bases_loaded;1059981 wrote:What's wrong with Santorum?

Been wondering that for years. I'm guessing it's clinical.

Explain.

Ive come to like him or Newt. Don't really like any of them though.

O-Trap;1059986 wrote:Been wondering that for years. I'm guessing it's clinical.

I lol'ed. :thumbup:

[video=youtube_share;GBLtc1vmN7I][/video]

BHO is already getting busy attacking Romney.

Mit responds "maybe" and chuckles like a scared school girl when challenged to follow his Dad's example. Only a fool can't see there are things in them he does not want public. Democrats smell blood in the water.

Yeah, Achilles' heel is exposed, and the Democratic campaign sees it.

bases_loaded;1060001 wrote:Explain.

Ive come to like him or Newt. Don't really like any of them though.

He has come out, numerous times, and said thongs that make me shake my head. From his quote to birth control (not abortion ... condoms), to his view that women should still stay home and rear the children, to the.fact that he doesn't believe the Crusades weren't acts of aggression by Christendom, to saying there is no such thing as a Palestinian, to his comparison in NATURE of gay marriage to bestiality.

He postures well, but like Obama, he looks like a fruit loop when he's speaking in impromptu formats.

O-Trap;1060142 wrote:He has come out, numerous times, and said thongs that make me shake my head.

Rick Santorum and thongs? Don't tell me he wants to outlaw thongs.

O-Trap;1059954 wrote:Nor the first crooked rich one, should malfeasance be discovered.

It won't be, but that doesn't matter...it's already assumed to be true by the mob.

fish82;1060147 wrote:It won't be, but that doesn't matter...it's already assumed to be true by the mob.

There might not be, but as Newt said, "if there is something in there that will cause them to lose the election he should release them now, and if there isn't he should have no problem releasing them now."

Willard is the one creating the perception there is something to hide by refusing to open the blinds on his financial records.

I think quite frankly he is scared of the Evangelical reaction to what is sure to be a huge amount of money given to the Mormon church. He doesn't want to have to start talking about his faith again.

sleeper;1058997 wrote:To the bolded part, who gives a **** that he hasn't come out and said "I will not run 3rd party"? Is this really an issue to you? If it is, why don't they ask Perry/Romney/Santorum if they plan to run 3rd party? It's a stupid question and a pointless issue. He doesn't want to rule it because ultimately he wants to win and become the next President of this country, and if he can do it by running 3rd party, then he will.

Um, I don't know, maybe Republican voters whom he is currently asking to nominate him as the Republican candidate for president. I've heard more than one Ron Paul supporter say they would be upset with him if he went 3rd party. As for the others, they would answer "Absolutely not" about a 3rd party bid, because they actually care about their country and getting rid of Obama.

O-Trap;1060142 wrote:He has come out, numerous times, and said thongs that make me shake my head. From his quote to birth control (not abortion ... condoms), to his view that women should still stay home and rear the children, to the.fact that he doesn't believe the Crusades weren't acts of aggression by Christendom, to saying there is no such thing as a Palestinian, to his comparison in NATURE of gay marriage to bestiality.

I'm questioning your understanding of the bolded part. I believe that quote came in the context of a Supreme Court decision (don't remember the name off the top of my head), which basically said states can't legislate against moral behavior as long as it doesn't harm anyone. I know that sounds great to you libertarians, but what Santorum said was if that is indeed true, then states can't ban bestiality, adultery, and other less-than-acceptable forms of behavior. What he said was absolutely true, but of course leftists and Ron Paul types took it to mean that Santorum thinks homosexuality = bestiality in nature.

The birth control thing was blown way out of proportion, the women-staying-at-home thing is a non-issue, in fact might be supported by many family psychologists, and I thought the Palestinian thing was a Newt quote. But other than that, you're right, he's nuts.

IggyPride00;1060160 wrote:I think quite frankly he is scared of the Evangelical reaction to what is sure to be a huge amount of money given to the Mormon church. He doesn't want to have to start talking about his faith again.

I'm an evangelical, and I could care less how much money he gave to the Mormon church. I care a whole lot more about a lot of other things he's said and done.

