| |
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| |
| Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
02-23-2012, 02:05 PM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
|
Quote:
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. |
No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
|
|
|
|
02-23-2012, 02:07 PM
|
#2
|
|
Also known as OAK
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,349
|
Quote:
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.... |
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
|
|
|
|
|
02-23-2012, 03:11 PM
|
#3
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-23-2012, 04:49 PM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:25 AM.
|
| |
Hybrid Mode