Now, you can hide behind the "its a states rights issue he's talking about" but you and me both know that he wants it outlawed, and he would if he could govern everyone's morality based off of his own interpretation of it. He's a ****ing loon.

He's a ****ing loon.

gut;1120139 wrote:The far right agenda isn't really any crazier or scarier than the far left agenda, but the liberal media only attacks the one. They chum the waters and get people all worked-up hook, line and sinker...eventhough the far right agenda is going nowhere without the media to create populist support. It's unfortunate more people don't share the same suspicion and outrage over the liberal agenda, which IS very much shaping policy that is attacking your wallet and freedom.

believer;1120154 wrote:While it is also true that the "New Media" has aligned itself with the right, it can at least bring some balance to the American political landscape.

HitsRus;1120076 wrote:well, that's because from his political vantage point, it is a states rights issue. The article is about the SCOTUS creating rights because "states do dumb things"...in reference to a Connecticut law banning contraception. There is no other way to interpret that other than he thought the people of Connecticut 'did a dumb thing' by outlawing contraception...but that it should have been left a states rights issue, and handled by the people in that state. He may personally be opposed to contraception, but that doesn't mean he intends or even thinks that it would be a good idea to force it on the rest of us.




This is what I have a problem with. People thinking that he's going to legislate his personal beliefs and calling him over the top shit like he's a loon or he's insane. Sorry. He's not...no matter how much you hate his politics.

gut;1120171 wrote:The problem is "balance" assumes people seek out both sides. But in reality we know most people tend to only seek out or follow that which confirms what they want to believe. So you're right in that media catering to the right or left but failing to be objective in general only serves to further polarize us.

derek bomar;1120174 wrote:You're a loon if you don't think that loon will try and legislate morality on the rest of us.

gut;1120171 wrote:The problem is "balance" assumes people seek out both sides. But in reality we know most people tend to only seek out or follow that which confirms what they want to believe. So you're right in that media catering to the right or left but failing to be objective in general only serves to further polarize us.

believer;1120200 wrote: You're the one who's nuts if you think that any POTUS has the power to legislate anything on us. Legislation comes from the - um - legislative branch?

POTUS can preach to us about morality all he or she wants but they can't make it the law of the land.

gut;1120171 wrote:The problem is "balance" assumes people seek out both sides. But in reality we know most people tend to only seek out or follow that which confirms what they want to believe. So you're right in that media catering to the right or left but failing to be objective in general only serves to further polarize us.

derek bomar;1120174 wrote:You're a loon if you don't think that loon will try and legislate morality on the rest of us.

believer;1120225 wrote: I have a hard time understanding the mindset of those who cannot be intellectually honest enough to separate political hyperbole from political reality.

gut;1120239 wrote:They're simply choosing to believe that which supports what they want to believe. And they are oblivious to how the liberal media exploits that mindset, much the way Rush does the far right.

believer;1120225 wrote:The thing is the MSM had become so leftist it gave rise to the New Media. The morons running the MSM should do a little more market research but I suppose that would be too capitalist.



You're the one who's nuts if you think that any POTUS has the power to legislate anything on us. Legislation comes from the - um - legislative branch?

POTUS can preach to us about morality all he or she wants but they can't make it the law of the land.

Get a grip.

I have a hard time understanding the mindset of those who cannot be intellectually honest enough to separate political hyperbole from political reality.

DeyDurkie5;1120397 wrote:I don't vote because of this reason, we put people on the ballots that are fucking retarded.

derek bomar;1120343 wrote:"try" and legislate is what I said. Try being the important word. Try with his Presidential influence to influence the "legislative" branch into passing things that might not otherwise be passed... ya know, like Obamacare...

HitsRus;1119874 wrote:Me? Look in the mirror. I'm not a Santorum guy by any stretch....but come on....you still want to keep blaming Bush ? You want to be an Obama apologist? If Bush's policies caused a recession, then Obama blew the recovery. Afghanistan is getting worse by the day. God knows what the deficit would have been had not the "Rs" dug in their heels. His signature piece of legislation was based on a lie. He has done nothing that will ease the prices at the pumps not now or in the future.
And you are worried about a social conservative?....while the guy in there now steals from your wallet and from your posterity.

The support for Santorum is blowback from the government policies that have attacked the traditional family and the values of religious Americans for years...and have accelerated under this administration. I'm tired of the tolerance by some for people who hate America and burn the flag in protest, yet have intolerance for the people who love America and the flag, and whose sole 'fault' is that they believe in god and adhere to Christian values that are as old as the country itself. These people are, in general, good law abiding citizens who deserve representation just like any other American. They don't deserve to be be treated as backwater rubes and ignorant country bumpkins as they have been portrayed by the liberal elite on this thread and other threads on this very forum.

Heretic;1119984 wrote:Very comical.

1. If you actually read dwc's post, he wasn't being an Obama apologist. He basically compared Obama to Bush, said they both ignore the Constitution and simply said that some problems Obama's failed to deal with existed before him. Nice diatribe, but it'd be better if you showed a bit of basic reading comprehension before entering "LEAVE BRITTANY ALONE!!!!" crazy mode.

believer;1120066 wrote:I hope you're right.

