Just curious, would any of you vote for Santorum

[detbuch]

Reasons not to vote for Santorum:

HE BELIEVES HE'S SUPERIOR. Hmmm . . . isn't a big ego sort of a requirement for political office. Obama abundantly drips with superiority and he won in a landslide. I guess you just have to know how to flaunt it. Disqualified.

HE APPEALS TO A RELIGIOUS "FRINGE." Hmm . . . shouldn't the Pres appeal to as many as possible? Probly better not to appeal to religious folks, though, especially fringe types like Catholics, Evangelicals, Christians. That would mark him as quite unsuitable for POTUS. He couldn't possibly appeal to those folks and take care of every other problem that each of the rest of us has. He must somehow be everything to everybody, and yet not appear to be for anybody in particular.

HE'S TALING ABOUT CONTRACEPTIVES WHILE THE U.S. BURNS. He, along with a host of others, objects to Obama's infringement of the first ammendment guaranty of religious freedom, then is constantly grilled about it. Yup, talking about the Constitution is rather stupid nowadays. Hasn't he noticed what it's done for Ron Paul? Nobody wants to hear that stuff--especially not politicians--that's not how the government is run anymore. He's obviously not qualified for political office if he is concerned with that outmoded Constitution stuff. Disqualified.

HIS POSITION ON SOCIAL ISSUES. Hmmm . . . most of which are in accordance with the majority of Americans. Yeah, but, those positions ARE quite polically incorrect. Disqualified.

HE INSULTS OBAMA. Omigosh, a politician insulting another politician! On this count he is, along with the rest of the pols, disqualified!!

HE IS AS CROOKED AS HIS NOSE. Yeah . . . good observation. His nose is llittle crooked. So he must be a little crooked. That's just too ordinary. We need outstanding qualities for POTUS. Just a little crooked won't do. He must have to be a big hoodwinker and liar like most of our recent and present Presidents. Disqualified.

HE IS PASSIONATE ABOUT WHAT HE BELIEVES. Good God Amighty . . . oops . . .sorry about that God stuff . . . but, come on, doesn't he comprehend the first principle of politics --INSINCERITY!! Disqualified.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Reasons not to vote for Santorum:

You forgot: he is either insane or a good liar

Sex for procreation only

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You forgot: he is either insane or a good liar

Sex for procreation only

Gosh, you're right! I forgot about that very important point. Of course, this falls under the "HE IS AS CROOKED AS HIS NOSE" reason for disqualification, which might make me have to change my vote from disqualified to qualified. If he is a really good liar, rather than just an ordinary fibber, then he would actually be QUALIFIED.

As for the insanity, why do you suppose nature, or God, or whatever accident you believe created us, made sex so pleasurable. IN ORDER TO MAKE US PROCREATE. If sex was not so maddeningly desirable, would men want to be tied down to the responsibilities involved in raising children or taking care of spouses? Would women go through with childbirth? Of course, we can develope cloning to the point where the old-fashioned way of procreation can be discarded, and sex can just be pure fun.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by detbuch

G

As for the insanity, why do you suppose nature, or God, or whatever accident you believe created us, made sex so pleasurable. IN ORDER TO MAKE US PROCREATE. If sex was not so maddenly desirable, would men want to be tied down to the responsibilities involved in raising children or taking care of spouses?

of course, all that was before internet porn

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As for the insanity, why do you suppose nature, or God, or whatever accident you believe created us, made sex so pleasurable. IN ORDER TO MAKE US PROCREATE.

The nut job, who couldn't even get re-elected to the senate in PA, claims he only has sex when he is trying to make a baby. He doesn't promote the rhythm method, which is the accepted form by his church. it is "immoral to have sex for reasons other than procreation." He is nuts. I do have to say, it is almost good if he becomes the candidate, then maybe some Reagan Republicans like Huntsman will have a chance in the future when the pendulum swings back. Santorum is so far off the charts radical on almost every front that he makes Newt look like a bleeding heart liberal. You want government to not impinge on peoples freedom, Santorum is not your candidate.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You want government to not impinge on peoples freedom, Santorum is not your candidate.

But if you want them to mandate ultrasounds via their lady parts, he might just be your candidate....

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You want government to not impinge on peoples freedom, Santorum is not your candidate.

This is my #1 issue with Santorum. Having a lot of Libertarian-type views, there is no candidate worse than Santorum. If it were up to him, we'd all have those surveillance monitors in our homes like in 1984 so that Santorum can be sure all of our thoughts and actions are in line with his definition of socially acceptable.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

This is my #1 issue with Santorum. Having a lot of Libertarian-type views, there is no candidate worse than Santorum. If it were up to him, we'd all have those surveillance monitors in our homes like in 1984 so that Santorum can be sure all of our thoughts and actions are in line with his definition of socially acceptable.