My priority is not to remove obama, its to fix this country. Im tired of this well obama sucks so lets pick someone who sucks a little less.

the unfortunate thing is that I believe that Dr Paul has the right message however he may not be the right messenger. Even he admitted it last night. If Paul could deliver his speeches like Newt, this race wouldnt even be close. The american public prefers style over substance.

Whether Ron Paul runs third party or not I am voting for him in November. He won't do it, but I wish he would. If the Republican party doesn't want to be any different from the Democratic party, then it should be dismantled. The warmongers can go back to the Democratic party where they came from, and actual advocates of small government can join or start another party.

pmoney25;1060228 wrote:My priority is not to remove obama, its to fix this country. Im tired of this well obama sucks so lets pick someone who sucks a little less.

the unfortunate thing is that I believe that Dr Paul has the right message however he may not be the right messenger. Even he admitted it last night. If Paul could deliver his speeches like Newt, this race wouldnt even be close. The american public prefers style over substance.

"Anyone but Bush" and "anyone but Obama" are incredibly stupid ways to chose a president.

majorspark;1060143 wrote:Rick Santorum and thongs? Don't tell me he wants to outlaw thongs.

He would be the worst candidate of all time.

fish82;1060147 wrote:It won't be, but that doesn't matter...it's already assumed to be true by the mob.

I won't hang him yet, but I have to admit that he's acting oddly.

I'm curious to dig into Newt's records, though. I know a little about his finances, and I'm interested it how his return reflects it.

I do know that the thought of having to rely on the guy to do his.job scares the crap outta me.

I highly recommend this 5 minute read from the Great One - http://nation.foxnews.com/mark-levin/2012/01/20/must-read-epilogue-mark-levins-ameritopia

Here's the take home:

[LEFT]The essential question is whether, in America, the people’s psychology has been so successfully warped, the individual’s spirit so thoroughly trounced, and the civil society’s institutions so effectively overwhelmed that revival is possible. Have too many among us already surrendered or been conquered? Can the people overcome the constant and relentless influences of ideological indoctrination, economic manipulation, and administrative coerciveness, or have they become hopelessly entangled in and dependent on a ubiquitous federal government? Have the Pavlovian appeals to radical egalitarianism, and the fomenting of jealousy and faction through class warfare and collectivism, conditioned the people to accept or even demand compulsory uniformity as just and righteous? Is it accepted as legitimate and routine that the government has sufficient license to act whenever it claims to do so for the good of the people and against the selfishness of the individual?[/LEFT]

[LEFT]

[/LEFT]

O-Trap;1060292 wrote:He would be the worst candidate of all time.



I won't hang him yet, but I have to admit that he's acting oddly.

I'm curious to dig into Newt's records, though. I know a little about his finances, and I'm interested it how his return reflects it.

I do know that the thought of having to rely on the guy to do his.job scares the crap outta me.

Well he probably disapproves of thongs and any sort of seductive dress judging by his views on contraception and such being "a license to do things in the sexual realm that are counter to how they should be". Dude doesn't want us having sex except to have children. He can kindly GTFO.

Now I don't think he's proposed or would propose any sort of Orwellian anti-sex league type thing (though the red sashes they wore in the book did sound kind of hot) but it's still a ridiculous view to hold.

pmoney25;1060228 wrote:My priority is not to remove obama, its to fix this country. Im tired of this well obama sucks so lets pick someone who sucks a little less.

the unfortunate thing is that I believe that Dr Paul has the right message however he may not be the right messenger. Even he admitted it last night. If Paul could deliver his speeches like Newt, this race wouldnt even be close. The american public prefers style over substance.

Good post and reps given. As for the last sentence, sad but true.

WebFire;1060314 wrote:Good post and reps given. As for the last sentence, sad but true.

Well, I gotta spread it around first.

I got him for you Webfire.

My fellow Americans,

First, to address my false allegations regarding Santorum and thongs, I offer my interest apologies for the auto-correct function of my keypad and even more for my lack of spell-checking.

Now then:

jhay78;1060217 wrote:I'm questioning your understanding of the bolded part.* I believe that quote came in the context of a Supreme Court decision (don't remember the name off the top of my head), which basically said states can't legislate against moral behavior as long as it doesn't harm anyone.* I know that sounds great to you libertarians, but what Santorum said was if that is indeed true, then states can't ban bestiality, adultery, and other less-than-acceptable forms of behavior.

