Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 89
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,459

    Santorum The Unelectable Tyrant

    This guy needs to get knocked out of the election as soon as humanly possible. He's getting booed out of every town hall meeting he goes to, he's attacking and damaging the electable Republicans (Gingrich & Romney) and he's turning undecided voters against the GOP because he's giving us ALL a bad name just for being in the same party as him.

    Here's the first thing that mainstream voters cannot accept about Santorum-

    He feels that there should never be an exception to abortion laws. He openly states that he feels that rape victims do not deserve the choice to abort a rape baby. (This is a position that Romney & Gingrich do not agree with of course).

    The second thing that makes him completely and utterly unelectable is his stance on relations between married couples. The American people can agree or agree to disagree with his stance on gay marriage, that's fine and not a career killer. But he takes it way, way, WAY too far-

    He has recently gone on the record saying that he believes that certain consensual sexual acts taking place between married adults (a man and a woman) in the privacy of their own bedrooms SHOULD BE OUTLAWED.

    This loser of a man has gone for so many years without getting his Edited. Keep it clean please that he wants to make it ILLEGAL for the rest of us?

    My first reaction is to laugh at him for being such a pathetic little ****, but this is an election year and he's still in the election. Again, honest hardworking Americans can debate his stance on homosexuality, but he's moved WAY past that and won't be satisfied until "missionary" is the only thing allowed in our own marriages. It's pretty clear that he's never read the song of songs...

    In case any of you are taken aback by his desire to grow the government to the point where it gets involved in your bedrooms, read this article:

    Article on Santorum

    One of the more pertinent quotes from the article:

    "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," he said, referring to a Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, that struck down a sodomy law in the Lone Star state. "This right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution."

    How can people fool themselves into thinking that he could be electable?
    Last edited by k-fridge; 02-15-2012 at 04:14 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Columbia, Mo GO, TIGERS
    Posts
    899
    the poor guy was born in the wrong country, is all.
    mistakenly running for ayatollah.
    and actually would be quite good at it.
    got skill at issuing a fatwa, sharia, railing at the Great Satan, he's a natural.
    Pg. 324: "the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."
    Tragedy & Hope, by Carroll Quigley

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,128
    From what I've seen, he's the most conservative of the bunch.
    Certainly not a RINO.
    And they say he has the economic chops from his senate experience.
    Isn't this what republicans say they want - a true conservative?
    "Hey Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort." And he says, "there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice. - Carl Spackler

  4. #4
    The Bill of Rights only protects against unreasonble search and seizure, not privacy...

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    I don't agree that there is any governmental authority to control what goes on in the marriage bed...Biblically or otherwise...--read the Song of Solomon, pretty graphic stuff--.

    As for abortion...let them do what they want and paint it any color they choose---on both sides. I nearly killed my mother after 72 hours of labor, the doctor spent the whole night praying in the hospital chapel, only to come down the hall to kill me to save my mother. That was 52 years ago so, yes, you can say it taints my opinion of the whole death industry--and its naysayers. It'll take a much larger theological treatise than this forum can handle to even pierce that boil...

    I'm not voting for any of those three either...
    (The wise men of modern thought) adore a god made of putty or of wax - plastic, effeminate, molluscous, with no masculine faculty about him, and no quality that entitles him to the respect of just and honest men, for a being who cannot be angry at wrongdoing is destitute of one of the essential virtues, and a moral Ruler who is not angry with the wicked, and who refuses to punish crime, is not divine. ---Spurgeon

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,459
    Quote Originally Posted by 2old2rock View Post
    From what I've seen, he's the most conservative of the bunch.
    Certainly not a RINO.
    And they say he has the economic chops from his senate experience.
    Isn't this what republicans say they want - a true conservative?
    I want a fiscal conservative. To me, that's a true conservative. I sure as hell don't want someone who wants to criminalize sex acts between a married man and woman. (And for the record, I have no idea why that could be considered "conservative" on any level.)

    Where exactly is this loser going to find the money to pay the millions of stormtroopers required to monitor every bedroom in America?

    Or is he going to form some sort of "Santorum Youth" program where he teaches kids to spy on their parents when they're intimate to ensure that they don't move into an illegal position?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Columbia, Mo GO, TIGERS
    Posts
    899
    Rick "I Want to Bomb Them All, Except Fetuses" Santorum wants to impose Judeo/Christian---now THERE'S an oxymoron---
    SHARIA LAW in the US



    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/05/op...ntorum-sharia/
    Pg. 324: "the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."
    Tragedy & Hope, by Carroll Quigley

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    So in God's eyes the baby of a rape victem is less than one conceived after a good bottle of wine? Why should one die and the other live?

