The survey, conducted by Gallup, included two samples of registered voters ... The findings: Santorum leads Obama in the swing states, 50% to 45%, and nationwide 49% to 46%. This gives him an edge of three percentage points over Romney, whose swing-state lead is 48% to 46% and who ties the president nationally at 47%. -- WSJ
God help us if Rick Santorum is nominated. Oh wait, I see what I did there.
"Santorum leads Obama in the swing states, 50% to 45%, and nationwide 49% to 46%."
I had a long flight yesterday and was forced to watch Fox news for too many hours. They had Santorum on several times, and not once did I hear him say ANYTHING other than God and Church (as much as I could bear to hear him)
If THIS is what the "tea party" has brought us, and if THIS is what the people of this country prefer, than truly there is no hope for this country anymore.
At this point, I sincerely hope for the demise of the GOP so that we can have a third party emerge, and the "social conservatives" can go join Hezbollah or some other Party of God.
In 2008 America elected a president whose pastor for 20 years preached anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, advocated bizarre pseudo-scientific racial ideas, opposed interracial marriage, praised communist dictatorships, denounced black "assimilation," and taught Afrocentric feel-good nonsense to schoolchildren. When Americans discovered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's views during the 2008 campaign, they rightly wondered if Barack Obama, like his pastor, really believed that HIV/AIDS was created by the American government to kill black people. Even to this day, no one knows for sure whether Obama shares the views of Wright, whom theChicago Sun-Times once described as Obama's "close confidant." -- The Gospel According To Wright, American Spectator
"Weird religion: Satan is against America. Normal religion: "God damn America." -- James Taranto, WSJ
"... if THIS is what the people of this country prefer, than truly there is no hope for this country anymore." -- AIG
Che is right, and AIG is right: We need to keep God as far away as possible from government.
Our Founding Fathers were clear about this: Strict separation of church and state.
We see what religion as government does all over the world, and it is never good.
God is the enemy of free enterprise. Jesus loathed moneylenders and said rich people would get into heaven about as often as camels would get through the eye of a needle. Islam always believes moneylending is evil.
What is evil is people who believe they have a pipeline to a deity waning power over the rest of us.
Imagine if Ron Paul announced a national campaign called ‘Whites for Ron Paul’ – he’d be vilified as a racist. And yet Barack Obama has done the equivalent of precisely that with his launch of ‘African Americans for Obama’.
Not only is Obama playing the race card in an attempt to pressure black Americans into voting for him, he is also violating the separation between church and state. In the video promo for the campaign, Obama urges black people to pressure churches into supporting his administration by getting his message out via “the faith community”. He also calls on voters to become “congregation captains”.
Again, imagine what the reaction would be any of the Republican candidates launched a ‘Whites for Romney’, ‘Whites for Santorum’ or ‘Whites for Gingrich’ campaign. There would be non-stop uproar. But Obama does the equivalent and gets a free pass.
“I thought race didn’t matter Mr. President?” asks Chad Hasty. “I don’t think MLK would be too pleased with you at all. African-Americans for Obama? Give me a break. Under this President, more blacks are unemployed. More blacks are on food stamps. If I had to bet though, Obama will still pull 93% of the black vote. Again, just a wild guess.” -- Prison Planet
George W. Bush had one small office devoted to faith-based initiatives, and was savaged for it. Barack Obama, on the other hand, says faith drives much of his domestic agenda—and no one even blinks.
We are in “the fourth year of the ministry of George W. Bush,”cracked novelist Philip Roth in 2004. By then, several million gallons of ink already had been spilled warning that Bush’s“faith-based presidency” was “nudging the church-state line”(The New York Times) and was “turning the U.S. into a religious state” (Village Voice) and was “arrogant” and“troubling” (St. Petersburg Times) and was “pandering to Christian zealots” (Salon) and “imposing its values on the rest of us” (too many to name). ...
He has kept Bush’s office of faith-based initiatives. In fact, “Obama's faith-based office has given religious figures a bigger role in influencing White House decisions,” reported USNews in 2009.
No big surprise. For many liberals, it is perfectly fine—desirable, in fact—for religious people to impose their values on the rest of us, so long as those values produce policies of which liberals approve: higher taxes, more stringent regulation, more government spending. On Thursday, for instance, Obama said there is a “biblical call to care for the least of these – for the poor; for those at the margins of our society,” which justifies not just voluntary private charity but enforced public charity. Yet woe betide any believers whose values stray from the leftist catechism. ...
The lesson from all of this? Liberals should be able to impose their faith-based values on the rest of us, but any heretics who deviate from liberal dogma may not even observe their faith-based values by themselves. It’s right there in the Apocrypha—you can look it up. -- Reason
Attending the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, President Obama declared that raising tax rates on higher incomes "coincides with Jesus' teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'"... The president said televangelists "come by the Oval Office .. . and we'll pray together." Imagine the media clamor if a Republican president said this. But don't expect a peep in the news raising church and state issues about this. According to President Obama, Jesus's "command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself '" is behind his expansion of government and regulation, and his tax increases. Everything his administration has been doing, from foreign aid to Uganda to Dodd-Frank making "too big to fail" a permanent fixture of financial institutions, is apparently based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. -- IBD
Earlier this week on a conference call, President Obama and his top healthcare officials charged religious leaders across America with spreading a new kind of gospel — the good news of nationalized healthcare. Isn't it convenient how the pulpit is barred from promoting political opinion, until it is the opinion of the President? According to Politico, "Obama instructed faith leaders to treat the new law as settled fact and use their perches of power to convey that message to congregants and friends." -- Politico
"What Santorum wants is the Christian eqivalent of Sharia govt." -- Larry "We need to keep God as far away as possible from government." -- "Benji" "I sincerely hope for the demise of the GOP so that we can have a third party emerge, and the "social conservatives" can go join Hezbollah or some other Party of God." -- AIG
When George W. Bush introduced the concept of a faith-based office, the original vision was to help nonprofit charities get government support to feed the hungry and house the homeless. From the reaction, you'd have thought Bush was trying to install a caliphate. Indeed, most newspaper stories focused on the blurring of church and state.
By contrast, when Obama upgraded and renamed the program -- the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships -- most stories focused on procedural questions and a new, 25-member faith-based advisory council. Few, if any, headlines questioned whether Obama might be using his faith-based office to advance liberal policies, whereas Bush was under persistent fire for allegedly pushing (horrors) a pro-life agenda. ...
"Sure, there's always a lot going on in Washington with any new administration. But can you imagine the outcry if Bush had hired a 27-year-old Pentecostal preacher to run the faith-based office and surrounded him with a 25-member advisory board made up of people largely sympathetic to his policy agenda?"
In fact, Bush appointed University of Pennsylvania political science professor John DiIulio, a Democrat, to run his program. Cromartie maintains that the greater attention to Bush was because the media were suspicious that his faith-based initiative was an attempt to install a theocracy. ...
Obama, who, in fact, invokes Jesus in speeches more often than Bush did, according to an analysis by Politico, not only embraced his predecessor's initiative but has given it the loaves-and-fishes treatment by expanding the mission. As described by DuBois in a video posted on the White House blog, the office's mission extends even to "figuring out the role of faith-based organizations in combating global climate change."
Why does Obama get a pass?
In part, because he's not Bush. But also, perhaps, because the media are more approving of the issues and policies Obama wants to advance. -- Washington Post
What? No warnings about Obama attempting to impose "Sharia govt."? No lectures about keeping God as far away as possible from government? Is the Democrat Party the equivalent of Hezbollah?
How easily leftists slip into role of "true believer" when it suits their purposes. Of course, they know that they can count on their supporters being either hypocritical or too stupid to ever apply the same religious tests across party lines.
Obama loves to take the bible completely out of context when he routinely lectures us that he is "his brother's keeper." As many people have noted, Obama's actual brother lives in a mud hut in Kenya on around $20 a yr. Obama's a millionaire, yet he is his "brother's keeper" only in the sense he wants to loot the taxpayers to pay off his freeloader constitutents.
It is quite amazing that Che and others continue to respond to those who say that Santorum is not the right guy, by talking about Obama's faults.
We get it. We agree. NONE of that addresses the issue of why Santorum is the wrong guy. I understand that you have NOTHING to claim that he is a) Better than Obama and b) better than the other GOP candidates. In fact, he is the worst of the GOP candidates
He is pro-big labor He is pro-big government He is anti-free market He is pro-subsidies and pork He is pro government intrusion into people's lives
None of the other GOP candidates come even remotely close to him in terms of being the OPPOSITE OF CONSERVATISM.