Although early on I was going to vote for Paul in the primary, I ended up pulling the lever for Santorum here in Tennessee to (a) annoy the Paulbotoids and (b) Santorum is the closest overall Repub to my political views. I think Santorum plays the right-wing hyperbole game a little too much and he has no chance of gaining the nomination.

Romney reminds me too much of the McCain/Dole style Repubs and for some reason, he rubs me the wrong way. Can't quite put a finger on it except he's only a tad more to the right than BHO.

I'll vote for him over Obama in a heart beat...but I still don't see much difference.

dwccrew;1120692 wrote:So let me get this straight, you were planning on voting for Ron Paul, but instead voted for Santorum just to annoy the "Paulbotoids" as one of your reasons? So that means you planned on telling people, "hey, I was going to vote for Ron Paul, but I just want to annoy his supporters so I voted for Santorum, hehehehhuhuhehuehe." That's pretty obnoxious. Not only is that obnoxious, it is stupid. You vote to annoy people instead of who you feel the most suitable canidate is, you have no reason to complain anymore, you're part of the problem.

believer;1120154 wrote:As usual spot on.

If and when the MSM does its job and starts to hold both extremes accountable, maybe some populist support can be created.

Unfortunately the MSM has aligned itself with the liberal agenda. While it is also true that the "New Media" has aligned itself with the right, it can at least bring some balance to the American political landscape.

The split shows how polarized we've become.

HitsRus;1120032 wrote:Derek...I appreciate you attempt at 'proof'...but it falls short.

Now here is what Santorum said about the Koran burning.

Santorum said that the burning of Korans was not an intentional act..

He was also commenting on 2 Americans that were killed by an Afghan soldier. Something we did not receive an 'apology' for.

While you might not agree, ...a little over the top to say that's insane.

Maybe you could say he's a little insensitive to the locals and their feelings towards their religion....not like our government ever does anything insensitive to our own religious people. Maybe Obama needs to apologize to Catholics? Not gonna happen. Maybe even more insensitive is wisking away an American military man who shot 16 innocent Afghan villagers. Now there is something that deserves an apology.

dwccrew;1120692 wrote:Ok, with this post you basically confirm my thought that you are that ignorant. Me look in a mirror? You look.....in a phone book for a tutor to help with your comprehension in reading. I had hope that you may somehow prove not to be, but you did not. As Heretic pointed out, I don't blame Bush, nor do I "defend" Obama. I merely pointed out that the problems that Obama has (and has exasperated) weren't all caused by him, many (NOT ALL, bolded and caps for you so you don't get confused) were in place when he took office. Bush and Obama both do/did not care about the Constitution. But please point out where I defend Obama or blame Bush for anything in that post. Good luck, I'll be waiting.



Oh, I see that you understood. Apparently your IQ is a bit higher than others on this thread.



So let me get this straight, you were planning on voting for Ron Paul, but instead voted for Santorum just to annoy the "Paulbotoids" as one of your reasons? So that means you planned on telling people, "hey, I was going to vote for Ron Paul, but I just want to annoy his supporters so I voted for Santorum, hehehehhuhuhehuehe." That's pretty obnoxious. Not only is that obnoxious, it is stupid. You vote to annoy people instead of who you feel the most suitable canidate is, you have no reason to complain anymore, you're part of the problem.

believer;1120598 wrote:Maybe you should run for office?

bigdaddy2003;1120025 wrote:The line about going to college shouldn't be on the list. He isn't saying people shouldn't be allowed to go to college. Lets be honest some people aren't cut out for it and he was pointing out that you didn't have to go to college to make something of yourself. He was saying that you don't have to sit through lectures from liberal professors to be enlightened in life. It was really a hard position to be in after Obama made his everyone should be able to go to college statement. It makes Obama look better when it really shouldn't have. I'm not a big Santorum guy but I can't put this on the list of crazy things he has said.

dwccrew;1120692 wrote:So let me get this straight, you were planning on voting for Ron Paul, but instead voted for Santorum just to annoy the "Paulbotoids" as one of your reasons? So that means you planned on telling people, "hey, I was going to vote for Ron Paul, but I just want to annoy his supporters so I voted for Santorum, hehehehhuhuhehuehe." That's pretty obnoxious. Not only is that obnoxious, it is stupid. You vote to annoy people instead of who you feel the most suitable canidate is, you have no reason to complain anymore, you're part of the problem.

dwccrew;1120692 wrote:So let me get this straight, you were planning on voting for Ron Paul, but instead voted for Santorum just to annoy the "Paulbotoids" as one of your reasons? So that means you planned on telling people, "hey, I was going to vote for Ron Paul, but I just want to annoy his supporters so I voted for Santorum, hehehehhuhuhehuehe." That's pretty obnoxious. Not only is that obnoxious, it is stupid. You vote to annoy people instead of who you feel the most suitable canidate is, you have no reason to complain anymore, you're part of the problem.