Rick Santorum: The Thread

[GoS]

I don't know about you guys, but I can't get enough of this guy. I feel like I should be worried, but he's just so extreme I can't help but find the whole thing hilarious.:shrug: How do you guys feel?

[bucklind17]

I wouldn't find him as frightening as I do if he were a little further behind, but it's getting a little close to my tastes. The upside is that he's extreme enough that hopefully, only people similarly extreme would vote for him should he get the Republican nomination. But the dude, and his stances on a number of things but particularly rape, is scary and not the thoughts of someone I want leading this country.

[louielouie2000]

I found he & the majority of the Republican candidates quite amusing until very, very recently. The fact so many of them have taken turns going from the bottom of the pack to the top and back again (and again) has proven just how wide open this presidential race is, though. I don't think absolutely anything is a given in this race, and no one can be written off. I'm starting to feel that it's not Romney would could topple Obama's presidency, but someone more like Santorum. Why? Because just how different is Romney from Obama for Americans to warrant an exchange? Americans are extremely reluctant to remove incumbent politicians, especially presidents. I believe it's because they view it as a sign of weakness to renege on their choice of leadership. If Americans throw out their elected leaders (especially presidents), they do so in favor of someone who promises almost radically different policies than their predecessors. Hence why I feel that Santorum is quite scary, and why I shrug off Romney. (For what it's worth, I actually think Romney would probably make quite an effective president)

For the record, I have absolutely zero issues with fiscal conservatism. I think it's paramount to have a balance of power between fiscal conservatism & liberalism. It's just the social conservatism amongst some figures in the right wing which utterly dismays me. We can't drag time into the past, we cannot recreate the world of yesterday. And why would we want to? Why are some working so hard to chip away at women's rights after all these years? I think more than anything it's the hypocrisy of so many social conservatives which fires me up. The party of personal liberty wants to roll back women's rights. Newt Gingrich is chiding America on family values. Thankfully, I don't think we ever have to worry about Gingrich getting anywhere near the White House. Even if the eventual Republican nominee were to chose Newt as their running mate, it'd pretty much seal Obama's reelection. :)

[GypsySorcerer]

This whole Republican primary has been a train wreck, as each "Not Romney" candidate has had his (or her) moment, only to implode. Santorum is terrifying. Romney is a hypocrite who is embracing right-wing extremism to pander to the base, but Santorum actually believes this ****.

[PenguinHead]

This whole Republican primary has been a train wreck, as each "Not Romney" candidate has had his (or her) moment, only to implode. Santorum is terrifying. Romney is a hypocrite who is embracing right-wing extremism to pander to the base, but Santorum actually believes this ****.

Exactly my thoughts. Santorum scares the f*ck out of me! I hope the majorityof sensible citizens of this country see through the evangelical extremism. Rick is getting too close for comfort. The media really sucks for pandering to him and not calling him on his bullsh*t.

[iamnotafraid]

I think more than anything it's the hypocrisy of so many social conservatives which fires me up. The party of personal liberty wants to roll back women's rights.

Louie I admire the way you write though we disagree
on many things. You come off as a thoughtful soul. But
if the key word here is abortion, when you mentioned
"rolling back women's rights" then I'll stand with Santorum.
And unfortunately, I'm sure I'm in the minority here.

If anyone here has had an abortion, you might not want
to read the rest of my thoughts on this subject. Women's
rights in this case would seem extreme. In some cases, and
I'm not talking about rape, incest or the real endangerment
of a woman's life at giving birth; abortion is murder.

Have any of you seen an abortion being performed? On film
I have. It was one of the most disturbing things I've ever
witnessed. As best I can put it, the child was fighting
for it's precious life.

So if this is considered a woman's right, to take a life; then for
the life of me I can't understand it.

As far as the Republican Candidates go, I like them in this order:

1. Newt Gingrich. (Don't think he's going to win though)
2. Rick Santorum. (Starting to believe he might just pull it off)
3. Mitt Romney. (He looks the most presidential but...)

I would gladly take any of these three over President Obama.
His administration's views on Christian Institutions and their
policy towards Israel trouble me greatly.

All who totally disagree with me here please remember and
watch for this, if nothing else. Watch out for America's stance
against Israel. If it continues, we all will be in serious danger
of God's wrath.

[Fireflies]

If it continues, we all will be in serious danger
of God's wrath.

can't argue with the facts. :shrug: :lol:

[markolas]

All the GOP nominees are varying degrees of insane, with Santorum being among the worst. None of them stands a snowball's chance in hell against Obama in the general election, though I would welcome a Santorum nomination, since it would make Obama's job so much easier come November. :laugh:

Back in '08, I maintained that no matter who won, Obama or McCain, he'd be a one-term president simply because W had screwed things up so royally that no one could fix it in 4 years and the public would hold whoever won accountable for that. Even two years ago I wouldn't have predicted a 2nd term for Obama.

But I didn't count on the entire Republican field of nominees being so incredibly zany. I mean, this bunch of crazies ranges from run-of-the-mill right-wing opportunist (Gingrich & Romney), to Ayn Rand-style libertarians with no grasp on reality (Ron Paul), to bat-crap looney Christian dominionist with even less of a grasp on reality (Santorum).

Obama has done about as good a job as he could have, given the mess he inherited and the completely obstructionist Republican Congress. He hasn't been as progressive as his base would've liked (which, frankly, they were naive for expecting), or as I would've liked. I'm basically a socialist, at least compared to many people on the Ledge.

[olive]

. If it continues, we all will be in serious danger
of God's wrath.