He is running for Moralizer in Chief.
But that is the problem; social conservatives are perfectly willing to GIVE UP concepts of limited government, as long as THEY are the ones in power. Case in point: GWB.
After all, if your mentality is that you are doing God's work, the concept of limited government doesn't make sense.
aig whines: "God help us if Rick Santorum is nominated. Oh wait, I see what I did there"...
Happiness is watching a liberal cry and fret...
"If THIS is what the "tea party" has brought us, and if THIS is what the people of this country prefer, than truly there is no hope for this country anymore"...
Well then let's pray that Obama (aig's hero for the masses?) gets another four years then aig...
"He is pro-big labor He is pro-big government He is anti-free market He is pro-subsidies and pork He is pro government intrusion into people's lives"
According to Factcheck.org, "Santorum was given a lifetime “hero” rating by the anti-pork group Citizens Against Government Waste, and was consistently rated better than most of his Republican peers by the fiscally conservative National Taxpayers Union during his dozen years in the Senate."
Now compare those same rankings with Obama and his half-wit sidekick. Where was your level of scrutiny when you voted for this nitwit in 2008?
Now Santorum's not perfect, not by a longshot. But he's so much better than Obama, it is to laugh seeing this criticism from people who voted for a socialist community organizer in 2008.
Thank you. The concepts of religiousness and free enterprise have never been mixed successfully in human history. One has always taken primacy over the other.
Which is why social conservatives are not the same thing as fiscal conservatives, or classical liberals. Which is why Goldwater, unfortunately, ultimately failed, and why we have ended up with the party of God instead of the party of Liberty in the GOP. Which is why its time for it to die.
"Now this is funny. All the "Santorum will destroy America" pap here is coming from the morons who voted for Obama. "
I didn't vote for Obama. But I sure as heck will never vote for Rick Santorums and Sarah Palins. I don't want to replace a financial disaster with a financial disaster AND a liberty disaster.
I have no obligation, of course, to vote for your candidate simply because your Party of God is trying to shove him down our throats.
"Really? Just "God and church, God and church, God and church.." That must have been monotonous."
Tell me about it. I couldn't think it possible, but he may actually be dumber and more odious than Sarah Palin.
"He is pro-big labor He is pro-big government He is anti-free market He is pro-subsidies and pork He is pro government intrusion into people's lives"...
Hey aig nice of you to parrot Richard Cohen drivel...
Dude of these candidates actually fill the bill from 'Obama-lite' (kudos to Gingrich for that one) to Gingrich (talk about a closet full of skeletons!) or Santorum (an endorser of Specter) so why don't you bag your, "I hate conservatives" song & dance...
Yes. I must be a "liberal" Clearly, if I don't like Santorum, I must like Obama. That's how things work. Congratulations for being the target audience for the GOP.
"I understand that you have NOTHING to claim ... blah, blah, blah." -- AIG
Other than your repeated expressions of anti-religious hatred and bigotry, you bring absolutely nothing to the argument.
You have no examples of Santorum, or any other "social conservative" for that matter, imposing their religious beliefs on anyone. In fact, it's just the opposite. Schools across the country seek to impose - through public school indoctrination - a leftist, state sanctioned set of moral values completely at odds with those of the citizenry at large. This is where bigoted morons, like you, "GIVE UP concepts of limited government". You're fine with government indoctrination just as long as it is meant to build the moral and political consensus that you favor.
You can save the rest of your paranoid, ignorant drivel. The fact that you fail to see the threat to liberty coming from the left says all that needs to be said about your powers of perception.
I'm just surprised that people could actually care enough about any of these guys to argue about it. No matter who gets the nomination, the gop is going to end up fielding their version of John Kerry (not that they are necessarily as bad as Kerry, just that they inspire an equal amount of enthusiasm from non-committed voters)...a decent dem could have beaten W in '04 and a decent republican would easily do the same this year.
"Its not your dislike for Santorum per se is the problem its the fact that you're whining like a liberal..."
Yes. Saying that he is a big spender and and pro big labor, sounds like "whining like a liberal" to me.
"Other than your repeated expressions of anti-religious hatred and bigotry, you bring absolutely nothing to the argument. "
Of course not. Pointing out that he voted for big labor, for subsidies, for pork, for big spending...is nothing. Absolutely nothing.
"You have no examples of Santorum, or any other "social conservative" for that matter, imposing their religious beliefs on anyone. In fact, it's just the opposite"
Of course. Wanting to pass amendments on marriage and on abortion, are not examples. The fact that you have LOST in your attempts to impose such views, doesn't mean that those are the views you want to impose. Thankfully, you don't get to decide in this country of laws.
"This is where bigoted morons, like you, "GIVE UP concepts of limited government". You're fine with government indoctrination just as long as it is meant to build the moral and political consensus that you favor."
No. Its people like you who confuse the fact that your views aren't being imposed, with imposition of views :) The lack of views being imposed isn't an imposition of views :)
"The fact that you fail to see the threat to liberty coming from the left"
I see it. But that doesn't mean that there is no threat to liberty, equally as great, coming from the right. You simply chose one side of tyranny over another. I chose neither.
"Correct, you can sit back and let Obama finish destroying America because Rick Santorum might quote some scripture."
No. Its up to YOU not to vote for a candidate that will lose to Obama :)
You clearly are failing to understand the argument: You are getting mad that I and and some others don't like your choice for nominee, and will not vote for your nominee. Therefore one might argue that one strategy you can follow, is to move closer to us and agree to nominate someone we can BOTH be comfortable voting for. Instead, you call all those who don't like your nominee, "liberals" and "voters for Obama".
Doesn't make much sense to me, if your intention is to win my vote :)
"I can't but wonder if you don't want another four years of ineptocracy"
I don't. Which is why I don't want to nominate Rick Santorum. He will lose.
You don't seem to understand that the argument I am making, is that there are BETTER CHOICES IN THE GOP NOMINATION.
And if you people will continue to make poor nomination decisions, like you did last time, despite US telling you then that your candidates would lose...then the only logical solution would be to let you suffer the consequences of your decisions. Otherwise you will never learn.
And if you don't learn, then you need to go away as a party, and let others try.
"Of course not. Pointing out that he voted for big labor, for subsidies, for pork, for big spending...is nothing. Absolutely nothing."
It is nothing compared to who he will be facing in November if he wins the nomination. I've already showed you that, and you choose to ignore it and repeat the same talking points over and over.
"Wanting to pass amendments on marriage and on abortion, are not examples. "
The American public overwhelmingly opposes gay marriage. More are pro-life than pro-choice. So how is Santorum so far out of the mainstream? What do you think the poll numbers would say about Obama's support of infanticide while he was in the Illinois legislature? Oh, but Santorum is the "extremist." Give it a rest.
"No. Its up to YOU not to vote for a candidate that will lose to Obama :) "
Really? It's all up to me? I did not know that. I unenthusiastically voted for Romney today in the primary, actually. He may also lose to Obama because millions like you require the perfect candidate
"But that doesn't mean that there is no threat to liberty, equally as great, coming from the right."
And yet nowhere have you demonstrated that threat. Abortion and gay marriage? Please.
"You clearly are failing to understand the argument:"
You don't have much of an argument. Obama's horrific record is so much worse than anything you have offered about Santorum. It's pathetic, really. You're worried about a hamster attack while you're getting raped by a grizzly bear.
"Santorum's not perfect, not by a longshot. But he's so much better than Obama ..." -- Paul
Exactly. Santorum certainly wouldn't be my first choice, but if it comes down to him or Obama, well, that will not be a hard decision to make.
As you point out, groups who have followed the votes of politicians as they relate to the economy score him favorably. His economic agenda, which he laid out in the WSJ, is conservative:
Repealing any Obama era regulation with an economic burden greater than $100 million.
Reducing the corporate tax rate to a flat 17.5 percent.
$5 trillion in spending cuts and a reduction in the non-defense federal workforce of 10 percent in 5 years.
Balancing the federal budget in 4 years and support for a Balanced Budget Amendment with a hard spending cap set at 18 percent of GDP.
Cutting means tested entitlements 10 percent across the board.
Increased support for free trade.
Repealing Obamacare, and more.