*

Actually, I remember it, and I understood it just fine.* I actually agreed with him on some of the other comparisons (polygamy, in particular).* However, the nature of bestiality ... which involves sex between two or more parties, at least one of which cannot consent at the present moment ... would preclude it from being a "victimless crime."

*

I actually just looked up the quote and its surrounding text, and the statement was riddled with silly or false statements.* I'll cite:

*

"If the Supreme Court says you have a right to have consensual sex within your home, then [...] you have the right to adultery."* (Does he not know that we DO have a right to adultery?)

*

"Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution."* (Has he read it?* Hardly a matter of "opinion.")

*

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality."* (I'm floored.* There is documented evidence to suggest a LOT of cultures through history have accepted same-sex partners, though admittedly, marriage hasn't always been such a state-strangled issue.)

*

With things like incest and polygamy, though, I agree with him.* I just think they should also be handled at a state level.

*

As an aside, he did also say that gay marriage was a "threat to the American family" (I think I got the quote correct, but this is off the top of my head, so correct me if I'm wrong).

*

Don't get me wrong.* I have absolutely ZERO problem with prohibiting it at the state and local levels.* As I recall, the current Presidential favorite of "us Libertarians" has voted to prevent same-sex marriages in his local elections.* I would vote differently, but I have no problem with him, or anyone else, doing so at the state or local level.* That's how it's supposed to work.

*

jhay78;1060217 wrote:What he said was absolutely true, but of course leftists and Ron Paul types took it to mean that Santorum thinks homosexuality = bestiality in nature.

*

Not at all.* Us "Ron Paul types" merely pointed out the error in him comparing them, only in the case of bestiality.* There was a baby in his bathwater, but the bathwater was disconcerting to say the least.

*

jhay78;1060217 wrote:The birth control thing was blown way out of proportion ...

*

The official quote:

*

"The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court, they are creating right, and they should be left up to the people to decide."

*

I'll give you that one, though I find it curious that he's suddenly such a champion of the states' rights to deal with ethics after his position on same-sex marriage at the Federal level.* Seems awfully convenience-driven; would you not agree?

*

jhay78;1060217 wrote:... the women-staying-at-home thing is a non-issue, in fact might be supported by many family psychologists ...

*

I have never seen or heard of an article saying that a woman staying home was better for her.

*

jhay78;1060217 wrote:... and I thought the Palestinian thing was a Newt quote.* But other than that, you're right, he's nuts.

*

Nope.* It was Santorum.* Here's the quote:* "There are no Palestinians. All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land."

*

I actually appreciate Santorum.* All his ideas are not bad, and at least when he has a disconcerting thought, it comes out, and he doesn't hide anything.* Makes it easy to determine whether or not he's your guy.

*

As an Evangelical American, I'd probably agree with him on many things morally, but I vehemently disagree with his belief in a strong governmental authority over the moral lives of the citizens of the country.

ccrunner609;1059629 wrote:He sure isnt endorsing Rick or Mitt......he will be pressured to endorse one of them. Newt will get it.

It's obvious you teach (if that's what you want to call your charity, welfare, overglorified babysitter position) gym class and not government or history. Newt is the polar opposite of Ron Paul. Dr. Paul will not endorse any of these canidates just like he didn't endorse any of the mainstream canidates in the past.

pmoney25;1060228 wrote:My priority is not to remove obama, its to fix this country. Im tired of this well obama sucks so lets pick someone who sucks a little less.

the unfortunate thing is that I believe that Dr Paul has the right message however he may not be the right messenger. Even he admitted it last night. If Paul could deliver his speeches like Newt, this race wouldnt even be close. The american public prefers style over substance.

Best post on this thread.

I Wear Pants;1060332 wrote:I got him for you Webfire.

As did I.

pmoney25;1060228 wrote:My priority is not to remove obama, its to fix this country. Im tired of this well obama sucks so lets pick someone who sucks a little less.

I Wear Pants;1060285 wrote:"Anyone but Bush" and "anyone but Obama" are incredibly stupid ways to chose a president.

