toldailytopic: Santorum shocks everyone and vaults to the front of the race. Thoughts

[annabenedetti]

If I were a Gingrich campaign strategist Plain

:crackup:

Even though she's ragged on him some in campaigning, I think Bachmann will likely endorse Santorum, and in doing so, be hoping for a VP offer. I don't think she'd get it, but who knows. Just my meandering speculation.

You may well be right. We'll see if your prediction comes true.

Yeah, it'll be interesting. I haven't really been thinking much about it until today. But after the Iowa results, it jumped out... All of the candidates really need some help in establishing a clear lead. Or in Gingrich's case, reestablishing himself as viable.

I think Iowa surprised more than a few. Maybe even Santorum himself!

 

[elohiym]

If it is anything like "Politics according to elo" it is bound to be entertaining and filled with conspiracy theories if nothing else. :chuckle:

It's not a conspiracy theory that our government is controlled by a plutocracy.

I'm sorry you haven't yet realized the situation you are in.

Keep voting. :thumb:

 

[some other dude]

Whenever elo is questioned on his foolish statements, he waves the "I know I'm a fool" white flag:

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

The same gospel Paul delivered to the nations.

Interesting. You don't follow the Gospel of Jesus?

Romney doesn't believe it.

Debatable

Santorum doesn't believe it.

Debatable

You don't believe it

bald-faced lie

 

[Town Heretic]

some other dude queries:

Town replies:

No. I didn't reply to the bit where you offered an insultingly juvenile reference to our Vice President followed by inquiry. Given that intro there was no reason to suspect you had any interest beyond a pause to launch whatever additional insult you had in mind else...

You were less happy with Palin because you think she hurt McCain's chances with independents?

Supra.

 

[Christ's Word]

So does the U.S. Constitution. Once you agree to ignore the Constitution to do what you want to do, anyone else can do it to do anything they want, to you.

The Constitution matters, and Paul is very correct that returning the matter to the states would save thousands of lives right now.

But it would remove some power from the federal government, which is, of course, blasphemy to you.

This is no small issue. I have always been pro life without exception, and yet marveled at how people on both sides of this issue want a.........

QUICK FEDERAL FIX!!!!!!!

THAT IS NOT HOW OUR SYSTEM WAS INTENDED TO WORK!

THE POWER LIES WITH THE PEOPLE, AND THEY NEED TO TAKE IT BACK, AT THE GRASS ROOTS STATE LEVEL WE NEED STATES TO RATIFY A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DEFINE LIFE.

Then each state needs to develop its own laws outlawing abortion. Thumbing down a Federal law passed by congress is a long term loser. People need to stop looking for the addict like 'Fed Quick Fix' and build a state by state level foundation for a long term solution that carries the weight and backing of a moral people.

 

[some other dude]

Town posted:

But I don't know I'd have been any happier with McCain and I know I would be less so with Palin.

some other dude queried:

Name one thing that silver-foot Joe has done in the last three years that Sarah would have mangled.

Town replied:

Right. Her inclusion on the ticket hurt McCain with a great many independents.

some other dude responded:

You were less happy with Palin because you think she hurt McCain's chances with independents?

A confused Town comes back with:

No. I didn't reply to the bit where you offered an insultingly juvenile reference to our President

You thought "silver foot Joe" was a reference to Bammy? :freak:

 

[PureX]

This is no small issue. I have always been pro life without exception, and yet marveled at how people on both sides of this issue want a.........

QUICK FEDERAL FIX!!!!!!!

THAT IS NOT HOW OUR SYSTEM WAS INTENDED TO WORK!

THE POWER LIES WITH THE PEOPLE, AND THEY NEED TO TAKE IT BACK, AT THE GRASS ROOTS STATE LEVEL WE NEED STATES TO RATIFY A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DEFINE LIFE.

Then each state needs to develop its own laws outlawing abortion. Thumbing down a Federal law passed by congress is a long term loser. People need to stop looking for the addict like 'Fed Quick Fix' and build a state by state level foundation for a long term solution.

The life and death of human fetuses is not a "states issue". It's a national moral issue. We must decide as a nation what we believe is appropriate, and make it the law of the land. Just as we did with slavery, women's rights, and other such major moral issues.

The way to achieve this is to discuss and debate the issue until a consensus is finally achieved. Not by trying to stack the courts and forcing the other side to comply with our demands.