He was also one of the first Senators to push for reform of Medicare and Social Security. And he was an early and strong supporter of legislation creating and promoting Personal Health Savings Accounts. Contrast this with Obamas federally imposed personal mandate to enter into a contract to purchase health insurance that strikes at the very heart of individual liberty and destroys any limits to governmental power.
It's amazing to me that people see the effort by social conservatives to get the government out of the personal values business, and to restore that role to the family and the church, as establishing a theocracy. It is indicative of just how far down the road toward a state religion we have come that ending the imposition of state sanctioned moral values through public school indoctrination is seen as controversial. As Santorum has argued, what the left is attempting to do is to remake your children in their image.
"You are getting mad that I and and some others don't like your choice for nominee, and will not vote for your nominee. Therefore one might argue that one strategy you can follow, is to move closer to us and agree to nominate someone we can BOTH be comfortable voting for."
It's up to everybody else to do the heavy lifting so AIG can sashay in and vote for the perfect candidate. Did you lift a finger in 2008 to nominate somebody else? How about this time? Any campaign hours or donations? You sound exactly like a whining, parasitic liberal.
Let's see---military outlays have doubled in real terms since 9/11. And we face no military threats.
Santorum, of course, wants to get rid of federal waste.
But not cut the coprolite at Defense? Maintain lifetime pensions and healthcare for uniformed federal employees after just 20 years of employment? Boy, taxpayers will chock not that.
As another GOP grifter, Santorum wants the White House so he can ladle lard onto GOP backers, while talking about Jesus.
It will be fun to watch Obama and Santorum try to "Out Jesus" each other. Or sad.
"Wanting to pass amendments on marriage and on abortion, are not examples ..." -- AIG
I really do not care what sort of relationship two consenting adults choose to enter into, but seeking to redefine an institution that is more than 2000 years old so that it comports with your personal moral values is, by definition, an imposition.
In every state that gay marriage has been put to a vote of the people, more than 30, it has failed. That is why the left is seeking to build a consensus for its moral values through the government enforced indoctrination of our children. Or, failing that to have their values imposed by a court. Notice that they do not stop at societys willingness to tolerate such relationships. No, they insist that we celebrate them, and that we teach our children to celebrate them as well.
Either way, all of the candidates currently running for president have come out against gay marriage - including Barack Obama. So, following your logic he must be a knuckle-dragging fundamentalist as well.
"It is nothing compared to who he will be facing in November if he wins the nomination. I've already showed you that, and you choose to ignore it and repeat the same talking points over and over."
Obama isn't the issue here. The issue is who is going to be nominated by the GOP. Its not SO hard to to understand the difference between these two arguments.
"The American public overwhelmingly opposes gay marriage. More are pro-life than pro-choice. So how is Santorum so far out of the mainstream?"
He's not. He is outside of the bonds of the US Constitution, though. You know...this isn't a democracy. Popular opinion doesn't get to limit the freedoms of others.
"Really? It's all up to me? I did not know that. I unenthusiastically voted for Romney today in the primary, actually"
Great! So you agree with me that there are better choices in the GOP field, and Santorum isn't one of them.
"And yet nowhere have you demonstrated that threat. "
A guy who votes for big labor, for big spending, and for regulating sexual behavior. Hmm...yes clearly I can't see it either.
"He may also lose to Obama because millions like you require the perfect candidate "
He may. And I don't require a perfect candidate, just not an Ayatollah.
"Obama's horrific record is so much worse than anything you have offered about Santorum. It's pathetic, really. You're worried about a hamster attack while you're getting raped by a grizzly bear."
:) Its more like a bear and a wolverine. They are both smelly animals that will kill you. The point is that there are better choices. If there are better choices, than Santorum should be the furthest thing from anyone's mind.
My problem is that people like Che here, and psychos like Glenn Beck etc, will go OUT OF THEIR WAY to ignore all the major shortcomings of Santorum, simply because he is a social conservative. He is clearly not a fiscal conservative, or one that has any concept of limited government. And the argument is...are fiscal issues the most important things right now, or condoms? I don't want a candidate that spends 90% of his time on the condom use patterns of other people.
That's what Obama wants, and Santorum is clearly STUPID enough to fall for the bait.
"You don't seem to understand that the argument I am making, is that there are BETTER CHOICES IN THE GOP NOMINATION"...
And who might those other candidates be?
"And if you people will continue to make poor nomination decisions, like you did last time, despite US telling you then that your candidates would lose...then the only logical solution would be to let you suffer the consequences of your decisions"...
Well aig that was an RNC choice, NOT the people's choice...
"I really do not care what sort of relationship two consenting adults choose to enter into, but seeking to redefine an institution that is more than 2000 years old so that it comports with your personal moral values is, by definition, an imposition. "
Of course not. A CHURCH marriage has nothing to do with a government marriage.
I can get married by the government without setting foot in a church. A government marriage is a license that recognizes a legal union between two people.
It has nothing to do with a 2,000 year old institution (they never had marriages before Christianity? Strange).
I would be all for having no marriage whatsoever by government; just call it a civil union for everyone. Because that is what it is. Its not "marriage" as is defined by any religious organization. And any religious person should have no interest whatsoever in getting a "government marriage". For them, marriage is in the church. And by that, they should have no say, or problem, with other people who don't go to church, getting the same piece of government paper that they do.
Of course, saying that GOVERNMENT marriage is equivalent to a religious marriage, is a limitation of other people's liberty.
"In every state that gay marriage has been put to a vote of the people, more than 30, it has failed."
The freedom of any individual should never be put to a vote. That is precisely what this country was founded to prevent.
"Notice that they do not stop at societys willingness to tolerate such relationships. No, they insist that we celebrate them, and that we teach our children to celebrate them as well"
And you insist that we celebrate heterosexual unions too. After all, isn't that what Rick Santorum is all about...plopping out babies with that baby factory he calls a wife? I of course have no problem with people celebrating whatever they want. I just have a personality that is aggressively allergic to preachy baby-factory self-absorbed types.
Santorum...I could give 2 sh*** about your family or your family values. What are you going to do to reduce government scope and size? That's what I'm voting for.
"He's not. He is outside of the bonds of the US Constitution, though. You know...this isn't a democracy. Popular opinion doesn't get to limit the freedoms of others"...
What absolute, leftist drivel aig....
Apparently you have little if any idea of what's constituional...
What can Santorum actually do if by some long shot that he wins and becomes President without the backing of Congress in whole or in part?
Is Santorum going to act like Obama try to impose asinine and constitutionally questionable mandates on those who aren't Christian or whatever?
"A guy who votes for big labor, for big spending, and for regulating sexual behavior. Hmm...yes clearly I can't see it either"...
Hmmm, sort of sounds like pseudo benny's silly defense department numbers...
My problem is that people like Che here, and psychos like Glenn Beck etc ... -- AIG
Save your breath, you'll need it to blow up your girlfriend.
"He is clearly not a fiscal conservative, or one that has any concept of limited government ..." -- AIG
Compared to whom?
"And the argument is...are fiscal issues the most important things right now, or condoms?" -- AIG
With douche bags, like you, it's clearly about condoms. You've spent 90 percent of your time agonizing over his social positions, claiming that you may be forced to vote for Obama or stay home if he's nominated. Fine, but that is just further evidence, if any more were needed, that you value grade schoolers having access to condoms over the economy. That has been the point all along. You obsess over Santorums supposed social extremism while losing focus of the rest of the issues.
If Santorum is the nominee he will clearly be the most fiscally conservative candidate in the race, period.
"It has nothing to do with a 2,000 year old institution (they never had marriages before Christianity? Strange)." -- AIG
Go back and read it again, genius.
I'm fine with civil unions, but I don't think that gays are. There has already been suits filed against churches and religious institutions that have refused to acknowledge their relationships. The state will eventually threaten churches that refuse to perform or to recognize gay marriage.
"The freedom of any individual should never be put to a vote. That is precisely what this country was founded to prevent." -- AIG
Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else. Heterosexuals cannot marry another person of the same sex either.
"Santorum ... I could give 2 sh*** about your family or your family values. What are you going to do to reduce government scope and size? That's what I'm voting for." -- AIG
And if comes down to Santorum and Obama, who exactly will that be?
You know it gets kind of boring when you use words like "leftists" to describe someone who just said that the US was founded to prevent things like popular opinion from limiting the freedoms of others.
At least TRY to be less boring. Be more original. Think of something more appropriate than "leftist"
"Long on rant, short on substance aig..."
