Ohio Chatter DEV

majorspark

When Santorum is president will states allow pulling out?

I Wear Pants

believer

I Wear Pants;1039487 wrote:

Let the "Caining" begin.

Unfugging believable. Last week nobody was even talking about Santorum. But - uh oh - Iowa has demonstrated that he apparently a tad more popular than the lefties and the MSM thought and now the mudslinging begins.

Does anyone else wish the MSM had vetted BHO in this manner 4 years ago?

The inept, unqualified community organizer who got his political guidance from the likes of Ayers, Rezko, Kilpatrick, Johnson and many others somehow rises up out of nowhere, runs past Queen Hillary, and becomes POTUS....and nobody pauses to say, "Hey, how does something like that happen"?

Now the lefties want to paint Santorum as a loon right out of the chute.

I'm not necessarily endorsing Santorum, but the double-standard in Amerikan politiks never ceases to amaze me.

Oh that's right IWP....you didn't vote for Barry. :rolleyes:

fish82

I Wear Pants;1039463 wrote:Santorum has said that he feels banning contraceptives is an acceptable action for a state. I didn't make that up. He's also absurdly anti-gay, like he's obsessed with it.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/rick-santorum-has-tense-exchange-on-gay-rights-and-health-care-in-iowa/

“So what is going to be taught to our people in health class in our schools? What is going to be taught to our children about who in our stories, even to little children — what are married couples? What families look like in America? So, you are going to have in our curriculum spread throughout our curriculum worldview that is fundamentally different than what is taught in schools today? Is that not a consequence of gay marriage?”

To that I simply say:

He's simply supporting state's rights to do as they see fit. It's no different than Paul stating that legalizing heroin is acceptable for a state. And speaking of "obsessed," you seem to be getting a tad over the top on a position that a little over half the country shares with him. Just sayin.

Abe Vigoda

believer;1039503 wrote:Let the "Caining" begin.

Unfugging believable. Last week nobody was even talking about Santorum. But - uh oh - Iowa has demonstrated that he apparently a tad more popular than the lefties and the MSM thought and now the mudslinging begins.

Does anyone else wish the MSM had vetted BHO in this manner 4 years ago?

The inept, unqualified community organizer who got his political guidance from the likes of Ayers, Rezko, Kilpatrick, Johnson and many others somehow rises up out of nowhere, runs past Queen Hillary, and becomes POTUS....and nobody pauses to say, "Hey, how does something like that happen"?

Now the lefties want to paint Santorum as a loon right out of the chute.

I'm not necessarily endorsing Santorum, but the double-standard in Amerikan politiks never ceases to amaze me.

Oh that's right IWP....you didn't vote for Barry. :rolleyes:

I think Hillary Clinton fully vetted Obama. I guess you were not paying attention.

I Wear Pants

[video=youtube;1Gwwmm-cQxU][/video]
He is a big government proponent.

I Wear Pants

believer;1039503 wrote:Let the "Caining" begin.

Unfugging believable. Last week nobody was even talking about Santorum. But - uh oh - Iowa has demonstrated that he apparently a tad more popular than the lefties and the MSM thought and now the mudslinging begins.

Does anyone else wish the MSM had vetted BHO in this manner 4 years ago?

The inept, unqualified community organizer who got his political guidance from the likes of Ayers, Rezko, Kilpatrick, Johnson and many others somehow rises up out of nowhere, runs past Queen Hillary, and becomes POTUS....and nobody pauses to say, "Hey, how does something like that happen"?

Now the lefties want to paint Santorum as a loon right out of the chute.

I'm not necessarily endorsing Santorum, but the double-standard in Amerikan politiks never ceases to amaze me.

Oh that's right IWP....you didn't vote for Barry. :rolleyes:

First, that was obviously a joke.

Second, why do you feel Santorum is a good candidate or should be free from getting his absurdly pro big government, anti-freedom views looked at?

No one was talking about Santorum last week because he hadn't just come second in the most recent/first caucus that everyone has been talking about for months. It isn't a conspiracy that people are talking about him just now, it's simply that he's now in the discussion whereas before people thought he was sort of irrelevant.

