Rick Santorum

Mowich
Conservative
Avatar
#91
--

--.

Warning! The Esquire article contains multiple examples of profanity for those who might be offended by the F word.

--
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
+1
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Currently it's only the Muslim fundies that are terrorizing.

It's not the violence I'm speaking to. It's the bigoted, small minded mentality that's common to the three.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
+1
#93
Rick is the flavour of the week and Mit should not concern himself with these victories.
They are Midwest Bible Belt wins and the crowd is limited on the main stage of life.
Mind you Mit is no better, and Newt is a joke. These people are pandering to the extreme
right focus, and their message is about God, fear, and dominate others. The new wave
of Republicanism has thrown common sense out the window in favor of a dog and pony
show the like of which we have not seen in more than half a century.
Santorum is one of those bigots who hides behind the Lord, Mit tries to appeal to the moderate
crowd and the only way for him to do that is quit hanging out with the current Republican crowd.
The current state of the Republicans is not about conservative fiscal policy, it is about the
social conservative agenda to institute their version of Christianity and fundamentalist morals,
and enforce them on the general population. Have you noticed they start talking about money
and the next thing you know the nonsense starts about almost everything except fiscal issues.
What are the Republicans faced with?
Mit has a slim chance at best and some of the statements he has made will isolate him from
the mainstream American view of the world and he will not have the same opportunities against
Obama.
Newt is not electable, he is not much further ahead on like-ability than Pat Buchanan, and he is
not like able at all.
Rick Snatorum is one of those smiling Evangelicals because he has that religious agenda, that
Ace of Spades up his sleeve.
Of all of them Ron Paul is likely the only honest guy amongst them and his policy positions would
plunge America into the biggest financial crisis in decades.
America thrives on the war and weapons machines, to keep its economy going, after all it got rid
of its consumer manufacturing base in favor of attempting to develop a commerce and military
center for the world.
The fact is the manufacturing base left during the Republican years when Gilligan or George Bush
was at the helm. All I can say is God help us if any of this crop of Republicans is seated in the
Oval Office.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
+1
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Currently it's only the Muslim fundies that are terrorizing.

Really? Tell that to homosexuals and other "sinful" people.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
+1
#95
First of all I missed the message by Tonington and he is right to a large degree.
Obama is a conservative by Canadian standards. He was not intent of overturning
the conservative agenda, like Roosevelt was really a new deal conservative. He
was about getting the country out of the hole and not reforming the State as we
know it. Obama is not a socialist he is a moderate conservative with some liberal
tendencies and not many at that.
Clffy also had a good statement in concluding that the Evangelical right is behind
much of the bigotry against Obama. They will use anything to further their goals of
political domination of the American Agenda. The very people who should have
the morals to guide are using their self interest to dominate and that usually has a
very short shelf life. Joseph McCarthy was one of those people. The problem is
the amount of damage they do to society before their little reign of terror is over.
Personally I find very little difference between the Fundamentalist Christian agenda
and that of the fundamentalist Muslims. For both democracy is not even on their
radar political domination is the only prime factor.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
+1
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Currently it's only the Muslim fundies that are terrorizing.

Guess it depends on how you define terrorism.

--

--

--
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
+1 / -1
#97
Walter there are all kinds of terrorism. The so called Christians in America behave more like
terrorists on the human level than American Muslims. They are the masters of bully tactics and
they hide behind the Book of the Word to do their nasty deeds. They are not content with just
picking on the Gay community or any community that does not follow their belief system.
They attack other religions and groups that they feel might be a threat to them and their vision
of society. Some God they have that He needs defending by such a repulsive gang of political
thugs.
I am not saying this is indicative of all Christians, or even specific church groups but the
Evangelical movement has been out of touch with reality for nearly twenty years. Even the
Republican Party is plagued with them. The mainstream Republican is a fiscal conservative and
though I don't agree with them I respect them. The Evangelical Republicans have no regard for
any group except themselves. They also make the Republican Party itself look like a shill game
for their special interests.
Rick Santorum is a slick character I will give him that, and oh how he prays. Sometimes I think he
is really praying that he doesn't get caught at the game he plays, and his game is to put up a
sanctimonious front.
 
Walter
Avatar
+1
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

It's not the violence I'm speaking to. It's the bigoted, small minded mentality that's common to the three.