Here's some "substance" for you. Enjoy: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/dirty-trick-santorum-targets-michigan-dems-with-robobcall-that-sounds-like-it-came-from-uaw.php
" Fine, but that is just further evidence, if any more were needed, that you value grade schoolers having access to condoms over the economy. That has been the point all along. You obsess over Santorums supposed social extremism while losing focus of the rest of the issues. "
Its quite amazing how self-delusional social conservatives can get. They talk about social issues at the expense of the real government issues...and then accuse you of the same. Well, as I said, congratulations for being the target audience for the GOP.
"If Santorum is the nominee he will clearly be the most fiscally conservative candidate in the race, period"
LOL!! A pro-union subsidy pig from the great state of Pennsylvania, will be "fiscally conservative". Yes and Sarah Palin has read a book. Oh you betcha!
"Religious conservatives pray to deity. Modern liberals pray to statists. Is there really anything left to quibble with?"
You're absolutely right. I've always maintained that there is very little difference in tactics between the left and social conservatives.
"There has already been suits filed against churches and religious institutions that have refused to acknowledge their relationships"
You're free to sue whoever you want on whatever grounds you want in this country. Doesn't mean it has merit.
"Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else. Heterosexuals cannot marry another person of the same sex either."
And why is that?
"And if comes down to Santorum and Obama, who exactly will that be?"
Neither. If the GOP nominates Santorum, it deserves to go away as a party. That's all. I have no obligation to vote for either.
If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, I'll certainly vote for him (as much as I despise him, he is by far a better choice). If he doesn't, I'll write in Barry Goldwater. And then maybe, in another 4 years, we will have a real Party of Freedom, and you can have your Party of God (Hezbollah)
"che hands out the multi-trillion dollar stark reality that's facing us and those who come after us...
Do we really need more of Obamanomics?"
The world won't end in 4 years, despite what you may have heard from Glenn Beck. The US will go on, and in another 4 years, there will be another election.
Do we really want more loser social conservative big-government spenders like GWB?
According to this group of right-wingers, the biggest federal deficits in the future belong to the GOP candidate proposals. Obama proposes much smaller deficits than the GOP candidates.
"According to this group of right-wingers, the biggest federal deficits in the future belong to the GOP candidate proposals. Obama proposes much smaller deficits than the GOP candidates"....
Gee! Yet another inane comment from the pseudo benny who is definitely unteathered to reality...
pseudo benny did you even bother to check out the About Us page?
"LOL!! A pro-union subsidy pig from the great state of Pennsylvania, will be "fiscally conservative".
How inane. Let me repeat: every watch dog group that reports on voting records scored Santorum as a pretty responsible fiscal conservative. On the other hand, Obama and Biden scored the equivalent of "F" during their time in the Senate. Now look at how we're hanging on by our fingernails after 3 years of Obama, and yet it's Santorum who animates you.
One final thing: Benji agrees with YOU. THat should be enough right there to make you rethink it.
"Yes and Sarah Palin has read a book. Oh you betcha!"
"...in another 4 years, we will have a real Party of Freedom, and you can have your Party of God (Hezbollah)"
That's exactly the kind of hyperbole that makes me think you and Benji would make excellent roommates. Or perhaps you really believe there's no difference between Islamic suicide bombers and Christians. If that's the case, then you and Benji must the same homeless guy posting under different names.
Pastor backing Santorum claims Romney is not a Christian
Posted by CNN Political Reporter Peter Hamby Lansing, Michigan (CNN) – A Michigan pastor who introduced Rick Santorum at a Monday campaign event in Lansing claimed that Mitt Romney is not a Christian and said Santorum is the one Republican candidate who can awaken "the sleeping giant" of Christianity.
Kent Clark, the CEO of Grace Centers of Hope, a faith-based homeless outreach facility in Pontiac, warmed up the pro-Santorum audience by calling the former Pennsylvania senator "a man who believes in a creator rather than we being the accidental creation of gas and dust."
After Santorum's rally, Clark told CNN he is supporting Santorum because he is a person of faith who understands that social ills are best cured at the family level and not by "big government."
Clark predicted that Romney's Mormon faith will be a factor for Republicans in Tuesday's Michigan primary, particularly in the western part of the state ...
Rick Santorum identifies himself as a Christian. Rick Santorum believes he is Christian. And after the disappointments with the other 2012 candidates, including Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, many hope Rick Santorum is a Christian.
But is Rick Santorum the truly born-again Christian President that America needs?
While Rick Santorum has yet to answer our questions aimed at addressing this issue, his statements over the years, including the speech he gave at Ave Maria University in 2008, provided intriguing details about his religion, beliefs and Catholicism .
While Roman Catholicism shares many of the values of biblical Christianity, the two are different, as Rick Santorum indicated. A born-again Christian ultimately cannot remain within Roman Catholicism. A born-again Christian also would testify about Jesus, his Lord and Savior.
Rick Santorum's key strengths include his solid positions against abortion, homosexual marriage and Islamic threat, including from Iran's nuclear program. He also has exemplified family values, especially compared to Newt Gingrich.
His key weaknesses include lack of gravitas and relative inexperience, especially compared to Newt Gingrich.
Continued campaigning by both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich is dividing the conservative vote, risks handing the Republican nomination to the High Priest of a Satanic cult, and should therefore stop.
The survey, conducted by Gallup, included two samples of registered voters ... The findings: Santorum leads Obama in the swing states, 50% to 45%, and nationwide 49% to 46%. This gives him an edge of three percentage points over Romney, whose swing-state lead is 48% to 46% and who ties the president nationally at 47%. -- WSJ
ReplyDeleteGod help us if Rick Santorum is nominated. Oh wait, I see what I did there.
ReplyDelete"Santorum leads Obama in the swing states, 50% to 45%, and nationwide 49% to 46%."
I had a long flight yesterday and was forced to watch Fox news for too many hours. They had Santorum on several times, and not once did I hear him say ANYTHING other than God and Church (as much as I could bear to hear him)
If THIS is what the "tea party" has brought us, and if THIS is what the people of this country prefer, than truly there is no hope for this country anymore.
At this point, I sincerely hope for the demise of the GOP so that we can have a third party emerge, and the "social conservatives" can go join Hezbollah or some other Party of God.
In 2008 America elected a president whose pastor for 20 years preached anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, advocated bizarre pseudo-scientific racial ideas, opposed interracial marriage, praised communist dictatorships, denounced black "assimilation," and taught Afrocentric feel-good nonsense to schoolchildren. When Americans discovered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's views during the 2008 campaign, they rightly wondered if Barack Obama, like his pastor, really believed that HIV/AIDS was created by the American government to kill black people. Even to this day, no one knows for sure whether Obama shares the views of Wright, whom theChicago Sun-Times once described as Obama's "close confidant." -- The Gospel According To Wright, American Spectator
ReplyDelete"Weird religion: Satan is against America. Normal religion: "God damn America." -- James Taranto, WSJ
"... if THIS is what the people of this country prefer, than truly there is no hope for this country anymore." -- AIG
I'm with AIG. Santorum is a right wing disaster. The more he talks the worse it sounds.
ReplyDeleteand I do wonder when they do national polls if they are everyone including independents and.. those loony liberals....
If you want to give Obama another 4 years, just run Santorum.
:-)
Che is right, and AIG is right: We need to keep God as far away as possible from government.
ReplyDeleteOur Founding Fathers were clear about this: Strict separation of church and state.
We see what religion as government does all over the world, and it is never good.
God is the enemy of free enterprise. Jesus loathed moneylenders and said rich people would get into heaven about as often as camels would get through the eye of a needle. Islam always believes moneylending is evil.
What is evil is people who believe they have a pipeline to a deity waning power over the rest of us.
Freedom to practice religon Outside and regardless of govt. What Santorum wants is the Christian eqivalent of Sharia govt .
ReplyDeleteImagine if Ron Paul announced a national campaign called ‘Whites for Ron Paul’ – he’d be vilified as a racist. And yet Barack Obama has done the equivalent of precisely that with his launch of ‘African Americans for Obama’.
ReplyDeleteNot only is Obama playing the race card in an attempt to pressure black Americans into voting for him, he is also violating the separation between church and state. In the video promo for the campaign, Obama urges black people to pressure churches into supporting his administration by getting his message out via “the faith community”. He also calls on voters to become “congregation captains”.