It's not God's Wrath I worry about , it is the Wrath of his/her Followers.

[markolas]

Made the mistake of reading this thread without being logged in (and without the benefit of the ignore feature). Bet I never do that again. :laugh::distress:

[markolas]

Also, I was gonna ask who the Santorum supporter among us is, but it's pretty much been spelled out. I'm sure imnotafraid thinks I'm already risking God's wrath based on the fact that I'm a filthy, unrepentant homosexual, so I'm not terribly concerned.

[HomerMcvie]

It's not God's Wrath I worry about , it is the Wrath of his/her Followers.

~Like button~:nod:

[markolas]

Sweet monkey fritters, there's two of them now. The Ledge is being taken over by freepers.

[HomerMcvie]

If you're referring to me, I am a card carrying atheist. I was commenting on fearing the followers...

[markolas]

If you're referring to me, I am a card carrying atheist. I was commenting on fearing the followers...

Unless you're the 2nd person who voted that he/she was a Santorum supporter in the poll, then I wasn't talking about you. :)

[Moz]

Why would a Santorum supporter (or any other kind of social conservative) hang out on a website that's full of gay people? Or support a band/artist with a song that is widely believed to be about abortions? :shrug:

[HomerMcvie]

Unless you're the 2nd person who voted that he/she was a Santorum supporter in the poll, then I wasn't talking about you. :)

Oh, I didn't bother voting, so the poll didn't show for me.
Now I have to vote!:laugh:

[TrueFaith77]

There should be an "indifferent" option. Or something like: "Just the same as every other politician." I guess "hilarious" is the closest thing, because all politicians I see on the scene are jokes.

[TrueFaith77]

Why would a Santorum supporter (or any other kind of social conservative) hang out on a website that's full of gay people? Or support a band/artist with a song that is widely believed to be about abortions? :shrug:

1) As a gay person who is related to many social conservatives, I have never confronted the kind of homophobia from them (people who love me) that I have witnessed or received from some other gay people. So I don't really know how that follows. If the issue is "gay marriage," I think that's complicated. Currently, I tend to agree with Ron Paul<--on this subject-->, who thinks government should stay out of marriage altogether. As a gay person, I just don't get exactly why gay people would want to get married. But, then again, I tend to have a romantic view of the sexual outlaw (I mean, isn't that part of why some gay men identify with Stevie? Maybe it's just me.). Anyway, consequently, I would think there are some gay people, not to mention gay-supporting people, who don't say gay marriage should be made legal. Back in the day, gay intellectuals used to argue that marriage was a patriarchal institution. I guess fashions have changed, but I don't think all gay people have to follow those fashions. The most moving argument for gay marriage that I know is the film Noah's Arc: Jumping the Broom, and, even within the context of that film, it argues that marriage does not need official sanction of the state in order to be valid in the eyes of a community.

2) Being "pro-life" does not mean you don't think abortions happen. Is "Goodbye Baby" pro-choice propoganda? Or is it a song about devestation and reconciliation?

In fact, if I may ponder further, on "Goodbye Baby," that song doesn't treat the aborted "baby" as a "thing" but as a "baby" with a spirit from whom Stevie asks forgiveness and understanding. I would think people on either side of the issue, p0litically (which essentially is, according to pro-choice feminist Camille Paglia, whether or not some murder is rational), could respond to that.

[markolas]

There are posts that I would love to respond to, but they leave me so exasperated that the best I can do is say "Holy crap, what an idiot!" and close the browser window.

[markolas]

Okay, really, I can do this. Deep breaths. Baby steps.

1) As a gay person who is related to many social conservatives, I have never confronted the kind of homophobia from them (people who love me) that I have witnessed or received from some other gay people.

I'm related to social conservatives, too (none of whom I speak to, ever). My experience is that their idea of "love" is...interesting. They may or may not be overtly nasty, but when it comes down to it, they think you're a disgusting pervert. But they "love" you anyway, of course.

Internalized homophobia is a big, huge, giant problem for many (most?) gay people. I didn't realize how much this was the case until recently, but I think it at least partially explains why the gay rights movement hasn't made more headway than it has (it's made huge headway just in the last 10-15 years, but it could've made more). Gay people project their own self-loathing onto other gay people to a heartbreaking degree, and many will hold onto that closet door with every last bit of strength they've got. It's beyond maddening.

If the issue is "gay marriage," I think that's complicated. Currently, I tend to agree with Ron Paul<--on this subject-->, who thinks government should stay out of marriage altogether.

You have no idea how tempted I am to type "Ron Paul is an idiot" and close my browser.

People who say "government should stay out of marriage" are very short-sighted, to say the least. Who decides matters of kinship, if not government? This is just one of the myriad follies of both libertarianism and anarchism. People like to believe that if you just got rid of all government, the world would become a utopia; in reality, it would come to resemble the book Lord of the Flies very quickly.

What the marriage issue boils down to is kinship. My partner is a legal stranger to me. Yes, I could have legal papers drawn up that might approximate some kinship rights, but people don't realize the time and expense involved in something like that. Why should I (or anyone) have to hire a lawyer and spends thousands (yes, thousands) of dollars, when I could just go to the court house and pay $100 for a marriage license?

Why should we set up some sort of patchwork "separate but supposedly equal" system of civil unions or domestic partnerships when the system we have now (marriage) works just fine? To accommodate some people's religious sensibilities?

It's religion that needs to get out of the business of civil marriage, not the other way around.