 

[drbrumley]

The life and death of human fetuses is not a "states issue". It's a national moral issue. We must decide as a nation what we believe is appropriate, and make it the law of the land. Just as we did with slavery, women's rights, and other such major moral issues.

The way to achieve this is to discuss and debate the issue until a consensus is finally achieved. Not by trying to stack the courts and forcing the other side to comply with our demands.

That's right, it is a national issue. It is up the federal government to say life begins at conception. Then the states will handle the enforcement of such a law.....

 

[Town Heretic]

...You thought "silver foot Joe" was a reference to Bammy? :freak:

No. It should have read Vice President. Didn't catch my omission.

Else, you still misapplied the response as noted and it appears I called the point and practice.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Interview Question: Do you think that homosexuality is a sin? That's a decision not for a politician but for someone who is a cleric. I'm not in that line of work. There are a lot of things in society that are quote “sins” or moral wrongs that we don’t make illegal. Just because something is immoral or something that is wrong doesn’t mean that it should be illegal and that the federal government or any level of government should involve themselves in. The case that I was talking about that started the controversy – the case was Lawrence v. Texas – I said if I was a state legislator in the state of Texas dealing with the Texas sodomy law, I would have voted against it because I don’t think that that’s something that the state should involve itself in. - Rick Santorum

Santorum Flip-Flops On States Criminalizing Homosexuality

Notice his response in the video when asked if homosexuality is a sin. Time for your double standard to shine!

Santorum on Homosexuality

Thank you. I'll say it again: If you want to find the dirt on a supposed conservative candidate, just ask a liberal.

Based on the youtube.com video that you've presented, it appears that Rick Santorum has changed from his stance as a US Senator from PA, when the sodomite loving left HATED him for comments like these:

"The Santorum controversy arose over Republican former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's statements about homosexuality and the right to privacy. In an interview with the Associated Press (AP) taped on April 7, 2003,[1] and published April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.

Many Democratic politicians, gay rights advocates, the Log Cabin Republicans, and progressive commentators condemned the statements as homophobic and bigoted,[1] while some conservatives supported Santorum's beliefs.[2] The controversy carried over into Santorum's presidential campaign in 2011"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy_regarding_homosexuality

I'll be keeping a closer eye on Santorum's supposed social conservative stances before I give him my vote.

 

[kmoney]

Straight of Hormos

When I first saw this I read it as "Straight of homos" :flamer: :chuckle:



..........................


This has turned into quite a thread. lain:

I'm surprised to see Santorum make that comment about being OK with a state legalizing abortion. I didn't think that was his position at all. I'm still somewhat skeptical about it.

It's enchanting to see people still criticize Paul for his abortion strategy. :doh:

 

[some other dude]

No. It should have read Vice President. Didn't catch my omission.

Well, it certainly makes you look less befuddled that way. :idunno:


It looks like you're arguing that, for whatever reason, you missed answering the question I asked. Let's try again.


You said "But I don't know I'd have been any happier with McCain and I know I would be less so with Palin."

Palin was running for VP, so it appears that either the current Vice President Joe Biden has done some incredible work that you think Palin couldn't have, or, more likely, Joe has done very little and you think Sarah would have screwed up even that.

Or is there an alternative that I'm missing?

 

[kmoney]

Read the Roe decision. You will see the Court states that if a fetus was declared a person under law, their decision would be unconstitutional. Therefore, even the Roe court agrees that abortion is murder.

Furthermore, the majority of states in the U.S. have fetal homicide laws. Logically, abortion cannot be legal in those states without the law being hypocritical. There cannot be two classes of people, one who has a right to murder unborn children and one who does not.

The double standard in these various laws has always confused and frustrated me.

 

[elohiym]

When I first saw this I read it as "Straight of homos" :flamer: :chuckle:

That would be an oxymoron. :chuckle:

 

[kmoney]

When Bachmann and Perry drop out I wonder how that will effect the race? It seems to me Bachmann's supporters will go to Santorum and Perry's will probably split between Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum.

What do you guys think?

This morning I saw that Perry was going to reassess his campaign and that Bachmann was set on staying in.

This evening I hear that Perry is staying in until at least South Carolina and that Bachmann is out.

:freak:

I'm surprised Perry is staying in. I don't see how he has any chance. He hasn't looked strong for quite some time now. I was watching a little bit of Hardball earlier and they were talking about the idea that Perry could be staying in to intentionally help Romney because the longer Perry is in the longer the evangelical vote will be split. None of the analysts were really convinced of that but it is an interesting thought.