Again, why should he be free from criticism? Oh yeah that's right, we should only ever criticize Obama right?

fish82;1039512 wrote:He's simply supporting state's rights to do as they see fit. It's no different than Paul stating that legalizing heroin is acceptable for a state. And speaking of "obsessed," you seem to be getting a tad over the top on a position that a little over half the country shares with him. Just sayin.

It isn't the same. Santorum isn't libertarian in his views, he's said that he's very much against that sort of "radical individualism". He wants the government involved in the bedroom and in religion as well.

WebFire

fish82;1039512 wrote:He's simply supporting state's rights to do as they see fit. It's no different than Paul stating that legalizing heroin is acceptable for a state. And speaking of "obsessed," you seem to be getting a tad over the top on a position that a little over half the country shares with him. Just sayin.

The difference is Paul is giving a right back. Santorum supports taking them away.

fish82

WebFire;1039855 wrote:The difference is Paul is giving a right back. Santorum supports taking them away.

Neither is doing any such thing. They're both letting the states make their own call.

fish82

I Wear Pants;1039851 wrote:
It isn't the same. Santorum isn't libertarian in his views, he's said that he's very much against that sort of "radical individualism". He wants the government involved in the bedroom and in religion as well.

The Libertarians don't own the concept of states rights...despite what you might think. Your second comment is no different than the nuts who think Obama wants us all to pray to Mecca twice a day....snap out of it, man. :rolleyes:

I Wear Pants

fish82;1039933 wrote:Neither is doing any such thing. They're both letting the states make their own call.

You don't see the difference between saying "it's up to states to decide if they want to allow drug use" vs "if a state banned contraception I'd support that"?

One is about restoring liberty (though using heroin would be a stupid way to use your freedom) the other is about removing more freedoms.

I Wear Pants

fish82;1039938 wrote:The Libertarians don't own the concept of states rights...despite what you might think. Your second comment is no different than the nuts who think Obama wants us all to pray to Mecca twice a day....snap out of it, man. :rolleyes:

Santorum has said those things, it isn't the same as the Obama is a Muslim people because Santorum has said these things. These aren't rumors or conspiracies but what the man has said.

"They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." -Santorum

Cleveland Buck

"This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone." - Rick Santorum

Yeah, no thanks. Fuck this guy. If Republicans nominate this clown they deserve the slaughter they will get in the general election.

QuakerOats

The guy was elected more than once in heavy, heavy democrat districts (over 70% democrat) in heavy union areas of Pennsylvania. To read the posts here you would have thought the guy was some satanic, ultra right wing, uber conservative, evangelical nut case; in addition to half of Iowa living off campus on Mars and being complete morons

Something is not meshing ..... and most of us know what it is.

I Wear Pants

QuakerOats;1039980 wrote:The guy was elected more than once in heavy, heavy democrat districts (over 70% democrat) in heavy union areas of Pennsylvania. To read the posts here you would have thought the guy was some satanic, ultra right wing, uber conservative, evangelical nut case; in addition to half of Iowa living off campus on Mars and being complete morons

Something is not meshing ..... and most of us know what it is.

You have not posted anything of value. And Santorum lost his last Senate bid very badly. "In the November 7, 2006 election, Santorum lost by over 700,000 votes, receiving 41.3 percent of the vote to Casey's 58.7 percent, the largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania.[SUP][36][/SUP] The 18-point defeat was the largest margin of defeat for any incumbent senator since 1980[SUP][37][/SUP] and the largest margin of any incumbent Republican senator ever." -from Wikipedia.

Post something that disputes what we've said about the guy or shows why he is a good candidate. Otherwise you're not saying anything. "But but but, why don't you talk about Obama's bad positions and decisions". Well we would, except there's already a thread for that and this thread is about Republican nominees. Which is what Santorum is.

fish82

I Wear Pants;1039995 wrote:You have not posted anything of value. And Santorum lost his last Senate bid very badly. "In the November 7, 2006 election, Santorum lost by over 700,000 votes, receiving 41.3 percent of the vote to Casey's 58.7 percent, the largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania.[SUP][36][/SUP] The 18-point defeat was the largest margin of defeat for any incumbent senator since 1980[SUP][37][/SUP] and the largest margin of any incumbent Republican senator ever." -from Wikipedia.