As a gay person, I just don't get exactly why gay people would want to get married. But, then again, I tend to have a romantic view of the sexual outlaw (I mean, isn't that part of why some gay men identify with Stevie? Maybe it's just me.).

I want to get married because I want my partner to be my legal kin, with all the legal rights that entails. As it is, my crazy mother and my religious nutjob brother and his harpy wife, none of whom I've seen nor spoken to in years (and if I ever see any of them again, it'll be too soon), have more legal ties to me than the man I've shared my life with for the past 6 years.

Anyway, consequently, I would think there are some gay people, not to mention gay-supporting people, who don't say gay marriage should be made legal.

That's a rather silly statement. So because some gay people and gay supporters think all gay people should be "sexual outlaws," I should be denied the right to the legal protection of marriage for my relationship?

Back in the day, gay intellectuals used to argue that marriage was a patriarchal institution.

Yes, they argued this 30-40 years ago, when things were, um...very different for gay people. To say the least.

I guess fashions have changed,

You guess? Sweetie, that's been changing for at least the past 20 years. Probably longer.

but I don't think all gay people have to follow those fashions.

No, and neither should we all be forced to be "sexual outlaws" because of some people's romantic notions of '70s drug-fueled "free love."

[HejiraNYC]

^^ I agree.

I think it's tempting to say that Rick Santorum is merely just poison to GLBT. Yes, he is a monster in that regard, but holy f***, his positions on all kinds of private and civil matters are just astoundingly nonsensical. I mean, it's so bad that you couldn't make up a character like Rick Santorum- that would be too much of a stretch of the imagination... but then again, anyone who has watched the most recent season of Dexter could see the parallels between he and the "Doomsday Killer." It's one thing for such an ignorant neanderthal to vie for presidential nomination. But it's another thing for him to actually garner a major following, which really makes me wonder about humankind. Really, America? Do you want to go back to the Salem Witch Trials? Do you want women to stay at home in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant because they're too "emotional" to make critical decisions in the workplace? Do you want to throw out all of the ultrasound machines and ban abortions so that the country is awash with a sudden bolus of retarded babies? Who's going to take care of all of them? Can the U.S. sustain policies that call for unchecked/unmitigated procreation while at the same time slashing budgets for education, welfare and health entitlements while calling for lower taxes on corporations and the rich?

[APerfectLie]

Can the U.S. sustain policies that call for unchecked/unmitigated procreation while at the same time slashing budgets for education, welfare and health entitlements while calling for lower taxes on corporations and the rich?

This is probably the best question ever asked.

[markolas]

^^ I agree.

I think it's tempting to say that Rick Santorum is merely just poison to GLBT. Yes, he is a monster in that regard, but holy f***, his positions on all kinds of private and civil matters are just astoundingly nonsensical.

Oh, absolutely. Maybe I'm being naive, but if he gets the nom, I'm betting he'll bomb in the general even worse than McCain/Palin did. The majority of people in the U.S. are very much pro-choice, even Republicans (by that I mean the average Republican voter, not their demagogue leadership), and once he starts talking about birth control being evil, he'll be branded as a kook pretty quickly. I still think the average American isn't that familiar with him yet.

Also, I don't think people realize just how much social media has changed the way political issues play out in the public sphere (or how it's changed just about everything, but especially this). Remember the Susan G. Komen Foundation? That whole debacle was largely fueled by people posting and sharing via Facebook. And Rick Perry's "Brokeback Mountain" campaign ad on YouTube?

Wait until the general election (if Santorum is nominated) when he starts throwing this crap around. Everybody and his uncle will be hearing about via FB, Twitter, e-mail, and YouTube. The '08 election happened just as all this was taking off. Politicians can't break wind anymore without everyone on the planet hearing (literally!).

[bucklind17]

Can someone explain what this means, other than "Rick Santorum doesn't actually understand how contraception works"?

Moderator: “So you spoke about the dangers of contraception. Can you talk about why contraceptives are dangerous?”

Santorum: “What we are seeing is a problem in our culture with respect to children being raised by children, children being raised out of wedlock, and the economic impact and the impact on society.”

Perhaps, to eliminate children from having children, we should encourage they use contraception so they don't get pregnant at ALL and don't have to decide whether or not they need an abortion, because no matter what, they're gonna have sex. Throw the pill and some condoms and some Nuva rings at these kids if that's your concern!

[Macfanforever]

I dont know much about him.But this will be very interesting.

[David]

For the record, I have absolutely zero issues with fiscal conservatism.If it were actually being practiced anywhere in "party politics über alles" Washington, we'd all have a chance to judge its effectiveness.

The party of personal liberty wants to roll back women's rights.The "party of personal liberty" can call itself that all it wants, but saying so doesn't by any stretch make it true.

The Republicans are largely the party of crony capitalism (bestowing political favors on friends irrespective of qualifications), corporatism (enormous sums of public money used to subsidize vast industries, like oil & farming), religious inculcation (encouraging exhortative lessons on creationism & intelligent design in public schools), & abrogations of rights & responsibilities of privacy & choice (paying people to get pregnant via the child tax credit, or issuing legal decrees for who gets to marry).

The Dems play these games, too, by the way, just in case anyone hadn't noticed. Sometimes the details change, but the principles are the same.

Louie, you might be interested in the Modern Whig Party (http://www.modernwhig.org/). It may have no success in elections, but it's a nice change of pace from the two-party continuum (same game, different pieces).