 

[PureX]

Perry is staying because he has endless oil money behind him. He's the Texas oil toady candidate ... a 'Bush replacement'. Anything might happen, yet, and that's why Perry will stick it out for a bit. One big screw up by Romney and Perry is right back in the running (provided he doesn't screw up again, himself). The one's who quit will quit because they can't afford to keep going.

 

[Christ's Word]

Poor Ralphie, he doesn't even understand the upside down world of his candidate.

Authority isn't requirement.

In Ron Paul's world the respective states would have the "authority" (power) to legalize prostitution, but they wouldn't be "required" to do so.

In Ron Paul's world the respective states would have the "authority" (power) to marry queers and push recreational drugs, but they wouldn't be "required" to.

In Ron Paul's world respective states would have the "authority" (power) to make abortion illegal, but they wouldn't be "required" to do so.

Now be a good little Libertarian and go smoke a joint, maybe you'll think clearer then.

I usually agree with you, but the states have the right to do that right now...... not just in Ron Paul's world?

 

[Christ's Word]

Perry is staying because he has endless oil money behind him. He's the Texas oil toady candidate ... a 'Bush replacement'. Anything might happen, yet, and that's why Perry will stick it out for a bit. One big screw up by Romney and Perry is right back in the running (provided he doesn't screw up again, himself). The one's who quit will quit because they can't afford to keep going.

That is exactly right, one who runs for President rarely quits, they just run out of money.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, it certainly makes you look less befuddled that way. :idunno:

If you say so. The problem with writing on the fly and being fairly distracted, which I'm learning to simply accept as a fact of life, is that it's easy to make errors of omission, or the odd spelling bit, like your for you're or sew for sow. I always read through a thing, but if your mind glitches or reads in to begin with the chances aren't good you'll see it on a second go close behind.

It looks like you're arguing that, for whatever reason, you missed answering the question I asked. Let's try again.

Didn't miss it. I told you why I didn't answer the first time. You aren't doing that sort of thing here and you'll get a different response because of it.

You said "But I don't know I'd have been any happier with McCain and I know I would be less so with Palin."

I did. To flesh it out further, though I've gone into this a number of times in political threads during the actual campaign, I didn't feel Palin was competent to act as President and I was seriously concerned about McCain's age and the toll the office inevitably takes on anyone who occupies it. She reminded me of a light weight Wallace. That's why I noted not being sure that McCain would have made me any happier (the accommodations and alterations of his first run making him less appetizing) or Palin with more certainty, addressing by inference the notion of her potentially assuming the office. At least I thought that would be the natural inference. Apparently not.

Palin was running for VP, so it appears that either the current Vice President Joe Biden has done some incredible work that you think Palin couldn't have, or, more likely, Joe has done very little and you think Sarah would have screwed up even that.

:chuckle: No, the VP is a fairly milk toast position with little to distinguish it beyond the ceremonial. I understand that. It was purely the matter of her standing a breath away from leadership of the free world that concerned me.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

This is no small issue. I have always been pro life without exception, and yet marveled at how people on both sides of this issue want a.........

QUICK FEDERAL FIX!!!!!!!

THAT IS NOT HOW OUR SYSTEM WAS INTENDED TO WORK!

THE POWER LIES WITH THE PEOPLE, AND THEY NEED TO TAKE IT BACK, AT THE GRASS ROOTS STATE LEVEL WE NEED STATES TO RATIFY A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DEFINE LIFE.

Then each state needs to develop its own laws outlawing abortion. Thumbing down a Federal law passed by congress is a long term loser. People need to stop looking for the addict like 'Fed Quick Fix' and build a state by state level foundation for a long term solution that carries the weight and backing of a moral people.

I usually agree with you, but the states have the right to do that right now...... not just in Ron Paul's world?

I was reading the charter to our country earlier today, The Declaration of Independence, and after the words we all know, I rediscovered these words that I've underlined:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

We don't live in the same nation that the Founding Fathers established and envisioned. They didn't coin the phrase "states rights" so that each state could go against the laws of God and decide whether or not things like abortion, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution and recreational drug use could be legal.

If you want the respective states to "do their own thing", fine, but please do try to tell me that the Godly men that established this once great Christian nation wanted it that way, because they didn't.

We're no longer a "moral nation", and we sure as LL aren't a "united" states either.

Let's use the words of wisdom from those great men and "alter or abolish" our current system and "institute a new government", as "new Guards for our future security" need to be implemented.