Wow!!! I realize the power of the President has grown well outside the bounds of the U.S. Constitution, but I didn't realize it has gotten that bad. If it is up to the President whether we have surveillance monitors in our homes or not, the gig is up.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

. Disqualified.

HE INSULTS OBAMA. Omigosh, a politician insulting another politician! On this count he is, along with the rest of the pols, disqualified!!

but some of the repubs. seem to take it to a whole new level. Is there anything worse than calling him un-America, a socialist, a Muslim, saying he isn't born here?.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

but some of the repubs. seem to take it to a whole new level. Is there anything worse than calling him un-America, a socialist, a Muslim, saying he isn't born here?.

Yeah, you can call him a perjurer. When he swore to defend and protect the Constitution, he either lied or was secretly referring to some alien constitution.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, you can call him a perjurer. When he swore to defend and protect the Constitution, he either lied or was secretly referring to some alien constitution.

We have a difference of opion, I think anyone who calls a pres. un American is scum as that to me is the worse.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

We have a difference of opion, I think anyone who calls a pres. un American is scum as that to me is the worse.

Our difference of opinion may lie at the heart of what each of us think it is to be an American. There may be millions of different opinions or shades of opinions on it, but, critically, there is now a major one in terms of how we are governed.

There are those that believe the Constitution is the blueprint. And there are those who believe the Constitution is an impediment to how we should be governed.

The Constitution was written as a structure for a free people to govern themselves with a limited power granted by those people to a central government which would be a cohesive force to bind us together and make us powerful against outside forces and against an internal tyranny.

Those who oppose the Constitutional system believe we are a product of historical progress and we have arrived at a historical place where we need not fear old tyrannies, and that the best mode of government is an all powerful benevolent administration which will do for us whatever is necessary for our well being.

Which type of government you believe in will inform what you think it is to be American. Those that believe in the Constitutional framework would consider those that trash it as being unAmerican.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Reasons not to vote for Santorum:

HE BELIEVES HE'S SUPERIOR. Hmmm . . . isn't a big ego sort of a requirement for political office. Obama abundantly drips with superiority and he won in a landslide. I guess you just have to know how to flaunt it. Disqualified.

HE APPEALS TO A RELIGIOUS "FRINGE." Hmm . . . shouldn't the Pres appeal to as many as possible? Probly better not to appeal to religious folks, though, especially fringe types like Catholics, Evangelicals, Christians. That would mark him as quite unsuitable for POTUS. He couldn't possibly appeal to those folks and take care of every other problem that each of the rest of us has. He must somehow be everything to everybody, and yet not appear to be for anybody in particular.

HE'S TALING ABOUT CONTRACEPTIVES WHILE THE U.S. BURNS. He, along with a host of others, objects to Obama's infringement of the first ammendment guaranty of religious freedom, then is constantly grilled about it. Yup, talking about the Constitution is rather stupid nowadays. Hasn't he noticed what it's done for Ron Paul? Nobody wants to hear that stuff--especially not politicians--that's not how the government is run anymore. He's obviously not qualified for political office if he is concerned with that outmoded Constitution stuff. Disqualified.

HIS POSITION ON SOCIAL ISSUES. Hmmm . . . most of which are in accordance with the majority of Americans. Yeah, but, those positions ARE quite polically incorrect. Disqualified.

HE INSULTS OBAMA. Omigosh, a politician insulting another politician! On this count he is, along with the rest of the pols, disqualified!!

HE IS AS CROOKED AS HIS NOSE. Yeah . . . good observation. His nose is llittle crooked. So he must be a little crooked. That's just too ordinary. We need outstanding qualities for POTUS. Just a little crooked won't do. He must have to be a big hoodwinker and liar like most of our recent and present Presidents. Disqualified.

HE IS PASSIONATE ABOUT WHAT HE BELIEVES. Good God Amighty . . . oops . . .sorry about that God stuff . . . but, come on, doesn't he comprehend the first principle of politics --INSINCERITY!! Disqualified.

That not my list, but based on Santorums very candid and open marks - he's not mainstream at all.
I was raised catholic, catholic private schools my whole life - every single catholic I know has/had pre-maritial sex and uses birth control. every single one.
No media spin - i heard the live interview on 96.9 Micheal graham (a conservative) interview Santorum . Graham asked him if he was a Jesus guy and responded -
Dont you need a Jesus guy? Dont you need some with morals? and went on to say how his religion will make him a better president.

I believe in morals but dont beleive that always tie to religion. I'll bet my salary Sandusky went to chuch each week. I believe Santorum crosses the line with religiion and politics. If the majority of people disagree, so be it, he gets the vote. I dont agree with him and dont want him to dictate what I do in my bedroom.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I believe in morals but dont beleive that always tie to religion. I'll bet my salary Sandusky went to chuch each week. I believe Santorum crosses the line with religiion and politics. If the majority of people disagree, so be it, he gets the vote. I dont agree with him and dont want him to dictate what I do in my bedroom.