Again, imagine what the reaction would be any of the Republican candidates launched a ‘Whites for Romney’, ‘Whites for Santorum’ or ‘Whites for Gingrich’ campaign. There would be non-stop uproar. But Obama does the equivalent and gets a free pass.
“I thought race didn’t matter Mr. President?” asks Chad Hasty. “I don’t think MLK would be too pleased with you at all. African-Americans for Obama? Give me a break. Under this President, more blacks are unemployed. More blacks are on food stamps. If I had to bet though, Obama will still pull 93% of the black vote. Again, just a wild guess.” -- Prison Planet
George W. Bush had one small office devoted to faith-based initiatives, and was savaged for it. Barack Obama, on the other hand, says faith drives much of his domestic agenda—and no one even blinks.
ReplyDeleteWe are in “the fourth year of the ministry of George W. Bush,”cracked novelist Philip Roth in 2004. By then, several million gallons of ink already had been spilled warning that Bush’s“faith-based presidency” was “nudging the church-state line”(The New York Times) and was “turning the U.S. into a religious state” (Village Voice) and was “arrogant” and“troubling” (St. Petersburg Times) and was “pandering to Christian zealots” (Salon) and “imposing its values on the rest of us” (too many to name). ...
He has kept Bush’s office of faith-based initiatives. In fact, “Obama's faith-based office has given religious figures a bigger role in influencing White House decisions,” reported USNews in 2009.
No big surprise. For many liberals, it is perfectly fine—desirable, in fact—for religious people to impose their values on the rest of us, so long as those values produce policies of which liberals approve: higher taxes, more stringent regulation, more government spending. On Thursday, for instance, Obama said there is a “biblical call to care for the least of these – for the poor; for those at the margins of our society,” which justifies not just voluntary private charity but enforced public charity. Yet woe betide any believers whose values stray from the leftist catechism. ...
The lesson from all of this? Liberals should be able to impose their faith-based values on the rest of us, but any heretics who deviate from liberal dogma may not even observe their faith-based values by themselves. It’s right there in the Apocrypha—you can look it up. -- Reason
Attending the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, President Obama declared that raising tax rates on higher incomes "coincides with Jesus' teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'"... The president said televangelists "come by the Oval Office .. . and we'll pray together." Imagine the media clamor if a Republican president said this. But don't expect a peep in the news raising church and state issues about this. According to President Obama, Jesus's "command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself '" is behind his expansion of government and regulation, and his tax increases. Everything his administration has been doing, from foreign aid to Uganda to Dodd-Frank making "too big to fail" a permanent fixture of financial institutions, is apparently based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. -- IBD
ReplyDeleteEarlier this week on a conference call, President Obama and his top healthcare officials charged religious leaders across America with spreading a new kind of gospel — the good news of nationalized healthcare. Isn't it convenient how the pulpit is barred from promoting political opinion, until it is the opinion of the President? According to Politico, "Obama instructed faith leaders to treat the new law as settled fact and use their perches of power to convey that message to congregants and friends." -- Politico
ReplyDeleteDo you think Che is Dead is a GOP mouthpiece? Just maybe?
ReplyDeleteNow this is funny. All the "Santorum will destroy America" pap here is coming from the morons who voted for Obama.
ReplyDeleteThey had Santorum on several times, and not once did I hear him say ANYTHING other than God and Church (as much as I could bear to hear him)
Really? Just "God and church, God and church, God and church.."
That must have been monotonous.
"What Santorum wants is the Christian eqivalent of Sharia govt." -- Larry "We need to keep God as far away as possible from government." -- "Benji" "I sincerely hope for the demise of the GOP so that we can have a third party emerge, and the "social conservatives" can go join Hezbollah or some other Party of God." -- AIG
ReplyDeleteWhen George W. Bush introduced the concept of a faith-based office, the original vision was to help nonprofit charities get government support to feed the hungry and house the homeless. From the reaction, you'd have thought Bush was trying to install a caliphate. Indeed, most newspaper stories focused on the blurring of church and state.
By contrast, when Obama upgraded and renamed the program -- the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships -- most stories focused on procedural questions and a new, 25-member faith-based advisory council. Few, if any, headlines questioned whether Obama might be using his faith-based office to advance liberal policies, whereas Bush was under persistent fire for allegedly pushing (horrors) a pro-life agenda. ...
"Sure, there's always a lot going on in Washington with any new administration. But can you imagine the outcry if Bush had hired a 27-year-old Pentecostal preacher to run the faith-based office and surrounded him with a 25-member advisory board made up of people largely sympathetic to his policy agenda?"
In fact, Bush appointed University of Pennsylvania political science professor John DiIulio, a Democrat, to run his program. Cromartie maintains that the greater attention to Bush was because the media were suspicious that his faith-based initiative was an attempt to install a theocracy. ...
Obama, who, in fact, invokes Jesus in speeches more often than Bush did, according to an analysis by Politico, not only embraced his predecessor's initiative but has given it the loaves-and-fishes treatment by expanding the mission. As described by DuBois in a video posted on the White House blog, the office's mission extends even to "figuring out the role of faith-based organizations in combating global climate change."
Why does Obama get a pass?
In part, because he's not Bush. But also, perhaps, because the media are more approving of the issues and policies Obama wants to advance. -- Washington Post
What? No warnings about Obama attempting to impose "Sharia govt."? No lectures about keeping God as far away as possible from government? Is the Democrat Party the equivalent of Hezbollah?
How easily leftists slip into role of "true believer" when it suits their purposes. Of course, they know that they can count on their supporters being either hypocritical or too stupid to ever apply the same religious tests across party lines.
If "Benji" continues to linger in his "persistent vegetative state" we're going to have to have him euthanized. It's what he would have wanted.
ReplyDeleteObama loves to take the bible completely out of context when he routinely lectures us that he is "his brother's keeper." As many people have noted, Obama's actual brother lives in a mud hut in Kenya on around $20 a yr. Obama's a millionaire, yet he is his "brother's keeper" only in the sense he wants to loot the taxpayers to pay off his freeloader constitutents.
ReplyDeleteI see our resident GOP mouthpieces are full-throayed today.
ReplyDeleteBark, bark, bark and fart.
It is quite amazing that Che and others continue to respond to those who say that Santorum is not the right guy, by talking about Obama's faults.
ReplyDeleteWe get it. We agree. NONE of that addresses the issue of why Santorum is the wrong guy. I understand that you have NOTHING to claim that he is a) Better than Obama and b) better than the other GOP candidates. In fact, he is the worst of the GOP candidates
He is pro-big labor
He is pro-big government
He is anti-free market
He is pro-subsidies and pork
He is pro government intrusion into people's lives
None of the other GOP candidates come even remotely close to him in terms of being the OPPOSITE OF CONSERVATISM.
He is running for Moralizer in Chief.
But that is the problem; social conservatives are perfectly willing to GIVE UP concepts of limited government, as long as THEY are the ones in power. Case in point: GWB.
After all, if your mentality is that you are doing God's work, the concept of limited government doesn't make sense.
aig whines: "God help us if Rick Santorum is nominated. Oh wait, I see what I did there"...
ReplyDeleteHappiness is watching a liberal cry and fret...
"If THIS is what the "tea party" has brought us, and if THIS is what the people of this country prefer, than truly there is no hope for this country anymore"...
Well then let's pray that Obama (aig's hero for the masses?) gets another four years then aig...
Oops, did I just pull a Santorum?
"He is pro-big labor
ReplyDeleteHe is pro-big government
He is anti-free market
He is pro-subsidies and pork
He is pro government intrusion into people's lives"
According to Factcheck.org, "Santorum was given a lifetime “hero” rating by the anti-pork group Citizens Against Government Waste, and was consistently rated better than most of his Republican peers by the fiscally conservative National Taxpayers Union during his dozen years in the Senate."
Now compare those same rankings with Obama and his half-wit sidekick. Where was your level of scrutiny when you voted for this nitwit in 2008?
Now Santorum's not perfect, not by a longshot. But he's so much better than Obama, it is to laugh seeing this criticism from people who voted for a socialist community organizer in 2008.
"God is the enemy of free enterprise."
ReplyDeleteThank you. The concepts of religiousness and free enterprise have never been mixed successfully in human history. One has always taken primacy over the other.
Which is why social conservatives are not the same thing as fiscal conservatives, or classical liberals. Which is why Goldwater, unfortunately, ultimately failed, and why we have ended up with the party of God instead of the party of Liberty in the GOP. Which is why its time for it to die.