[WildHeart69]

If Santorum was a decent guy, we wouldnt have voted him out of office here in PA. The guy is crazy and a crook and I cant believe how well he is doing in the polls despite his track record. JMHO

[PenguinHead]

It's not God's Wrath I worry about , it is the Wrath of his/her Followers.

Agreed! I have faith, but I live by facts.

"Family values" are not exclusive.

If you are against gay marriage, simply don't have one.

If you are against abortion, don't ever get one.

If you are against women's rights and contraception, you're an idiot.

The separation of church and state is a beautiful thing.

[Travis]

I rarely speak politics but I feel that my eyes have been open to a lot of things this past year. The issues have been there but I’ve become more aware of things and have started to ask questions. It’s never too late right? Personally, I like Ron Paul. I’m still learning more about him but overall, I like what I’ve seen and heard. He seems to be completely genuine when he speaks and I find him incredibly smart. The man also knows his history. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him stumped by any question he is asked, nor has he flip flopped so many times the way Romney has. I’m a registered democrat and I’ve always voted that way but I’m seriously considering voting for Paul in the MD primary. One thing I think is frightening is Obama’s signing of the NDAA act. I don’t think most people even know about it. It’s just another example of our rights slowly being stripped away from us, the very thing Ron Paul has been talking about for years.

[KarmaContestant]

I am astounded at the support Santorum has received. He's a loon. A nut. A buffoof, complete and totally. Ultimately, he is terrifying. An American who wants to be Ayatollah.

Says Santorum:

President Obama wants people to go to college because he's a snob. Says the guy with three degrees. :rolleyes:

Contraception is "not okay". Really? I can only assume he means condoms as well. :rolleyes: Anne Rice said it best:

I think that this obsession with pelvic politics on the part of Protestants and Catholics together, I think it is their doom that they’re spelling with this because people today have to plan their families. Nobody in America can have thirteen kids like my great-grandmother. It’s not possible. When the churches refuse to help people face the dilemmas of their time, when they turned away, when the Catholic Church wouldn’t even OK the pill people just had to ignore them. I know my great-grandmother had thirteen children, my grandmother had nine, my father had five, and I have two. This is the reality, as you know, when you’re sitting there facing what it means to have a child. I mean, in bringing that child up and to prepare that child for life. And then I think about my father and his eight brothers and sisters were scrambling around in two rooms. Today, they would be taken away by the state – I hate to say it, I’m not for the state taking people away, but probably they would be. Because they would be considered undernourished, under medicated, under-cared-for, undereducated, everything. And, I don’t know, for these churches not to recognize that this is what these people were facing. I’ll tell you what did it more than anything else in the twentieth century that sealed their downfall. It wasn’t the women’s movement; it was the rise of the child as a person. The twentieth century really saw the beginning of pediatrics, child labor laws, juvenile courts, identity of the teenager, and an interest in the child as a person. And that was new – that had never happened in history. For about three hundred years we’ve had children romanticized and people writing about children and feeling sorry for them and trying to make things better, but it really culminated in the twentieth century in actual laws that protected children from exploitation. And the Churches just really didn’t see that coming. They put everything they had behind the patriarchal family. They opposed child labor laws because they thought it interfered with the family’s right to have little Joey pick blackberries on the farm. You know?

Separation of church and state "was not our founder's vision" and makes him want to throw up? This leads to the logical conclusion that Rick Santorum fully supports theocratic regimes such as Iran and the Taliban. I'd like to ask him what other parts of our Constitution make him want to throw up - voting rights for women? Civil rights for non-white males? One can only wonder.

[ButterCookie]

I've read less about this guy than I have about Quantum Physics and he still makes me want to throw sharp objects at his head.

[TrueFaith77]

I rarely speak politics but I feel that my eyes have been open to a lot of things this past year. The issues have been there but I’ve become more aware of things and have started to ask questions. It’s never too late right? Personally, I like Ron Paul. I’m still learning more about him but overall, I like what I’ve seen and heard. He seems to be completely genuine when he speaks and I find him incredibly smart. The man also knows his history. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him stumped by any question he is asked, nor has he flip flopped so many times the way Romney has. I’m a registered democrat and I’ve always voted that way but I’m seriously considering voting for Paul in the MD primary. One thing I think is frightening is Obama’s signing of the NDAA act. I don’t think most people even know about it. It’s just another example of our rights slowly being stripped away from us, the very thing Ron Paul has been talking about for years.

I think Ron Paul would offer the best contrast to Obama.

[HomerMcvie]

I think Ron Paul would offer the best contrast to Obama.

I pretty much agree. Although Paul is unelectable, as is Gingrich(sp- too lazy to make certain).

I've read that people seem to think that Romney can't win, because he's too close to the middle of the road(not far enough away from Obama policies), and that Santorum is the one that will unite the Republican party, and is the only one that can beat Obama.
I disagree completely. Santorum has shown himself to be a nut job, and I feel he's the one who will make the reasonable Republicans turn tail and run, at least for this election. I personally think that Romney is the only one who stands a chance...

The Republican Party needs to get off the religion/abortion/contraception/gay marriage bandwagon. It's freaking 2012, for god's sake.

[KarmaContestant]

I pretty much agree. Although Paul is unelectable, as is Gingrich(sp- too lazy to make certain).

I've read that people seem to think that Romney can't win, because he's too close to the middle of the road(not far enough away from Obama policies), and that Santorum is the one that will unite the Republican party, and is the only one that can beat Obama.
I disagree completely. Santorum has shown himself to be a nut job, and I feel he's the one who will make the reasonable Republicans turn tail and run, at least for this election. I personally think that Romney is the only one who stands a chance...