Most Presidents probably have had their personal code of morality. Those codes were, probably, not all the same. The presidency is not yet a dictatorship. It is not possible, at this time, for the President to dictate what you do in your bedroom. This is only an "issue" because Santorum is not politically wise enough to keep his moral code to himself. That he has "worn his heart on his sleeve" has given his oponents ammunition to fuel the media with a drumbeat. It has, apparently, worked with you. Focusing on his moral beliefs relieves one from talking about the policies that he, as President, would actually be dealing with. If you are that concerned with government in your bedroom, focus on the form of government you want, in which direction toward government control of our lives has government grown, and what needs to be done and who best to do it to reverse that direction. If you feel that Santorum's religious beliefs are so strong that he cannot separate them from his duty as President, I can understand your reluctance to vote for him. But, again, ALL presidents must rise above their personal code to govern, but that should not mean that they cannot have such a personal code. I don't have or feel a strong desire to vote for Santorum. But if he winds up being the nominee, he'll have my vote, not because of his personal religious beliefs, rather in order to stem, slightly, the tide in the direction we are heading in the way we are governed.

[Fly Rod]

Even tho I'm an independant......

Republican all the way!!!!!!!!!

Is Daffy Duck Republican?

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you feel that Santorum's religious beliefs are so strong that he cannot separate them from his duty as President, I can understand your reluctance to vote for him.

bingo

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

bingo

If you are going to take his word that what he claims to be his personal religious tenets are who he really is, then why will you not take his word that he will not impose his personal beliefs on others via government force as, he says, the Democrats do? He has stated personal beliefs on morality to groups of like minded people not as political doctrine to be implemented, but as like minded reasons for the deterioration of society. Is there a record of his imposing religious beliefs rather than ethical practices through legislation? Is he not allowed to have personal beliefs outside the political arena? Are those who are opposed to so-called conservative litmus tests for politicians in favor of such tests to weed out religious folks who actually believe their faith? How many polliticians have we accepted, even praised who have been outside the norm in their personal behaviour? Barney Frank is praised for his politics, not his sexual preferences. Bill Clinton is a major hero, but not for his sexual preferences. How is it that we can accept that great number of politicians in our history who have led disreputatable personal lives, yet a Santorum is a threat? Is it that others have preferred not to openly speak of who they really were or are? Does that comfort you to not know? If they lie or hide who they are, what else do they hide? Can you trust that the pretty words in which they couch their policies and legislation are the truth, or just expedient to get your vote? Whatever threat he presents is not in how he leads his own life or in his opinions on social mores, but in what he will support (i.e. the Constiltution).

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you are going to take his word that what he claims to be his personal religious tenets are who he really is, then why will you not take his word that he will not impose his personal beliefs on others via government force as, he says, the Democrats do?

Maybe because as my state senator, he tried to pass a federal bill to require the teaching of creationism in science classrooms. That is imposing his religious beliefs through government force.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Maybe because as my state senator, he tried to pass a federal bill to require the teaching of creationism in science classrooms. That is imposing his religious beliefs through government force.

huh?

In proposing the amendment, Santorum addressed the Congress:

This is an amendment that is a sense of the Senate. It is a sense of the Senate that deals with the subject of intellectual freedom with respect to the teaching of science in the classroom, in primary and secondary education. It is a sense of the Senate that does not try to dictate curriculum to anybody; quite the contrary, it says there should be freedom to discuss and air good scientific debate within the classroom. In fact, students will do better and will learn more if there is this intellectual freedom to discuss. I will read this sense of the Senate. It is simply two sentences—frankly, two rather innocuous sentences—that hopefully this Senate will embrace: "It is the sense of the Senate that—

(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and

(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.
It simply says there are disagreements in scientific theories out there that are continually tested.


you do realize that people of faith generally believe that there is an intelligent design to our planet and universe rather than some amazing coincidence/accident that we as humans are slowly figuring out, being the only accident capable of or even attempting to figure it out as the most intelligent accidents in the universe unless you believe in space aliens or something crazy like that

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Maybe because as my state senator, he tried to pass a federal bill to require the teaching of creationism in science classrooms. That is imposing his religious beliefs through government force.

Isn't this EXACTLY one of the problems "created" when the Federal Government ignores the Constitution and rules over us as an over-reaching central power that passes laws to rule us when there is no constitutional power granted to it by us to do so. The Constitution, as written and intended leaves education to the States, and gives no power to the Federal Government to dictate how we are educated. If we accept that the Consitution is no longer relevant, and that the Federal Government actually has, and must have, the power to do as it wishes because that is the most efficient, progressive, scientific way to assure our good, then we are left to the whim of a few who may even change that whim with changing administrations.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't have or feel a strong desire to vote for Santorum. But if he winds up being the nominee, he'll have my vote, not because of his personal religious beliefs, rather in order to stem, slightly, the tide in the direction we are heading in the way we are governed.

X 2