While I agree with the theme of these two posts, you have to remember this thing is not going to be fixed overnight. Whether it's Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan returned from the dead, or Perfect Candidate X, there is a long way to go, as in multiple elections- both presidential and congressional- to turn this around. I'll vote for a rotten banana peel over Obama, even Romney, even though he's not as different from Obama as I would like (he is different though). The historical and mathematical reality is that the one person in the whole world with the best chance to beat Obama is the Republican nominee. So I will vote for less-than-perfect over absolute trainwreck.

O-Trap;1060390 wrote:My fellow Americans,

First, to address my false allegations regarding Santorum and thongs, I offer my interest apologies for the auto-correct function of my keypad and even more for my lack of spell-checking.

Apologies accepted. My eyes hurt though . . .

"Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution."* (Has he read it?* Hardly a matter of "opinion.")

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, it was invented in the Planned Parenthood/ Connecticut contraception case in order to pave the way for abortion-on-demand and Roe v Wade. Right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures, yes; privacy no.

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality."* (I'm floored.* There is documented evidence to suggest a LOT of cultures through history have accepted same-sex partners, though admittedly, marriage hasn't always been such a state-strangled issue.)

With things like incest and polygamy, though, I agree with him.* I just think they should also be handled at a state level.

I think that was his point in objecting to the Supreme Court decision.

As an aside, he did also say that gay marriage was a "threat to the American family" (I think I got the quote correct, but this is off the top of my head, so correct me if I'm wrong).

Don't get me wrong.* I have absolutely ZERO problem with prohibiting it at the state and local levels.* As I recall, the current Presidential favorite of "us Libertarians" has voted to prevent same-sex marriages in his local elections.* I would vote differently, but I have no problem with him, or anyone else, doing so at the state or local level.* That's how it's supposed to work.

The official quote:

"The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court, they are creating right, and they should be left up to the people to decide."

I'll give you that one, though I find it curious that he's suddenly such a champion of the states' rights to deal with ethics after his position on same-sex marriage at the Federal level.* Seems awfully convenience-driven; would you not agree?

I believe his official position on the marriage issue is a Constitutional amendment, which would have to be decided by the states (37 of them) to get ratified. I wish he would stop saying "federal law" with regard to marriage, when he's talking about amending the constitution.

I have never seen or heard of an article saying that a woman staying home was better for her.

I meant better for the family.

Nope.* It was Santorum.* Here's the quote:* "There are no Palestinians. All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land."

I actually appreciate Santorum.* All his ideas are not bad, and at least when he has a disconcerting thought, it comes out, and he doesn't hide anything.* Makes it easy to determine whether or not he's your guy.*

As an Evangelical American, I'd probably agree with him on many things morally, but I vehemently disagree with his belief in a strong governmental authority over the moral lives of the citizens of the country

Yeah I don't know about his view on Palestinians. But the outrage at his views of government and morality are overblown. He objected to the Supreme Court decision precisely because he feels that moral issues should be left to the states. Obviously he feels strongly about abortion and gay marriage, but his solutions for both are constitutional amendments- which involve a super-majority of states.

Anyway, I don't think he's got much of a shot, but it's still fun to argue with you anyway.

The wheels are coming off the Willard bus right now.

He is apparently refusing to participate in the scheduled NBC national televised debate Monday prior to the Florida primary.

He is reeling, and wants to go back into the MIttness protection program because Newt cleans his clocks at these debates and he is woefully underprepared to answer questions about his finances.

We are supposed to send this coward to defeat the Messiah when he can't even muster the courage to debate in the primary season?

No wonder he ran away to France during Vietnam, he has a massive yellow streak running down his back that is finally being exposed.

IggyPride00;1060490 wrote:The wheels are coming off the Willard bus right now.

He is apparently refusing to participate in the scheduled NBC national televised debate Monday prior to the Florida primary.

He is reeling, and wants to go back into the MIttness protection program because Newt cleans his clocks at these debates and he is woefully underprepared to answer questions about his finances.

We are supposed to send this coward to defeat the Messiah when he can't even muster the courage to debate in the primary season?

No wonder he ran away to France during Vietnam, he has a massive yellow streak running down his back that is finally being exposed.

There have already been about 75 debates how many more is really needed?