"Now this is funny. All the "Santorum will destroy America" pap here is coming from the morons who voted for Obama. "
I didn't vote for Obama. But I sure as heck will never vote for Rick Santorums and Sarah Palins. I don't want to replace a financial disaster with a financial disaster AND a liberty disaster.
I have no obligation, of course, to vote for your candidate simply because your Party of God is trying to shove him down our throats.
"Really? Just "God and church, God and church, God and church.."
That must have been monotonous."
Tell me about it. I couldn't think it possible, but he may actually be dumber and more odious than Sarah Palin.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"He is pro-big labor
ReplyDeleteHe is pro-big government
He is anti-free market
He is pro-subsidies and pork
He is pro government intrusion into people's lives"...
Hey aig nice of you to parrot Richard Cohen drivel...
Dude of these candidates actually fill the bill from 'Obama-lite' (kudos to Gingrich for that one) to Gingrich (talk about a closet full of skeletons!) or Santorum (an endorser of Specter) so why don't you bag your, "I hate conservatives" song & dance...
Benji,
ReplyDelete"Bark, bark, bark and fart."
What does your wife have to do with any of this?
AIG,
ReplyDelete"I didn't vote for Obama."
Bullshit. You said you voted for him on this very site awhile ago.
"Happiness is watching a liberal cry and fret..."
ReplyDeleteYes. I must be a "liberal" Clearly, if I don't like Santorum, I must like Obama. That's how things work. Congratulations for being the target audience for the GOP.
"Bullshit. You said you voted for him on this very site awhile ago."
ReplyDeleteI'd love it if you could quote me. Since I didn't vote in the last election, that would be quite impossible.
AIG,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I don't save your quotes in a scrap book. I guess you're going to just deny what we both know you said here.
"if I don't like Santorum, I must like Obama. That's how things work. Congratulations for being the target audience for the GOP"...
ReplyDeleteboo! hoo! boo! hoo!
Its not your dislike for Santorum per se is the problem its the fact that you're whining like a liberal...
BTW I'm not the GOP anymore than you are...
I can't but wonder if you don't want another four years of ineptocracy
"I understand that you have NOTHING to claim ... blah, blah, blah." -- AIG
ReplyDeleteOther than your repeated expressions of anti-religious hatred and bigotry, you bring absolutely nothing to the argument.
You have no examples of Santorum, or any other "social conservative" for that matter, imposing their religious beliefs on anyone. In fact, it's just the opposite. Schools across the country seek to impose - through public school indoctrination - a leftist, state sanctioned set of moral values completely at odds with those of the citizenry at large. This is where bigoted morons, like you, "GIVE UP concepts of limited government". You're fine with government indoctrination just as long as it is meant to build the moral and political consensus that you favor.
You can save the rest of your paranoid, ignorant drivel. The fact that you fail to see the threat to liberty coming from the left says all that needs to be said about your powers of perception.
"I have no obligation, of course, to vote for your candidate simply because your Party of God is trying to shove him down our throats."
ReplyDeleteCorrect, you can sit back and let Obama finish destroying America because Rick Santorum might quote some scripture.
I'm just surprised that people could actually care enough about any of these guys to argue about it. No matter who gets the nomination, the gop is going to end up fielding their version of John Kerry (not that they are necessarily as bad as Kerry, just that they inspire an equal amount of enthusiasm from non-committed voters)...a decent dem could have beaten W in '04 and a decent republican would easily do the same this year.
ReplyDeleteMy wife does not bark.
ReplyDelete"Its not your dislike for Santorum per se is the problem its the fact that you're whining like a liberal..."
ReplyDeleteYes. Saying that he is a big spender and and pro big labor, sounds like "whining like a liberal" to me.
"Other than your repeated expressions of anti-religious hatred and bigotry, you bring absolutely nothing to the argument. "
Of course not. Pointing out that he voted for big labor, for subsidies, for pork, for big spending...is nothing. Absolutely nothing.
"You have no examples of Santorum, or any other "social conservative" for that matter, imposing their religious beliefs on anyone. In fact, it's just the opposite"
Of course. Wanting to pass amendments on marriage and on abortion, are not examples. The fact that you have LOST in your attempts to impose such views, doesn't mean that those are the views you want to impose. Thankfully, you don't get to decide in this country of laws.
"This is where bigoted morons, like you, "GIVE UP concepts of limited government". You're fine with government indoctrination just as long as it is meant to build the moral and political consensus that you favor."
No. Its people like you who confuse the fact that your views aren't being imposed, with imposition of views :) The lack of views being imposed isn't an imposition of views :)
"The fact that you fail to see the threat to liberty coming from the left"
I see it. But that doesn't mean that there is no threat to liberty, equally as great, coming from the right. You simply chose one side of tyranny over another. I chose neither.
"Correct, you can sit back and let Obama finish destroying America because Rick Santorum might quote some scripture."
ReplyDeleteNo. Its up to YOU not to vote for a candidate that will lose to Obama :)
You clearly are failing to understand the argument: You are getting mad that I and and some others don't like your choice for nominee, and will not vote for your nominee. Therefore one might argue that one strategy you can follow, is to move closer to us and agree to nominate someone we can BOTH be comfortable voting for. Instead, you call all those who don't like your nominee, "liberals" and "voters for Obama".
Doesn't make much sense to me, if your intention is to win my vote :)
"I can't but wonder if you don't want another four years of ineptocracy"
ReplyDeleteI don't. Which is why I don't want to nominate Rick Santorum. He will lose.
You don't seem to understand that the argument I am making, is that there are BETTER CHOICES IN THE GOP NOMINATION.
And if you people will continue to make poor nomination decisions, like you did last time, despite US telling you then that your candidates would lose...then the only logical solution would be to let you suffer the consequences of your decisions. Otherwise you will never learn.
And if you don't learn, then you need to go away as a party, and let others try.
"Of course not. Pointing out that he voted for big labor, for subsidies, for pork, for big spending...is nothing. Absolutely nothing."
ReplyDeleteIt is nothing compared to who he will be facing in November if he wins the nomination. I've already showed you that, and you choose to ignore it and repeat the same talking points over and over.
"Wanting to pass amendments on marriage and on abortion, are not examples. "
The American public overwhelmingly opposes gay marriage. More are pro-life than pro-choice. So how is Santorum so far out of the mainstream? What do you think the poll numbers would say about Obama's support of infanticide while he was in the Illinois legislature? Oh, but Santorum is the "extremist." Give it a rest.
"No. Its up to YOU not to vote for a candidate that will lose to Obama :) "
Really? It's all up to me? I did not know that. I unenthusiastically voted for Romney today in the primary, actually. He may also lose to Obama because millions like you require the perfect candidate
"But that doesn't mean that there is no threat to liberty, equally as great, coming from the right."
And yet nowhere have you demonstrated that threat. Abortion and gay marriage? Please.
"You clearly are failing to understand the argument:"
You don't have much of an argument. Obama's horrific record is so much worse than anything you have offered about Santorum. It's pathetic, really. You're worried about a hamster attack while you're getting raped by a grizzly bear.
"Santorum's not perfect, not by a longshot. But he's so much better than Obama ..." -- Paul
ReplyDeleteExactly. Santorum certainly wouldn't be my first choice, but if it comes down to him or Obama, well, that will not be a hard decision to make.
As you point out, groups who have followed the votes of politicians as they relate to the economy score him favorably. His economic agenda, which he laid out in the WSJ, is conservative:
Repealing any Obama era regulation with an economic burden greater than $100 million.
Reducing the corporate tax rate to a flat 17.5 percent.
$5 trillion in spending cuts and a reduction in the non-defense federal workforce of 10 percent in 5 years.
Balancing the federal budget in 4 years and support for a Balanced Budget Amendment with a hard spending cap set at 18 percent of GDP.
Cutting means tested entitlements 10 percent across the board.
Increased support for free trade.
Repealing Obamacare, and more.
He was also one of the first Senators to push for reform of Medicare and Social Security. And he was an early and strong supporter of legislation creating and promoting Personal Health Savings Accounts. Contrast this with Obamas federally imposed personal mandate to enter into a contract to purchase health insurance that strikes at the very heart of individual liberty and destroys any limits to governmental power.
It's amazing to me that people see the effort by social conservatives to get the government out of the personal values business, and to restore that role to the family and the church, as establishing a theocracy. It is indicative of just how far down the road toward a state religion we have come that ending the imposition of state sanctioned moral values through public school indoctrination is seen as controversial. As Santorum has argued, what the left is attempting to do is to remake your children in their image.
