|
Post by wheels on Feb 23, 2012 22:30:18 GMT -5
That just proves that he was an extremist in 2008. The guys a wannabe Christian taliban. Extremist? Show me a single Christian who doesn't believe in Satan. am I an extremist? I believe in Satan so I must be. I get that you don't share the same beliefs. However, that doesn't make the rest of us extremists.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Feb 23, 2012 22:31:41 GMT -5
Show me where he has wanted for force his religious beliefs on anyone at the federal level.
He has done nothing except express personal opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Feb 23, 2012 23:58:14 GMT -5
His opinions shape his decisions when it comes to governance. Just as you wouldn't like to have an atheist in charge, I don't want to have a religious nut.
|
|
|
Post by CoffeeShooter on Feb 24, 2012 10:47:55 GMT -5
I don't have time to post it all here but his voting record doesn't back up his rhetoric. That should be enough said but it seems that his supporters aren't interested in such things. The info is out there though, and there is plenty of it. He has stated that he opposes all methods of birth control, including condom use. Fredo is right, he's living solidly in the past. He's starting to make Palin look like a genius.
All told, I am wondering who the next GOP Flavor Of The Week will be? I guess it will be determined by the media and not the party itself.
|
|
|
Post by CoffeeShooter on Feb 24, 2012 10:57:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Feb 24, 2012 11:02:21 GMT -5
Funnily enough, although he has stated that he is personally against all forms of birth control, his statements and voting records show that he is for the individual being able to choose (from the feds), although states should have more leeway in some areas (as the Constitution was written).
I don't know if he would be a good candidate or not, but attack him for what he has actually done instead of making up stuff like most of the mouth-frothing progressives do. That just shows that they fear him, which means he has a good chance of winning against the Obamessiah.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Feb 24, 2012 12:47:06 GMT -5
About the only consistency I find in this guy is that he's adamant in his opinion that women shouldn't have access to any form of birth control not approved by the Catholic Church. that statement is completely false. he has specifically said that these are his beliefs and that the federal government cannot and should not restrict a woman's right to use contraceptives. you guys can make the same false claims as many times as you want, but they're still false.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Feb 24, 2012 16:15:23 GMT -5
You're correct that it's an absolutely false statement.
Somehow, the liberal media has convinced people that keeping the government out of private affairs is in some way government interference. Specifically, keeping the government from forcing the Catholics to pay for something they are opposed to is in some way wanting to keep women from having access to that.
Anyone hear of CVS? If her employer doesn't provide it, she can hop right on down there and buy it for herself.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Feb 24, 2012 17:04:43 GMT -5
So far all about female rights and options. What about vasectomy for males?
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Feb 24, 2012 17:31:36 GMT -5
They don't have the right to force someone else to pay for those either.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Feb 24, 2012 17:42:08 GMT -5
Then they do not the the right to tax anything including for a political war. i.e. Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Feb 25, 2012 3:24:21 GMT -5
Yes they do; that's specifically in the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Sgt K USMC on Feb 25, 2012 9:01:50 GMT -5
All war is political.
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Feb 25, 2012 10:38:16 GMT -5
Santorum is really giving Mitt Romney a strong challenge in one of his own "home states" - Michigan! He appears to be a solid favorite of the so-called "conservative base", who understand that Romney's conservative credentials are not particularly strong to put it mildly.
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Feb 25, 2012 12:24:21 GMT -5
I don't know if he would be a good candidate or not, but attack him for what he has actually done instead of making up stuff like most of the mouth-frothing progressives do. Romney has an ad out that blasts Santorum for being a champion of earmarks. One look at the record shows that Romney's claim about Santorum is far from "made up". In fact, it's spot on. The problem, however, is that Romney supported the Wall Street bailout, so his credibility on fiscal matters is pretty weak to start with among conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Feb 25, 2012 13:11:36 GMT -5
I wasn't talking about Romney's attacks.
I was talking about the claims that he wants to use the government to prevent birth control, etc.
There is plenty to attack him for that is real, but all you ever see are the lies. I think that will actually help him in the long run because people will start to assume that every attack is a lie and won't look at his real problems.
