

That may be. I will support the Republican Nominee, whom ever it is. I hope, at this point it's Romney. Either we Unite, no matter who it is, or we lose, we lose possibly much more than the Election.

You would a lot more under Santorum..

Roe vs Wade would be under the gun, gay marriage....all personal choices would be in the firing line...Prayer in school would be back...gak!

I disagree. Short of a Constitutional Amendment either way on Abortion, the Power reverts back to Each Individual State. That leave him out of the equation. I do not believe it will go that far at all, not even close. Gay Marriage and other possible solutions are currently being discussed on another Thread.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

I'm saying very plainly that If Their Constitutions cannot Establish Justice and Unalienable Rights, we have no business spending a dime, nor a minute defending the Tyranny they create. Either they recognize Human Rights or they don't.

So you are agreeing that our attempt at nation building was a complete failure?

As I predicted btw

 

[elvis]

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.

I'm saying very plainly that If Their Constitutions cannot Establish Justice and Unalienable Rights, we have no business spending a dime, nor a minute defending the Tyranny they create. Either they recognize Human Rights or they don't.

So you are agreeing that our attempt at nation building was a complete failure?

As I predicted btw

I will agree with it.

 

[uscitizen]

My question is how in the hell would someone vote for obama again?

Put Santorum as his opposition....and watch....

Pretty much.

Yes that is the only way I will pull the Obama lever.
Not liking it at all, but Santorum is dangerous.

 

[Missourian]

Put Santorum as his opposition....and watch....

That may be. I will support the Republican Nominee, whom ever it is. I hope, at this point it's Romney. Either we Unite, no matter who it is, or we lose, we lose possibly much more than the Election.

You would a lot more under Santorum..

Roe vs Wade would be under the gun, gay marriage....all personal choices would be in the firing line...Prayer in school would be back...gak!

Romney has said he opposes Roe, and gay marriage...even Obama says he opposes gay marriage.

So, what is the difference?

The difference is they are full of crap.

(Wink, nod) "I'm pro-life."...(fingers crossed) "I support the 2nd amendment."

Santorum is honest.

Let's see what some straight forward truth would look like from some other candidates.

Obama: "Yes, I personally believe you all are backwater bible clinging gun nuts and I personally believe semi automatic rifles and shotguns plus all handguns should be banned...but I will support your freedom of religious expression and right to bear arms."

Romney: "Well of course I see absolutely no problem whatsoever with a mandate to force citizens to buy healthcare, it was the cornerstone of my healthcare plan, and I personally see no reason to repeal Obamacare, I'll just give everyone a waiver and let it drag on and on like the alternate minimum tax...but you can count on me to fix Obamacare."

Or how about...Romney "Sure, I signed an assault weapons ban and stated in no uncertain terms that I would sign a national assault weapons ban if I were president...but now I'm a lifetime member of the NRA...so have no fear, your second amendment rights are safe if you elect me president."

Now, what's the beef with Santorum, he says he is personally opposed to contraception...but believes that it is a personal choice that the government should have no say in one way or the other."

Well hell folks, that's the only statement up there I believe.

 

[elvis]

That may be. I will support the Republican Nominee, whom ever it is. I hope, at this point it's Romney. Either we Unite, no matter who it is, or we lose, we lose possibly much more than the Election.

You would a lot more under Santorum..

Roe vs Wade would be under the gun, gay marriage....all personal choices would be in the firing line...Prayer in school would be back...gak!

Romney has said he opposes Roe, and gay marriage...even Obama says he opposes gay marriage.

So, what is the difference?

The difference is they are full of crap.

(Wink, nod) "I'm pro-life."...(fingers crossed) "I support the 2nd amendment."

Santorum is honest.

Let's see what some straight forward truth would look like from some other candidates.

Obama: "Yes, I personally believe you all are backwater bible clinging gun nuts and I personally believe semi automatic rifles and shotguns plus all handguns should be banned...but I will support your freedom of religious expression and right to bear arms."

Romney: "Well of course I see absolutely no problem whatsoever with a mandate to force citizens to buy healthcare, it was the cornerstone of my healthcare plan, and I personally see no reason to repeal Obamacare, I'll just give everyone a waiver and let it drag on and on like the alternate minimum tax...but you can count on me to fix Obamacare."

Or how about...Romney "Sure, I signed an assault weapons ban and stated in no uncertain terms that I would sign a national assault weapons ban if I were president...but now I'm a lifetime member of the NRA...so have no fear, your second amendment rights are safe if you elect me president."

Now, what's the beef with Santorum, he says he is personally opposed to contraception...but believes that out is a personal choice that the government should have no say in one way our the other."

Well hell folks, that's the only statement up there I believe.

Except Santorum said states should have to right to ban birth control.

 

[uscitizen]

Santorum is honestly nutz.