    A loving married should be able to get off with just the missionary position. Any more just makes sex dirty and just keeps people from doing more productive things with their life.

    What the US is lacking is moral fiber. This is the guy to clean your system out.
    Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,459
    A new interview with Santorum: Banning Condoms

    He wants to outlaw certain acts between a married man & wife. This guy needs to drop out of the race ASAP.

    He wouldn't get 20% of the vote in a general election & he's hurting our party.

    I'd bet a paycheck that Obama is personally supporting Santorum's campaign.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    5,744
    Republicans missed an opportunity when they rejected Gary Johnson.
    He was the Gov here in NM for 8 years and very few complaints. He's electable and somewhat a Libertarian. I think he could have beat any of the misfits running now.
    Probably his position on legalizing pot scared the party. Too bad because that should have been done long ago anyway.
    "What Fools these mortals be"....Puck

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Houston Texas
    Posts
    6,327
    Here is the deal Santorum has many good traits and several bad ideas. I agree that what a person does in their home may be offensive to me but as long as they do not throw it in my face, parade it in front of my family or promote their agenda on NETWORK TV I do not really care all that much.

    The bigger issue is the things ya'll dislike about Santorum he would have no ability to affect from the seat of the president. Of even more importance these social issues, abortion, Gay marriage etc... should not be a part of the presidential or any federal campaign, these are state issues and should be dealt with strictly on a state level; it should also not be part of the judiciary.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,459
    Quote Originally Posted by classical View Post
    Here is the deal Santorum has many good traits and several bad ideas. I agree that what a person does in their home may be offensive to me but as long as they do not throw it in my face, parade it in front of my family or promote their agenda on NETWORK TV I do not really care all that much.
    I think you're missing the bigger point- He's not talking about the gays. Santorum wants to outlaw things that married (straight) couples do in their own bedrooms.

    In my opinion there's a special place in hell set aside for people like Santorum.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Houston Texas
    Posts
    6,327
    Quote Originally Posted by BACnet View Post
    I think you're missing the bigger point- He's not talking about the gays. Santorum wants to outlaw things that married (straight) couples do in their own bedrooms. However the main point being regardless of his stance thre is nothng he can do to affect laws regarding personal behaviour.

    In my opinion there's a special place in hell set aside for people like Santorum.
    I understand your point perfectly and I agree he is wrong even though on some levels I agree certain things are not right or natural but again I do not care what happens behind closed doors between consenting adults. However the main point being regardless of his stance there is nothing he can do to affect laws regarding personal behavior.

    It took me 35 years to decide that I should make a stand regarding abortion and I decidedly disagree with the pro-abortion crowd. I understand where he is coming from regarding rape and incest. On the one hand I see abortion as the murder of a human being one that has never done anything wrong. I also feel for the victim of rape or rape/incest but is the death of an innocent child not compounding the crime of rape. The morning after pill is available to most if not all rape victims which leave just incest victims I still wrestle with that issue.
    Again my main point is that social issue really is not in the direct prevue of the president, congress or the Senate, they are by right of the constitution issues to be dealt with by the states and their people. If the people of Washington wants homosexuals to have the right of marriage that is their decision and right, not the federal government or the judiciary just as for the people of California or Texas that have chosen for them to not have that right is our constitution right.

    If they social issues were removed federal election considerations we would be much better off.
    The only benefit these issues bring to the table is in regards to the selection of Supreme Court Justices and those issues will come out in the vetting process of the justice candidates anyway.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    4,399
    In my mind too many people are slipping into the mindset that the POTUS can have so much power to (to loosely quote) outlaw what people do in their bedrooms. The POTUS does not have the Constitutional authority (nor does Congress) to reach that far into our lives.

    That sort of thinking is why we have a President that is trampling over such things as mandating that insurance companies pay for contraceptives and abortions, assigning appointees while congress is in session, taking over companies and turning over to unions etc. etc.

    WE THE PEOPLE need to be contacting our representatives demanding this madness stop. If they ignore you, we need to be active in doing everything we can, and that means sacrifice, in getting the clown ousted from the circus.

    I am fortunate to have a freshman Congressman that is doing an outstanding job....Raul Labrador. This guy is a straight shooter and has done what he campaigned on. Check out his record and the bill's he supports or has sponsored. He took on Raum Emanuel head on for his lies and deceptive statements in Fast and Furious investigation. He's got some nads for a freshman. We need more like him and Alan West.....lots more!
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what will never be. (Thomas Jefferson 1816)

Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event