I find that in non-religious people, too. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot come to mind.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
Avatar
-1
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

I find that in non-religious people, too. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot come to mind.

So, you are comparing Romney, Santorum and the Newt to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Interesting! I agree that small minded bigots come in all shapes and colours, believers and nonbelievers.

Wally, if you don't like this comment, check out my last comment on the "what you want to hear in church" thread. You'll love that one.
 
coldstream
Avatar
#100
Rich Santorum is a Catholic.. which i normally associate with a more sophisticated, progressive and dirigist economic policies than the Evangelicals that make up the bulk of the Republican social conservatives.

But i took a look at his economic plan... which is at least sensible enough to see that the collapse of manufacturing is at the heart of the American economic decline (the other candidates are still lost in New Age Global 'information' and 'green' economic nonsense).. but offers nothing but the same old libertarian crap as a solution.

It's no different than the Calvinist dogma that makes up the 'small government' movement.. which sees prosperity as soley as product of the Grace of God.. poverty as the absence thereof.. and human, and especially government, agency as futile. It's a program ruled by pessimism and inertia.

He has proposed nothing to reverse American economic fortunes.. which can only be realized by rejecting Free Trade and Monetarism and re-regulating the financial and investment sectors.. and implementing a comprehensive plan to re-establish an integrated industrial economy. He won't be able to beat Obama without offering something constructive.

I have some sympathy for Santorum's social agenda. He might be right there, the moral collapse of the U.S. into one dominated by a culture of death.. abortion, euthenasia, homosexual affirmation, rampant breakdown of the family especially amongst the poor, drug and alcohol dependence.. and a disastrous collapse of fertility rates (Santorum has 6 children)... might the be at the core of its being unable to address its practical economic issues.

It's in a malaise (so are we!).. and not one candidate, Obama or the Republican contenders is proposing a realistic solution.
Last edited by coldstream; Feb 9th, 2012 at 01:50 PM..
 
Mowich
Conservative
Avatar
+2
#101


--

Karl Rove has a visceral reaction to the Clint Eastwood Chrysler commercial during the Super Bowl on Sunday. This led to a great many on air conversations about whether or not the commercial was, in fact, political -- not to mention excuses to run bits of the Chrysler commercial over and over again. Now, I would contend that all commercials carry underlying political messages. Commercials for easy-to-make dinners and the most absorbent paper towels carry messages about the roles we expect women to play in the household. Commercials for anti-depressants and allergy medications deliver messages about the nature of happiness and the ways in which we relate to our world and our environment, not to mention messages about our relationship to and dependence on the pharmaceutical industry. All commercials in general carry underlying messages about the importance of consumerism and serve as pro-capitalist propaganda. These political messages come through all the time, slipping under our radar.

The question we need to ask is not whether this ad was deliberately more political in content than other ads that we see every day. The question that must be addressed is why this ad so affected Karl Rove that he felt he must speak out against it; the answer to this question reveals more about Rove and the Republican party than it does about Chrysler or its two minutes of heart-warming, pro-industry salesmanship. The text of the commercial that so offended Mr. Rove's delicate sensibilities was about coming together as a nation. It referenced the rebirth of Detroit and the auto industry as a microcosm of the nation, as proof that people working together can accomplish great things.

Karl Rove, a powerful figure in the architecture of the modern Republican strategy, depends on polarization and animosity. The very thought that people can come together, can unify as a nation is anathema to the Rove doctrine. Rove and his cohorts do not believe in coming together, in compromise, in cooperation. They thrive on conflict. This political philosophy shows in every aspect of their discourse.

When non-Christians seek inclusion, the Republican politicos frame any conversation in terms of a war on religion. When gays seek equal rights, the right wing sees it as an attack on marriage. Multi-cultural studies become an assault on traditional American values. If one's base philosophy demands that any disagreement must be seen in terms of combative opposition, the very idea of coming together becomes not just distasteful but a direct attack on an ideological level.

Thus, it makes perfect sense that, in this case, Mr. Rove sees the political underpinnings of this particular advertisement very, very clearly. These political underpinnings sting. They strike him as powerfully as the sexist underpinnings of a Victoria's Secret ad strike a feminist, as powerfully as the underpinnings of the "Beef -- It's What's For Dinner" ads strike a committed vegan.