"You are getting mad that I and and some others don't like your choice for nominee, and will not vote for your nominee. Therefore one might argue that one strategy you can follow, is to move closer to us and agree to nominate someone we can BOTH be comfortable voting for."
ReplyDeleteIt's up to everybody else to do the heavy lifting so AIG can sashay in and vote for the perfect candidate. Did you lift a finger in 2008 to nominate somebody else? How about this time? Any campaign hours or donations? You sound exactly like a whining, parasitic liberal.
Let's see---military outlays have doubled in real terms since 9/11. And we face no military threats.
ReplyDeleteSantorum, of course, wants to get rid of federal waste.
But not cut the coprolite at Defense? Maintain lifetime pensions and healthcare for uniformed federal employees after just 20 years of employment? Boy, taxpayers will chock not that.
As another GOP grifter, Santorum wants the White House so he can ladle lard onto GOP backers, while talking about Jesus.
It will be fun to watch Obama and Santorum try to "Out Jesus" each other. Or sad.
"Wanting to pass amendments on marriage and on abortion, are not examples ..." -- AIG
ReplyDeleteI really do not care what sort of relationship two consenting adults choose to enter into, but seeking to redefine an institution that is more than 2000 years old so that it comports with your personal moral values is, by definition, an imposition.
In every state that gay marriage has been put to a vote of the people, more than 30, it has failed. That is why the left is seeking to build a consensus for its moral values through the government enforced indoctrination of our children. Or, failing that to have their values imposed by a court. Notice that they do not stop at societys willingness to tolerate such relationships. No, they insist that we celebrate them, and that we teach our children to celebrate them as well.
Either way, all of the candidates currently running for president have come out against gay marriage - including Barack Obama. So, following your logic he must be a knuckle-dragging fundamentalist as well.
As for abortion, what could be more indicative of an extreme position than Barack Obamas support for infanticide? It really isn't hard to see where this worldview leads: "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?", Journal of Medical Ethics Pathetic.
"It is nothing compared to who he will be facing in November if he wins the nomination. I've already showed you that, and you choose to ignore it and repeat the same talking points over and over."
ReplyDeleteObama isn't the issue here. The issue is who is going to be nominated by the GOP. Its not SO hard to to understand the difference between these two arguments.
"The American public overwhelmingly opposes gay marriage. More are pro-life than pro-choice. So how is Santorum so far out of the mainstream?"
He's not. He is outside of the bonds of the US Constitution, though. You know...this isn't a democracy. Popular opinion doesn't get to limit the freedoms of others.
"Really? It's all up to me? I did not know that. I unenthusiastically voted for Romney today in the primary, actually"
Great! So you agree with me that there are better choices in the GOP field, and Santorum isn't one of them.
"And yet nowhere have you demonstrated that threat. "
A guy who votes for big labor, for big spending, and for regulating sexual behavior. Hmm...yes clearly I can't see it either.
"He may also lose to Obama because millions like you require the perfect candidate "
He may. And I don't require a perfect candidate, just not an Ayatollah.
"Obama's horrific record is so much worse than anything you have offered about Santorum. It's pathetic, really. You're worried about a hamster attack while you're getting raped by a grizzly bear."
:) Its more like a bear and a wolverine. They are both smelly animals that will kill you. The point is that there are better choices. If there are better choices, than Santorum should be the furthest thing from anyone's mind.
My problem is that people like Che here, and psychos like Glenn Beck etc, will go OUT OF THEIR WAY to ignore all the major shortcomings of Santorum, simply because he is a social conservative. He is clearly not a fiscal conservative, or one that has any concept of limited government. And the argument is...are fiscal issues the most important things right now, or condoms? I don't want a candidate that spends 90% of his time on the condom use patterns of other people.
That's what Obama wants, and Santorum is clearly STUPID enough to fall for the bait.
ig says: "I don't. Which is why I don't want to nominate Rick Santorum. He will lose"...
ReplyDeleteUSA Today / Gallup Poll Shows Obama Trailing Santorum, Romney In 12 Swing States?
"You don't seem to understand that the argument I am making, is that there are BETTER CHOICES IN THE GOP NOMINATION"...
And who might those other candidates be?
"And if you people will continue to make poor nomination decisions, like you did last time, despite US telling you then that your candidates would lose...then the only logical solution would be to let you suffer the consequences of your decisions"...
Well aig that was an RNC choice, NOT the people's choice...
"I really do not care what sort of relationship two consenting adults choose to enter into, but seeking to redefine an institution that is more than 2000 years old so that it comports with your personal moral values is, by definition, an imposition. "
ReplyDeleteOf course not. A CHURCH marriage has nothing to do with a government marriage.
I can get married by the government without setting foot in a church. A government marriage is a license that recognizes a legal union between two people.
It has nothing to do with a 2,000 year old institution (they never had marriages before Christianity? Strange).
I would be all for having no marriage whatsoever by government; just call it a civil union for everyone. Because that is what it is. Its not "marriage" as is defined by any religious organization. And any religious person should have no interest whatsoever in getting a "government marriage". For them, marriage is in the church. And by that, they should have no say, or problem, with other people who don't go to church, getting the same piece of government paper that they do.
Of course, saying that GOVERNMENT marriage is equivalent to a religious marriage, is a limitation of other people's liberty.
"In every state that gay marriage has been put to a vote of the people, more than 30, it has failed."
The freedom of any individual should never be put to a vote. That is precisely what this country was founded to prevent.
"Notice that they do not stop at societys willingness to tolerate such relationships. No, they insist that we celebrate them, and that we teach our children to celebrate them as well"
And you insist that we celebrate heterosexual unions too. After all, isn't that what Rick Santorum is all about...plopping out babies with that baby factory he calls a wife? I of course have no problem with people celebrating whatever they want. I just have a personality that is aggressively allergic to preachy baby-factory self-absorbed types.
Santorum...I could give 2 sh*** about your family or your family values. What are you going to do to reduce government scope and size? That's what I'm voting for.
"And who might those other candidates be?"
ReplyDeleteEvery single one of them
"Well aig that was an RNC choice, NOT the people's choice.."
You ELECTED him...and worst of all, you voted for HER.
"He's not. He is outside of the bonds of the US Constitution, though. You know...this isn't a democracy. Popular opinion doesn't get to limit the freedoms of others"...
ReplyDeleteWhat absolute, leftist drivel aig....
Apparently you have little if any idea of what's constituional...
What can Santorum actually do if by some long shot that he wins and becomes President without the backing of Congress in whole or in part?
Is Santorum going to act like Obama try to impose asinine and constitutionally questionable mandates on those who aren't Christian or whatever?
"A guy who votes for big labor, for big spending, and for regulating sexual behavior. Hmm...yes clearly I can't see it either"...
Hmmm, sort of sounds like pseudo benny's silly defense department numbers...
Long on rant, short on substance aig...
"Every single one of them"...
ReplyDeleteYou're joking, right aig?
"You ELECTED him...and worst of all, you voted for HER"...
Come on now, is that really you sethstorm behind those aig glasses?
My problem is that people like Che here, and psychos like Glenn Beck etc ... -- AIG
ReplyDeleteSave your breath, you'll need it to blow up your girlfriend.
"He is clearly not a fiscal conservative, or one that has any concept of limited government ..." -- AIG
Compared to whom?
"And the argument is...are fiscal issues the most important things right now, or condoms?" -- AIG
With douche bags, like you, it's clearly about condoms. You've spent 90 percent of your time agonizing over his social positions, claiming that you may be forced to vote for Obama or stay home if he's nominated. Fine, but that is just further evidence, if any more were needed, that you value grade schoolers having access to condoms over the economy. That has been the point all along. You obsess over Santorums supposed social extremism while losing focus of the rest of the issues.
If Santorum is the nominee he will clearly be the most fiscally conservative candidate in the race, period.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"It has nothing to do with a 2,000 year old institution (they never had marriages before Christianity? Strange)." -- AIG
ReplyDeleteGo back and read it again, genius.
I'm fine with civil unions, but I don't think that gays are. There has already been suits filed against churches and religious institutions that have refused to acknowledge their relationships. The state will eventually threaten churches that refuse to perform or to recognize gay marriage.
"The freedom of any individual should never be put to a vote. That is precisely what this country was founded to prevent." -- AIG
Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else. Heterosexuals cannot marry another person of the same sex either.