The Republican Party needs to get off the religion/abortion/contraception/gay marriage bandwagon. It's freaking 2012, for god's sake.

Well said.

I won't vote for any Republican, ever, as long as they are the 'official' party of bigotry and zealotry.

And besides, -in my opinion- Obama has actually done a great job and facilitated a lot of needed reforms - credit card/banking/mortgage, and health care to name a precious few. The health care reform is very near and dear to me as an HIV+ man. I can't get medical coverage from anyone other than an employer right now, which means I have to work in crappy corporate jobs that slowly drain away my soul if I'd like to, you know, stay alive. Once the provision kicks in that prevents me from being denied or charged unfairly over a pre-existing condition, I can actually go and work somewhere that I like, doing something I enjoy, like working at a garden center or a local bookstore. The money isn't important - it's being happy every day when you wake up that really makes life sweet.

That said, I -do- like Ron Paul, but his desire to dismantle the Dept. of Education, Dept. of the Interior, and the Federal Reserve in favor of a gold standard that is unworkable in this day and age with the size of our economy puts him too far over to the radical-right for me to take him seriously. The gold standard was a failure, and there simply isn't enough gold in the world to support the everyday workings of America's economic needs. And besides, I happen to enjoy our National Parks.

[GypsySorcerer]

<a href="http://tinypic.com?ref=141s481" target="_blank"><img src="http://i39.tinypic.com/141s481.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>

[HejiraNYC]

I pretty much agree. Although Paul is unelectable, as is Gingrich(sp- too lazy to make certain).

I've read that people seem to think that Romney can't win, because he's too close to the middle of the road(not far enough away from Obama policies), and that Santorum is the one that will unite the Republican party, and is the only one that can beat Obama.
I disagree completely. Santorum has shown himself to be a nut job, and I feel he's the one who will make the reasonable Republicans turn tail and run, at least for this election. I personally think that Romney is the only one who stands a chance...

The Republican Party needs to get off the religion/abortion/contraception/gay marriage bandwagon. It's freaking 2012, for god's sake.

Don't let the smooth taste fool you. If Mitt Romney was not a corporate silver fox type (full head of perfectly coiffed hair, square jaw, white as snow) and instead looked like someone like, oh, Ron Paul, you would laugh at him (like many people laugh at Ron Paul). The guy is an out-of-touch, hypocritical, indecisive, uncharming, shapeshifting, fumphering buffoon that also happens to be an ardent follower of a religion that many consider to be a cult. He just happens to look very presidential. As much as I hate to admit it, as WRONG as he is on all of the issues, and as insane as he may be, at least Rick Santorum actually has strong convictions about the B.S. spewing out of his pie hole. And the Republicans lately seem to be more about principle than actually, um, winning elections and stuff.

Obama will easily slay any of these nitwits at the presidential debates.

[jwd]

I voted scary, but just slightly more than Obama!

[TrueFaith77]

Obama has zero chance of losing the presidency. Ergo: I wish Ron Paul would go against him. The anti-war Left has no voice. Those who despise the racism and arbitrary enforcement of vice laws (drugs, prostitution, etc.) have no voice. I'm no economics expert (my best friend forever IS getting his doctorate in Economics--and he supports Paul of all Repub or Dem candidates, but that's not saying much :laugh: )--but even a skepticism about the role of the Fed has no voice. Those who believe that Wall Street was unfairly bailed out have no voice.

Remember that headline: "We're All Socialists Now"? That was bunk; the bailout means we ALL have invested IN Wall St--but Wall St has abused the favor of our money: "We're ALL Capitalists: Now What?" I want them to pay us back in dividends and get rid of this debt! (ok, that's NOT Ron Paul's plan :laugh: , but he was the only person against the bailout that put us in this situation).

[sparky]

This guy is one of the most destructive and horrifying politicians who ever walked the face of the modern age. Even more so considering the fact that he has actually won primaries. He won Kansas. It looks like he has won some other southern states. It boggles my mind that there are people in this country who are so utterly brainwashed by the cults they are in that they would vote for this backwoods, superstitious, pandering junkpile of an excuse of a human being.

For president? One of the greatest naysayers of middle east politics and he advocates a theocracy here? Are these people out of their minds?

He puts down Iran and Iraq yet thinks that he should govern the greatest, largest, and most powerful country in the history of western civilization based on a 2000 year old book written and rewritten by men and English kings? His wife used to be the mistress of an ABORTION DOCTOR. He is the largest and most steaming stinking pile of hypocritical excrement to have ever taken a seat on the US political stage.
The fact that anyone has ever cast a vote for him makes me want to vomit up three weeks of food. It makes me ashamed of my entire country on such a massive scale I am not quite sure what to do with my reaction.

He is evil and destruction personified. His beliefs are counter to everything this country was founded upon. This country was founded by people who sought to escape a government ruled by religion. A religion the king rewrote to suit his own sexual and political agenda. Sound familiar? Do his supporters not even READ? In the end, I suppose he only illuminates how truly polarized this country really is. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. There are the ignorant, and the indoctrinated by blind knee jerk Jesus cults. And then there are the rest of us.

For the record, I do not think any true Christian could possibly support him. None of my real Christian friends do. He panders. He plays to the lowest common denominator. The people who skim a bible, take it as a historical document, and then pick and choose buffet style as to which convenient things they will follow and which they will not follow love him. He has no idea what a true Christian is. He is the exact opposite. I suspect his cheap ass suits are made of mixed fibers.