This leads me to the next questions we ought to be asking ourselves. Do we want to live in a nation whose critical thinking skills are so eroded that we are shocked to realize that the messages we receive every day actually contain messages? Do we want to live in a nation in which we are so inured to the messages with which we are inundated that it makes sense to vilify an advertisement simply for having a message that might be perceived and not just absorbed unconsciously? Do we want to live in a nation that sees the idea of cooperation and unity as inherently dangerous to the status quo?

Let's say it is halftime in America. How about this? When we get out there on the field, let's play the rest of this game with our eyes open.

--
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Big night for Rick.
--

Good job Rick! Go get 'em!
 
Tonington
Avatar
#103
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

Good job Rick! Go get 'em!

Rick -- in Maine, though not as bad as Newt. I guess he probably doesn't have the funds to be competetive in those smaller states. And Romney -- presidential straw poll.
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
Avatar
#104
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Why would you gleefully admit to being a fundamentalist?

Because the label doesn't matter. What matters is the truth. In fact, if I were to pick ANY belief system it only makes sense to strictly stick to the fundamentals. There's lots of people who want to add to the fundamental doctrine because they feel more comfortable with watered down message, and because they want a more inclusive religion. It's called legalism, and it's poison. Look no further than Catholicism for an example. Pray to the saints? Don't eat meat on Fridays? Confess to a priest? Get to heaven by "good works"?

Jesus Christ himself was a fundamentalist and it was because he hated this kind of legalism that he bumped heads with the religious leaders of his day. It's also why he said on the cross "it is FINISHED", because nothing needs to be added to his words or what he accomplished on the cross.

"I cannot endure false doctrine(legalism). Would you have me eat poisoned meat because it is served on the choicest of ware?" - Charles Spurgeon.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Rick -- in Maine, though not as bad as Newt. I guess he probably doesn't have the funds to be competetive in those smaller states. And Romney -- presidential straw poll.

How much money should I send Rick's campaign?
 
Tonington
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post


How much money should I send Rick's campaign?

Zero. Maybe just pray instead. He can accept that.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#106
Rick is a little weasel at best, he is one of those pro religion bullies that is doing great things
for the glory of the Lord and if you are not with him you are against him, as it were. The
shiny Jesus smile, you can see it a mile away on him. Like so many others the smile gives
them away. And the prayers they send up, what for? They are all praying they won't get caught.
I had a friend who was a strong believer, he was also a man that could charm the birds out
of the trees as it were. When he said in greeting, why come on in, God bless you, the one thing
you didn't do was look for your wallet, because he would know where it was if you know what I
mean.
He died a few years back and he was a mixture of good and not so good just like the rest of us,
but you couldn't make him a community leader anymore than Santorum should be made a
leader.
 
Liberalman
Avatar
+1
#107
Rick Santorum a social Conservative that would be Obama's choice for an easy win for the Democrats
 
TenPenny
Avatar
+1
#108
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

Because the label doesn't matter. What matters is the truth. In fact, if I were to pick ANY belief system it only makes sense to strictly stick to the fundamentals. There's lots of people who want to add to the fundamental doctrine because they feel more comfortable with watered down message, and because they want a more inclusive religion. It's called legalism, and it's poison. Look no further than Catholicism for an example. Pray to the saints? Don't eat meat on Fridays? Confess to a priest? Get to heaven by "good works"?

With ideas like that, one would assume that you did not go to church, since you would not want someone else interpreting things for you.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
Avatar
#109
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

How much money should I send Rick's campaign?

Oh NO!!! Rick is a false Christian Alley. He is a Catholic. Oh My God!!! What is the world coming to?
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

Good job Rick! Go get 'em!

I agree. A Santorum win would absolutely ensure Obama's reelection. The GOP has only one candidate who can beat Obama; the sleezeball called Mitt Romney.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#111
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

I find that in non-religious people, too. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot come to mind.

"I am and will always be a Catholic" ~ Hitler


Stalin ~ former seminarian

Pol Pot ~ Theravada Buddhist
 
Liberalman
Avatar
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

I agree. A Santorum win would absolutely ensure Obama's reelection. The GOP has only one candidate who can beat Obama; the sleezeball called Mitt Romney.