"Santorum ... I could give 2 sh*** about your family or your family values. What are you going to do to reduce government scope and size? That's what I'm voting for." -- AIG
And if comes down to Santorum and Obama, who exactly will that be?
And what if Romney wins the GOP nomination?
ReplyDeleteWe have the Christian Obama hailing Jesus, and the Mormon Romney singing huzzahs to John Smith?
Will evangelicals vote for Satanic cult follower, in the form of Romney? Is Romney the much-feared anti-Christ?????
Stay tuned!!!!
"And if comes down to Santorum and Obama, who exactly will that be?"...
ReplyDeleteBingo!
che hands out the multi-trillion dollar stark reality that's facing us and those who come after us...
Do we really need more of Obamanomics?
"We have the Christian Obama hailing Jesus, and the Mormon Romney singing huzzahs to John Smith?"...
ReplyDeleteHey pseudo benny when did Obama become a Christian?
Just asking is all...
Isn't modern liberalism a religion in of itself?
ReplyDeleteI mean, at some point, doesn't their need to be some factual evidence of your policy being effective before you can consider it anything other?
Religious conservatives pray to deity. Modern liberals pray to statists. Is there really anything left to quibble with?
"What absolute, leftist drivel aig...."
ReplyDeleteYou know it gets kind of boring when you use words like "leftists" to describe someone who just said that the US was founded to prevent things like popular opinion from limiting the freedoms of others.
At least TRY to be less boring. Be more original. Think of something more appropriate than "leftist"
"Long on rant, short on substance aig..."
Here's some "substance" for you. Enjoy:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/dirty-trick-santorum-targets-michigan-dems-with-robobcall-that-sounds-like-it-came-from-uaw.php
"Compared to whom?"
ReplyDeleteAll the other 3 candidates on that stage
" Fine, but that is just further evidence, if any more were needed, that you value grade schoolers having access to condoms over the economy. That has been the point all along. You obsess over Santorums supposed social extremism while losing focus of the rest of the issues. "
Its quite amazing how self-delusional social conservatives can get. They talk about social issues at the expense of the real government issues...and then accuse you of the same. Well, as I said, congratulations for being the target audience for the GOP.
"If Santorum is the nominee he will clearly be the most fiscally conservative candidate in the race, period"
LOL!! A pro-union subsidy pig from the great state of Pennsylvania, will be "fiscally conservative". Yes and Sarah Palin has read a book. Oh you betcha!
"Religious conservatives pray to deity. Modern liberals pray to statists. Is there really anything left to quibble with?"
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right. I've always maintained that there is very little difference in tactics between the left and social conservatives.
"There has already been suits filed against churches and religious institutions that have refused to acknowledge their relationships"
You're free to sue whoever you want on whatever grounds you want in this country. Doesn't mean it has merit.
"Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else. Heterosexuals cannot marry another person of the same sex either."
And why is that?
"And if comes down to Santorum and Obama, who exactly will that be?"
Neither. If the GOP nominates Santorum, it deserves to go away as a party. That's all. I have no obligation to vote for either.
If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, I'll certainly vote for him (as much as I despise him, he is by far a better choice). If he doesn't, I'll write in Barry Goldwater. And then maybe, in another 4 years, we will have a real Party of Freedom, and you can have your Party of God (Hezbollah)
"che hands out the multi-trillion dollar stark reality that's facing us and those who come after us...
ReplyDeleteDo we really need more of Obamanomics?"
The world won't end in 4 years, despite what you may have heard from Glenn Beck. The US will go on, and in another 4 years, there will be another election.
Do we really want more loser social conservative big-government spenders like GWB?
"The world won't end in 4 years, despite what you may have heard from Glenn Beck"...
ReplyDeleteWho? I gotta look this name up?
You're kidding me aig you listen/watch Beck or is this some more of your 3rd hand noise like you were handing out about Santorum?
"Do we really want more loser social conservative big-government spenders like GWB?"...
No of course not! We want liberal pervs who pander to everyone and cower to all...
Oh wait! We already have one of those...
Ahhh Massachusetts, the home of the insanely expensive epic fail:
Ted Kennedy
The Big Dig
RomneyCare
According to this group of right-wingers, the biggest federal deficits in the future belong to the GOP candidate proposals. Obama proposes much smaller deficits than the GOP candidates.
ReplyDeletehttp://crfb.org/document/primary-numbers-gop-candidates-and-national-debt
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"According to this group of right-wingers, the biggest federal deficits in the future belong to the GOP candidate proposals. Obama proposes much smaller deficits than the GOP candidates"....
ReplyDeleteGee! Yet another inane comment from the pseudo benny who is definitely unteathered to reality...
pseudo benny did you even bother to check out the About Us page?
Did you even bother to check out who the New America Foundation and its cast of clowns were and are?
Just a couple of years ago they this group made fools of themselves with their Afghan War recommendations...
Weren't you paying attention?
"LOL!! A pro-union subsidy pig from the great state of Pennsylvania, will be "fiscally conservative".
ReplyDeleteHow inane. Let me repeat: every watch dog group that reports on voting records scored Santorum as a pretty responsible fiscal conservative. On the other hand, Obama and Biden scored the equivalent of "F" during their time in the Senate. Now look at how we're hanging on by our fingernails after 3 years of Obama, and yet it's Santorum who animates you.
One final thing: Benji agrees with YOU. THat should be enough right there to make you rethink it.
"Yes and Sarah Palin has read a book. Oh you betcha!"
I'm wondering if you have read any.
"pseudo benny did you even bother to check out the About Us page?"
ReplyDeleteBenji's all about protecting his boyfriend.
"...in another 4 years, we will have a real Party of Freedom, and you can have your Party of God (Hezbollah)"
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly the kind of hyperbole that makes me think you and Benji would make excellent roommates. Or perhaps you really believe there's no difference between Islamic suicide bombers and Christians. If that's the case, then you and Benji must the same homeless guy posting under different names.
Is Romney the anti-Christ?
ReplyDeletePastor backing Santorum claims Romney is not a Christian
Posted by
CNN Political Reporter Peter Hamby
Lansing, Michigan (CNN) – A Michigan pastor who introduced Rick Santorum at a Monday campaign event in Lansing claimed that Mitt Romney is not a Christian and said Santorum is the one Republican candidate who can awaken "the sleeping giant" of Christianity.
Kent Clark, the CEO of Grace Centers of Hope, a faith-based homeless outreach facility in Pontiac, warmed up the pro-Santorum audience by calling the former Pennsylvania senator "a man who believes in a creator rather than we being the accidental creation of gas and dust."
After Santorum's rally, Clark told CNN he is supporting Santorum because he is a person of faith who understands that social ills are best cured at the family level and not by "big government."
Clark predicted that Romney's Mormon faith will be a factor for Republicans in Tuesday's Michigan primary, particularly in the western part of the state ...
Is Romney a High Priest of a Satanic Cult?
ReplyDeleteFrom Godvoter.org--
Rick Santorum identifies himself as a Christian. Rick Santorum believes he is Christian. And after the disappointments with the other 2012 candidates, including Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, many hope Rick Santorum is a Christian.
But is Rick Santorum the truly born-again Christian President that America needs?
While Rick Santorum has yet to answer our questions aimed at addressing this issue, his statements over the years, including the speech he gave at Ave Maria University in 2008, provided intriguing details about his religion, beliefs and Catholicism .
While Roman Catholicism shares many of the values of biblical Christianity, the two are different, as Rick Santorum indicated. A born-again Christian ultimately cannot remain within Roman Catholicism. A born-again Christian also would testify about Jesus, his Lord and Savior.
Rick Santorum's key strengths include his solid positions against abortion, homosexual marriage and Islamic threat, including from Iran's nuclear program. He also has exemplified family values, especially compared to Newt Gingrich.
His key weaknesses include lack of gravitas and relative inexperience, especially compared to Newt Gingrich.
Continued campaigning by both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich is dividing the conservative vote, risks handing the Republican nomination to the High Priest of a Satanic cult, and should therefore stop.
"Is Romney a High Priest of a Satanic Cult?"
ReplyDeleteNo.
Is Benji the dumbest person to ever post on the internet?
Yes.
Paul: "Is Benji the dumbest person to ever post on the internet?
ReplyDeleteYes."
Well, I can only say that's a highly contested position. Competition is fierce.
Ron,
ReplyDeleteOk, top 5 at least..