This piece of putrid waste compares gay relationships to bestiality.

Seriously?

He will end up on the compost heap of people who opposed interracial marriage. What scares me is that so much of our population agrees with him. In ten years, our entire country will look back in horror that such a negative and primitive voice ever had support in our country. I hope it happens before I die. We would be better off electing Hitler than this full bore Inquisition puddle of political bottom feeding garbage. What a spectacular humiliation for our entire country. We should be shamed he made it this far. I certainly am.

[jbrownsjr]

I believe that the govt. and the church should have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

If you want to worship God in your own way and make rules about people's sexual orientation or women rights or any other hot debate; then do it in your own church.

Otherwise, all people (men and women) should have equal rights under the law. And you are also free to worship and practice in any church you want. That's your freedom.

[TrueFaith77]

His beliefs are counter to everything this country was founded upon. This country was founded by people who sought to escape a government ruled by religion. A

FIXED: "This country was founded by people who sought escape from a religion ruled by government."

[cliffdweller]

<a href="http://tinypic.com?ref=141s481" target="_blank"><img src="http://i39.tinypic.com/141s481.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>

LOVE it. :thumbsup:

[markolas]

I hope the 3 people in this poll who said they're supporters are on my ignore list. I know at least one of them is. The other two would be if I knew who they were. Anyone who supports this guy is loathsome and not someone I want anything to do with.

[iamnotafraid]

We would be better off electing Hitler than this full bore Inquisition puddle of political bottom feeding garbage.

Hitler...?

I would invite anyone to read through this
thread with an open mind and find the hate
speech. And then ask yourself, which side
did it come from?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I rest my case.

[HejiraNYC]

I hope the 3 people in this poll who said they're supporters are on my ignore list. I know at least one of them is. The other two would be if I knew who they were. Anyone who supports this guy is loathsome and not someone I want anything to do with.

I support Santorum only because I know he will lose badly against Obama. But there is also a hopelessly optimistic part of me that believes that Santorum is a referendum on American values- that a Rick Santorum candidacy would be like holding up a magnifying mirror to us all. What are we really about as a country? Are we really a country founded upon false dogma, fearmongering, lies and hate speech? Do people truly believe that an anti-intellectual hypocrite who believes in removing freedoms from minorities and integrating religion- a single religion (Catholicism) - into the charter for ruling the country is somehow compatible with American values? I would like to think that, as dumb as Americans are in general, they will eventually realize that they are inadvertently being lured into agreeing with economic policies that are antithetical to their own best interests by focusing obsessively on red herring social issues that have nothing to do with their own prosperity. In 2004, it was all about the gays. In 2008 it was all about "OMG, Obama is black and a Muslim!" In 2012 it's all about the gays again... oh, and the "prostitutes," i.e., women who use contraception. Perhaps Americans will finally wake up to all of the lies they've been fed for the past 12 years... One could only hope!

[markolas]

Perhaps Americans will finally wake up to all of the lies they've been fed for the past 12 years... One could only hope!

Oh, sweetie...

Yes, you are an optimist. Of course, that's coming from someone who, just the other day, was advocating for mandatory euthanasia for everyone at birth, since we all get sick and die anyway.

[HejiraNYC]

Hitler...?

I would invite anyone to read through this
thread with an open mind and find the hate
speech. And then ask yourself, which side
did it come from?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I rest my case.

Hate speech from Rick Santorum:

“I have a problem with homosexual acts… I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does…" - April 23, 2003

" That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”

Rick Santorum equating "homosexual acts" with bigamy, polygamy, bestiality and incest. Yes, Rick, it is a slippery slope! Why stop at incest? Murder, rape, locust swarms, global warming... yes, all of that because of "homosexual acts." :rolleyes: Again, all he does is LIE, LIE and LIE some more... and indeed, if you say something enough times, people start believing it!


"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." - campaign stop in Iowa January 2012

Really? He doesn't want to make black people's lives better? He pretty much just stated that black people are lazy and living on the public dole. Hateful? No way! :rolleyes:

"Women are too emotionally weak for combat..." January 2012

Self-explanatory.

So in summary, Rick Santorum hates gays (because they undermine society!), hates blacks (because they're lazy!) and hates women (because they are weak!). America: you get the president you deserve.

[ButterCookie]

I'd like to see Rick Santorum carry and give birth to a baby.

We'll see who's emotionally weak then.

Edit: Can't a comedian come along and please do to him what Tina Fey did to Sarah Palin? Because every time I see this idiot's name, I just get so angry that my sarcasm switch flicks and I end up making myself sound backward. I have things I want to say about him but when I try I just turn to jelly.

[KarmaContestant]

FIXED: "This country was founded by people who sought escape from a religion ruled by government."

The Puritans weren't supportive of religious freedom for those who disagreed with them, either. Yes, they were persecuted - but they were equally willing to persecute as is evidenced by their actions here in the New World.

Our nations founders were smart men, and wrote our constitution as such so that government could operate without influence from the church (remember, at the time, the Vatican told Kings and Emperors how to run their nations). The Pope was the supreme ruler of Catholic Europe, and the founding fathers of the United States wanted to ensure that could NEVER happen here. No church would ever tell us what to do. At the same time, they wanted to ensure that people of all faiths were able to worship here however they chose without persecution from the government or from other faiths. In order for this to happen, religion MUST stay out of government - the very moment our government becomes occupied by religion is the very moment we actually lose our religious freedoms.

America must never become the Christian version of Iran, and men like Santorum only want an American theocracy.