Sleezeball or not Mitt has the know how to bring back jobs to north America and if there is a lot of jobs in America, Canada enjoys the spill over opportunities.
 
wulfie68
No Party Affiliation
#113
Santorum seems to be going out of his way to shoot himself in the foot. His comments about female soldiers being too emotional for combat (coming from someone who has never donned a uniform) have really POed female vets (like my wife)... and it just keeps adding on. If he DOES win, it will be a confirmation of the Republican party as the home of old white men and pretty much no one else.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

Santorum seems to be going out of his way to shoot himself in the foot. His comments about female soldiers being too emotional for combat (coming from someone who has never donned a uniform) have really POed female vets (like my wife)... and it just keeps adding on. If he DOES win, it will be a confirmation of the Republican party as the home of old white men and pretty much no one else.

Yep. Wifey calls him a despotic, patriarchal troglodyte.
 
Just the Facts
Free Thinker
Avatar
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

Santorum seems to be going out of his way to shoot himself in the foot. His comments about female soldiers being too emotional for combat (coming from someone who has never donned a uniform) have really POed female vets (like my wife)...

He may be going out of his way to shoot himself in the foot, I don't know, but I do know that he didn't say female soldiers were too emotional for combat. I found that pretty clear in the interview, and he indeed clarified that (as it apparently needed to be clarified for those looking for an excuse to demean him) later. He was talking about the emotional dynamics between soldiers, not of women specifically. I didn;t think that needed clarification.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Yep. Wifey calls him a despotic, patriarchal troglodyte.

Part of the new civil discourse Obama's been promising?
 
Tonington
Avatar
#116
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

He may be going out of his way to shoot himself in the foot, I don't know, but I do know that he didn't say female soldiers were too emotional for combat. I found that pretty clear in the interview, and he indeed clarified that (as it apparently needed to be clarified for those looking for an excuse to demean him) later. He was talking about the emotional dynamics between soldiers, not of women specifically. I didn;t think that needed clarification.

No, he didn't say they were too emotional. He said straight men are too emotional.
Rick Santorum reiterated on NBC’s Today show yesterday that he does not believe women should be fighting in the U.S. military. The problem is not with the women, he says. The problem is that the men in the U.S. military might not be able to focus on the mission if women are in danger.

...

Anyone who is in a foxhole with bullets flying and missiles exploding, who then stops to consider whether fallen comrades are male or female and what their sexual preferences are instead of focusing on their mission, is not someone who should be defending our freedom.
--

Who the hell would stop to think about gender or sexual preferences of the person next to them with "bullets flying and missiles exploding." So what he really is saying is that the US Armed Forces are not sufficiently trained to keep their mind on the bullets whizzing past their heads. Correction, the straight men in the US Armed Forces are not sufficiently trained.

Obama would walk all over this guy in an election.
 
Just the Facts
Free Thinker
+1
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Obama would walk all over this guy in an election.

Obama and whose corpsemen?
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#118
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

No, he didn't say they were too emotional. He said straight men are too emotional. Rick Santorum reiterated on NBC’s Today show yesterday that he does not believe women should be fighting in the U.S. military. The problem is not with the women, he says. The problem is that the men in the U.S. military might not be able to focus on the mission if women are in danger.
...
Anyone who is in a foxhole with bullets flying and missiles exploding, who then stops to consider whether fallen comrades are male or female and what their sexual preferences are instead of focusing on their mission, is not someone who should be defending our freedom.
Rick Santorum says no to women and gays in U.S. military | Washington Times Communities
Who the hell would stop to think about gender or sexual preferences of the person next to them with "bullets flying and missiles exploding." So what he really is saying is that the US Armed Forces are not sufficiently trained to keep their mind on the bullets whizzing past their heads. Correction, the straight men in the US Armed Forces are not sufficiently trained.
Obama would walk all over this guy in an election.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Then that should be who you want as the republican delegate.
 
Tonington
#119
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

Obama and whose corpsemen?

Yes, Obama and his team would --.

Quote: Originally Posted by pgsView Post

Then that should be who you want as the republican delegate.

If I was Obama, absolutely.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

Sleezeball or not Mitt has the know how to bring back jobs to north America and if there is a lot of jobs in America, Canada enjoys the spill over opportunities.




Really? Are you talking about the man who improved his company's efficiency by cutting jobs? There is only one real way to significantly create more jobs in the US and that is to get the middle class spending again. Somehow I don't see Romney being the least bit interested in doing a thing for the average American.

--
 

Similar Threads

84
Rick Rypien
by Kakato | Aug 21st, 2011
0
Rick Mercer Blog
by #juan | Aug 24th, 2006
no new posts