Before Romney gets elected, I would rather see Obama returned to the White House. Just as with McCain, there is no real difference between him and Obama.
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Feb 25, 2012 13:42:54 GMT -5
Before Romney gets elected, I would rather see Obama returned to the White House. So it seems like you saying that you would prefer Obama over Romney and Santorum over both...
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Feb 25, 2012 14:00:22 GMT -5
There is plenty to attack him for that is real, but all you ever see are the lies. No, I see plenty of attacks that don't use lies. For example, today he actually called the President a "snob" for encouraging young people to go to college. He seems to think that people are too stupid to remember that he himself ardently championed efforts to promote higher education in the past and touted it openly in his failed 2006 Senate campaign. It's either a ful-on John Kerry-style flip-flop or a wildly cynical example of populist demagoguery. Makes Romney look honest. Almost.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Feb 25, 2012 16:47:58 GMT -5
So it seems like you saying that you would prefer Obama over Romney and Santorum over both... Nope. At this point, I would prefer the Obama gridlock over either. And I just saw another attack on him, accusing him of wanting to get the government into your bedroom. Just another tangent of the "he wants to deny you birth control" lie. Very few attacks that I've seen on him have been based in reality, probably because the real ones have to be thought about. I really do think these lying attacks will help him in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Feb 25, 2012 17:06:15 GMT -5
And I just saw another attack on him, accusing him of wanting to get the government into your bedroom. Just another tangent of the "he wants to deny you birth control" lie. You are choosing to respond to the weakest, most incoherent critiques of Santorum. The fact of the matter is that he makes some very controversial assertions that many, many honest and well-meaning people take great exception to. The fact of the matter is that (after flilpping and flopping on the topic), Santorum has openly claimed that birth control is "harmful to women", and he promises to cut funding to Federal Title X family programs, which have prevented tens of thousands of unwanted pregnancies in this country. You can certainly choose to agree or to disagree with that point of view on its merits, but let's be clear on what the actual terms of the debate here are - instead of batting about some claim that some crank somewhere uttered and using sloppy assertions to mischaracterize a valid criticism of Santorum's point of view.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Feb 26, 2012 2:38:00 GMT -5
It may be weak and incoherent, but it's prevalent.
Nothing in your second paragraph indicates his desire to deny women birth control. (And the pill is a group 1 carcinogen, btw.) It shows his personal opinions, not what he wants to make into law, and it shows that he wants to cut unconstitutional government spending.
What he has really done is vote against second amendment rights, voted against individual freedom of association, voted to increase the debt ceiling, and on and on and on.
But that stuff is not covered nearly as much as the lies. And I think that will help him in the long run by consolidating support behind him that ignores what he really has done.
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Feb 26, 2012 9:00:14 GMT -5
It may be weak and incoherent, but it's prevalent. Nothing in your second paragraph indicates his desire to deny women birth control. No, but it does indicate that he wishes to cut support for key family planning programs that make BC accessible for vulnerable populations, which would have the same effect as a denial of access in terms of public policy outcome. I don't think that would go over well with voters, and it would likely lead to many thousands of additional unwanted pregnancies among he poor, which could deeply exacerbate socioeconomic problems within our communities. Doesn't sound like the kind of guy the Tea Party or core conservatives would support.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Feb 26, 2012 10:47:19 GMT -5
Why should we take money from hard working people and redistribute it to anyone for any reason?
You know another word for "being forced to work solely for the benefit of someone else"?
|
|
|
Post by duke on Feb 26, 2012 14:11:04 GMT -5
Just how hard is it to call in a buy order for stocks or bonds, sit back and watch the money grow? Then the really hard part. . . Calling in that order to sell those securities to realize a $662 million profit, moving the profit to a no tax state and hiring an attorney to defend the action.
Anyone who has 'worked so hard' should never have to help a homeless vet, or a widow, especially if those indigents are of a different race.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Feb 26, 2012 14:49:00 GMT -5
You can take your money and invest it, if you so choose.
And no matter how little I think of you, I am opposed to the government using force to take it from you to give it to someone who made different choices.
|
|