Faith is personal, and has no place in our laws. Men like Rick Santorum are unsuitable for the Presidency.

[TrueFaith77]

^^I'm not sure what you mean about the Pope and how they wanted to make sure "that" would never happen here. I'm pretty sure that clause in the Constitution is in reference to the Church of England (ruled by the King). In other words, there would be no Church of America (ruled by the government or King).

If Santorum wanted a theocracy, that would be antithetical to Catholicism. And he's Catholic.... :shrug:


ETA:

Re: Santorum's gay-bestiality analogies. They are not only offensive, they are astonishingly lame. The sad thing is is that the time I saw him making these arguments was to counter college students' arguments stated thus: "Anyone should be able to marry anyone they want." Which was the perfect set up. Santorum won that argument, but only cuz his opponents were stupider than he is.

[KarmaContestant]

^^I'm not sure what you mean about the Pope and how they wanted to make sure "that" would never happen here. I'm pretty sure that clause in the Constitution is in reference to the Church of England (ruled by the King). In other words, there would be no Church of America (ruled by the government or King).

If Santorum wanted a theocracy, that would be antithetical to Catholicism. And he's Catholic.... :shrug:


You have a valid point since when Henry the 8th set himself as ruler of the new Church of England, the Anglican Church, he ended the separation that had existed between Church and State in England.

But also...It took 200 years to elect a Catholic President in this country. Why? Because Americans have been afraid of the Pope telling us what to do, through our leaders, since we were founded - hence John F. Kennedy's very famous speech about separation of church and state (the same speech that makes Santorum want to "throw up"). If you are familiar with the history of Europe following the fall of Rome, you'll know that the Vatican and the Pope in particular had near-compete and total control over political matters in Europe for almost 1500 years. This is one of the many reasons for the Protestant Reformation in northern Europe (which led to the Thiry Years War and the subsequent Peace of Augsburg, which effectively ended the political power of the Church, but which the Vatican refused to recognize). The whole reason the Church of England was founded was because Henry the 8th was tired of taking direction from the Pope and wanted to annul a marriage - not that he was any better, mind you, a tyrant is a tyrant no matter what faith he belongs to.

James Madison: "Practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both"

John F. Kennedy:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."

and then...

"I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same."

In other words, the office of the President is above being influenced by personal faith, and when a conflict does arise, he or she should resign. In that regard, Sntorum shouldn't even be running for any office, let alone the nation's highest.

[TrueFaith77]

John F. Kennedy:

and then...
"I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same."

In other words, the office of the President is above being influenced by personal faith, and when a conflict does arise, he or she should resign. In that regard, Sntorum shouldn't even be running for any office, let alone the nation's highest.

By what should a President (or person) be influenced? The Kennedy support for McCarthy (famously, over Alger Hiss) suggests, for example, that his "faith" induced values that were antithetical to Communism--or was that just plain old Patriotism more than Catholicism, or national interest not Catholicism. My point is: I don't know because I'm not in his head, maybe he was an automotan run by Daddy. And I would question how much Santorum would be influenced by the Vatican. He seems a bit more pro-war than the Pope.

[BombaySapphire3]

By what should a President (or person) And I would question how much Santorum would be influenced by the Vatican. He seems a bit more pro-war than the Pope.

Santorum invokes the teachings of the Catholic faith only when it is convenient to his particular platform.Catholicism does teach peace and John Paul 2 spoke out against the debacle that was the Iraqi war.To most Catholics " pro-life "also means anti death penalty which makes Santorum's myopic description of George W as the first "real Catholic president" patently absurd.I'd also point out that nearly 60% of Roman Catholics voted for Obama in 2008.If by some chance this pinhead ends up in the White House it could set Catholicism back in the US. as badly as the reign of Queen Mary Tudor did in England for the last few centuries.I would also argue that at least at the start of her reign her intentions were good..Santorum not so much.

[KarmaContestant]

By what should a President (or person) be influenced? The Kennedy support for McCarthy (famously, over Alger Hiss) suggests, for example, that his "faith" induced values that were antithetical to Communism--or was that just plain old Patriotism more than Catholicism, or national interest not Catholicism. My point is: I don't know because I'm not in his head, maybe he was an automotan run by Daddy. And I would question how much Santorum would be influenced by the Vatican. He seems a bit more pro-war than the Pope.

I had a great, if lengthy reply written up...but then we had happy hour in the office and I had a beer (and a cupcake) and then went back to my computer and shut it down without clicking the "submit reply" button...so it's gone. :laugh:

Oh well.

Essentially I just think the guy is far too concerned about the personal matters of other people, and these are issues that I feel have no place in politics.

But it makes for interesting discussion.

[TrueFaith77]

Santorum invokes the teachings of the Catholic faith only when it is convenient to his particular platform.Catholicism does teach peace and John Paul 2 spoke out against the debacle that was the Iraqi war.

Exactly. Thank you.

[markolas]

I support Santorum only because I know he will lose badly against Obama.

Well, I don't really count that as supporting him. I meant supporting as in "I agree with his ideas and want him to be president."

[sparky]

FIXED: "This country was founded by people who sought escape from a religion ruled by government."

If I want my posts fixed, I will fix them myself.

Regardless, you doubled the point I made. Religion and government do not mix.

They should stay far away from each other.

[sparky]

Hitler...?

I would invite anyone to read through this
thread with an open mind and find the hate
speech. And then ask yourself, which side
did it come from?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I rest my case.

Yes. Actually, I meant Hitler.

