dtdtim;1079757 wrote:I don't really have an opinion on Santorum one way or the other at the moment because I haven't researched him enough. To be honest, I never seriously thought he was going to contend for the nomination even after it was close in Iowa. That being said, I'm intrigued by the last part of your response to I Wear Pants. Could you give an example of what you mean to elaborate on your agreement with Santorum? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from...what do you think Santorum really means with that quote?

Cleveland Buck;1079760 wrote:What Santorum means is that the federal government should impose values on the people and police their behavior in hopes of changing their morality. It doesn't work and it is not at all legal in this country (yes the Constitution is the law).

Cleveland Buck;1079750 wrote:Why? Has Paul offered to invade and occupy and bomb America?

Con_Alma;1079766 wrote:It may not work but our government has done it for many years and continues to do so.

Con_Alma;1079765 wrote:I don't pretend to know his intentions with the quote. I simply offered my opinion on the fact that we can do what we please in this country so long as it doesn't harm others.

I too do not believe he will gain the nomination.

I Wear Pants;1079782 wrote:Could you expand upon that opinion please? I'm curious what activities that do not harm anyone you think should be illegal/the government should stop.

Cleveland Buck;1079781 wrote:Our government has done many illegal things to us for many years and continue to do so. That doesn't mean we should get promote it by getting behind a candidate who wants to do more.

Skyhook79;1079637 wrote:What do you do when the guy you believe in isn't on the Ballot in the General Election?

Con_Alma;1079765 wrote: I simply offered my opinion on the fact that we can do what we please in this country so long as it doesn't harm others.

Con_Alma;1079809 wrote:????

Why would you assume that I think the government should stop?

bases_loaded;1079643 wrote:Whats more important...voting for Obama(by voting for him or 3rd party) or voting against Obama(voting for the repub candidate)?

dwccrew;1079960 wrote:Voting for who you believe in and want as president.

bases_loaded;1079463 wrote:I bet you think you're smarter than everyone and your opinion is golden.

My ancestors came here only speaking German and knowing how to work hard. Because of them my life doesn't suck.

QuakerOats;1079538 wrote:You must be among the liberal elite.

sleeper;1079997 wrote:Curious what business Romney "built"? More like he bought business and installed people he knew would do a better job than the previous regime. That tells me nothing about how he's going to get this economy turned around.

sleeper;1079997 wrote:Curious what business Romney "built"? More like he bought business and installed people he knew would do a better job than the previous regime. That tells me nothing about how he's going to get this economy turned around.

Con_Alma;1079765 wrote:I don't pretend to know his intentions with the quote. I simply offered my opinion on the fact that we can't do what we please in this country so long as it doesn't harm others.

I too do not believe he will gain the nomination.

A representative for Santorum asserted that his comments were relevant specifically to the then-pending case before the Supreme Court of the United States, Lawrence v. Texas.[SUP][28][/SUP] The Associated Press reported Santorum was offered an opportunity to explain his comments prior to the publishing of the interview – he refused to do so and replied, "I can't deny that I said it, and I can't deny that's how I feel."[SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][37]
[/SUP]
In a follow-up statement released after the Associated Press interview was published, Santorum said some of his remarks were "taken out of context", and defended his comments in the interview asserting "It is simply a reflection of the law."[SUP][11][/SUP] In an interview with Fox News Channel, Santorum said he was not going to apologize for his remarks, "I do not need to give an apology based on what I said and what I'm saying now – I think this is a legitimate public policy discussion. These are not ridiculous comments. These are very much a very important point."[SUP][18]
[/SUP]
Santorum defended his remarks, declaring that his comments were not intended to equate homosexuality with incest and adultery, but rather to challenge the specific legal position that the right to privacy prevents the government from regulating consensual acts among adults, a position he disputes, because he does not believe that there is a general constitutional right to privacy.[SUP][2]
[/SUP]
The dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) took a similar view—that, as the Texas homosexuality law had been ruled unconstitutional, because states have no right to interfere with an individual's choice of sexual partners, then the same ruling seems to imply that states have no right to legislate against incest, bigamy, adultery, polygamy, or any other mutually consensual sexual act not involving minors.

sjmvsfscs08;1080013 wrote:"Installing people he knows would do a better job" is 90% of what a President does, in case you didn't know.

As usual, you oversimplify and disregard anything you disagree with. It is, and has always been, nothing short of pathetic. It's worse than an ad hominem attack, which usually isn't far behind in your usual arguments.

I would think a Bakers Scholar from HBS has a little more influence in restructuring companies than simply calling a buddy in to run it more effectively.

What's your explanation for when the Utahans begged him to turn around the Olympics? Did he install people he knew or did he do ____ to turn it around from $380 million in the red to $100 million in the black. Did he simply install people he knew to solve the biggest budget crisis in Massachusetts history?

These people he installs tend to do a damn fine job, so I'm okay with it..

Cleveland Buck;1080019 wrote:Romney and his company were very successful investing in start ups and troubled businesses. He does know his way around the business world, and I have no reason to hold that against him. I have no reason to favor him because of that either though. The federal government is not a business and should not be run like one.

Cleveland Buck;1080019 wrote:Being successful in one area of business does not qualify someone to centrally plan the whole economy. And looking at Romney's plan and his advisors, there is zero reason to believe he even understands what ails our economy right now.

sleeper;1080026 wrote:Ad hominem attacks? You mean like the ones scattered all over the college football forums with your name on it? Hypocrite.

I'm not going to vote someone into office with the idea of 90% of what a president does is place people in the right spots. Isn't that what we had with Obama, you know, until all of them quit?

Masschusetts is also 47th in the nation in job creation while he was governor. But hey, Mitt can place people in the right spot so who cares!

Cleveland Buck;1080019 wrote:The federal government is not a business and should not be run like one. Being successful in one area of business does not qualify someone to centrally plan the whole economy.

sjmvsfscs08;1080060 wrote:Jesus Christ haven't we been over the fact that having a great unemployment rate is better than job creation? Everyone in Massachusetts who wanted a job had one.

Job creation wasn't the issue of Romney's term, it was the budget...which he solved.