Re: Rick Santorum
Feb 8th, 2012--.
Warning! The Esquire article contains multiple examples of profanity for those who might be offended by the F word.
--

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


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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
...
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.

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.