The way in which Hilter overtook and and dismantled the German government at the time of his election would be impossible considering the layout and protections in our constituition. Such a boffoon, as Hitler was, would be completely impotent in this modern age. Impotent. You like that? Considering Santorum's bent on having his nose buried in the crotches of every American whose sex lives he disapproves of and is obsessed with, I think it is quite apt.

Hitler, in spite of the immense destruction he wreaked upon Europe, was far inferior to Santorum in terms of his initial financial power base and his plan. At the core, Hitler was simply a Nationalist and a Racist. He didn't purport to have God on his side. He did not summon up supporters based on a shared belief in some religious sect. He siezed upon a countrywide resentment that mostly concerned the post WW1 agreements that took away German territory and levied enormous financial obligations against Germany. That resulted in a devastating depression and an utter collpase of the German economy. That part at least sounds familiar. Debt to China anyone? Held hostage to fuel companies anyone? Our country's finances and debts are worldwide JOKE. That's one of the reasons the Tea Party exists.

But back to my Hitler reference. I stand by it. Take the end result of Hiltler's stunning rise to European dominance out of the issue. He was merely a clever con artist who had good timing and a nasty mind. His modern equivalent is a wacko skinhead with short man issues and a bad facial hair problem. He was not a religious zealot. Such animals are far more dangerous. The middle east is ruled my mostly just such zealots. And they are our major "enemies" in these wars we have been waging since Kuwait.

Do we really want a president who is of the same stripe as those zealots in the middle east? We want to become the enemy? That is who Santorum is. A man who wants to rule this country with the bible as his guide. And evidently the Pope as his right hand man.
It is preposterous.

His latest idiot move is saying he'd ban pornography. LOL. What would happen to Utah? The biggest consumer of internet porn in the country. Those poor Mormons would lose it.

The man is an idiot. A deluded idiot who is pandering to a scared and diminishing group of people. And he is the highest level hypocrite to have been on the national stage since who knows what. He makes Newt "I dumped my cancer ridden wife on her hospital deathbed to take up with my secretary" Gingrich look like Mary Poppins.

My computer has been in the shop so I have not been able to comment since my initial post on this but I find it shocking that no one has commented upon the fact that his wife was the former mistress of a prominent abortion doctor. Mistress. Not wife. Whore outside the bonds of holy matrimony. An abortion doctor who actually also happened to DELIVER her when she was born. One who was about 40 years her senior. Makes Celine Dion's marriage look normal. Now she's a good Christian wife. You can't make this trash up, folks.

And people vote for this guy. What the hell?

That is the scary part. That's how dumb much of our country is.

[louielouie2000]

So what are everyone's thoughts on Santorum's withdrawal from the race? It honestly caught me off guard... I figured he'd continue the fight with Romney to the bitter end like Hillary Clinton did with Obama in '08. If Santorum left the race because of his daughter's health, and because his family asked him to do such, I'd find it incredibly honorable. But I have a sneaking suspicion this is a coldly calculated move: Santorum is being groomed to be Romney's running mate. It'd make perfect sense: having Santorum on the ticket would appease diehard conservatives who aren't convinced by Romney. Santorum being on the ticket would also help differentiate a potential Romney administration from Obama's. I wholeheartedly believe America would not toss Obama out of the White House in favor of Romney solely because there's not enough policy differences between the two to warrant a change of guard. Americans do not like to renege on their choice of Presidents unless it's absolutely necessary.

[KarmaContestant]

So what are everyone's thoughts on Santorum's withdrawal from the race? It honestly caught me off guard... I figured he'd continue the fight with Romney to the bitter end like Hillary Clinton did with Obama in '08. If Santorum left the race because of his daughter's health, and because his family asked him to do such, I'd find it incredibly honorable. But I have a sneaking suspicion this is a coldly calculated move: Santorum is being groomed to be Romney's running mate. It'd make perfect sense: having Santorum on the ticket would appease diehard conservatives who aren't convinced by Romney. Santorum being on the ticket would also help differentiate a potential Romney administration from Obama's. I wholeheartedly believe America would not toss Obama out of the White House in favor of Romney solely because there's not enough policy differences between the two to warrant a change of guard. Americans do not like to renege on their choice of Presidents unless it's absolutely necessary.

I think it's about time Santorum dropped out.

Honestly, he and Romney have said really horrible things about each other - things that in my mind make it impossible for them to reconcile and run on the same ticket.

Good riddance, I say. Santorum has a mindset from the past; he wants to live in the America of 1912, and it's just not possible to go back in time. The Republicans seem to forget over and over and over that the whole world is moving forward, and if we don't move forward, then we stagnate and fail and lose.

Other Western nations are providing free to almost-free healthcare for their citizens. They're paying for a large portion of higher education. They're putting more emphasis on human rights and family life. As a result, America is being outpaced in so many areas and our economy is suffering greatly. A higher educated workforce attracts business. A nation of healthy people, who don't miss work, and have more education will get better jobs. This leads to more purchasing power, a strong middle class and a stronger economy overall.

Guys like Santorum think going to college makes you a snob and wants us all poking our teeth with straw as we beat our wives after a long day of working in the fields to support our 19 malnourished and ignorant children, while we pray for their health instead of taking them to a doctor. Good god, the guy needs to get a grip on reality.

[bluefox4000]

Santorum is so backward and scary.....to be honest......cynic that i can be. I said I would not put anything past Americans and would not have been surprised if he got the nod. So glad he's out. Good riddance.

Mick

[Sugar]

I think it had a bit to do with his daughter, but more to do with the fact that he was going to lose his home state.