Post something that disputes what we've said about the guy or shows why he is a good candidate. Otherwise you're not saying anything. "But but but, why don't you talk about Obama's bad positions and decisions". Well we would, except there's already a thread for that and this thread is about Republican nominees. Which is what Santorum is.

Not one person has said he's a good candidate. None. Zero.

I can't speak for everyone, but I'm just enjoying watching you people sprout a collective stiffy over a guy who's gonna be out of the race by the end of the month.

QuakerOats

I Wear Pants;1039995 wrote:Post something that disputes what we've said about the guy

Ok. Did Santorum say he hated gays? Did Santorum say he hated Muslims?

fish82

I Wear Pants;1039943 wrote:Santorum has said those things, it isn't the same as the Obama is a Muslim people because Santorum has said these things. These aren't rumors or conspiracies but what the man has said.

"They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." -Santorum

Interesting that you and Buck both post the exact same quote. I assume that's the only time he's said something like that? Is there a link to the transcript of his speech by chance? I'd like to peruse it if possible.

I'm not defending the guy if that's his actual position, but there are literally bazillions of examples of politicians either misspeaking or saying something stupid and later recanting it. Or worse case, they just throw shit out there to please a segment of the base while having no intention of actually governing that way.

For example, I'm still waiting for that Theocracy you people swore up and down for 8 years that Dubya was about to foist upon us.

Again, I don't know why I'm letting myself get sucked into this again anyway. The dude is history on 1/31.

Tiernan

did Santorum really take a dead baby home to show his other kids there is life in the womb? If so...that should automatically eliminate you from being the Presidant becuase you are...ohhh I don't know...INSANE MAYBE?

Cleveland Buck

And for the sheep that will get behind Huntsman when he gets his media push at the last minute before New Hampshire, here is his record. Maybe we can nip this shit in the bud.

Spending increased 34% during his term as governor of Utah.

Wants to maintain a permanent military presence in Afghanistan.

Would preemptively attack Iran without provocation.

In 2008, Governor Huntsman “announced a plan in his state budget proposal that would include $400 million in bond funding through the Utah Housing Corp. to buy mortgage-backed securities from Utah lenders.” The President of the Utah Housing Corporation at the time described the plan, which would “…essentially have the agency acting as the state's version of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.”

Quote supporting amnesty:
"Well, then you have to deal realistically with the fact that you've got 12 million people here who've broken the law. I think fines are in order, coming up with a process whereby they pay fines, the learn English, other criteria must be met. But there would be some sort of legitimate pathway that brings them into some safer status and out from the shadows."

Quote about Obama's stimulus:
"I guess in hindsight we can all say that there were some fundamental flaws with it. It probably wasn’t large enough and, number two, there probably wasn’t enough stimulus effect."

Huntsman Supports Health Insurance Mandate
http://youtu.be/86DbFEszjr0

"Stimulus Would Be Welcome Relief"
http://youtu.be/3K3Nqt7JNbY

Huntsman Supports TARP Bailouts
http://youtu.be/OJjggxdfkho

Huntsman Supports Cap and Trade
http://youtu.be/_YcCFDZvNec

ohiobucks1

Mitt stands for Mittens Romney

I Wear Pants

fish82;1040056 wrote:Interesting that you and Buck both post the exact same quote. I assume that's the only time he's said something like that? Is there a link to the transcript of his speech by chance? I'd like to peruse it if possible.

I'm not defending the guy if that's his actual position, but there are literally bazillions of examples of politicians either misspeaking or saying something stupid and later recanting it. Or worse case, they just throw shit out there to please a segment of the base while having no intention of actually governing that way.

For example, I'm still waiting for that Theocracy you people swore up and down for 8 years that Dubya was about to foist upon us.

Again, I don't know why I'm letting myself get sucked into this again anyway. The dude is history on 1/31.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4784905

That's the transcript. It was on an interview of his promoting his book in 2006.

The full quote is:
"One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."

He thinks we have too much freedom.

WebFire

fish82;1039933 wrote:Neither is doing any such thing. They're both letting the states make their own call.

Right, but they both have different reasons for letting it happen.

Cleveland Buck

Look how despicable they are. The media is scared to death of the man in second in that poll, so they didn't bother to show him at all.

Archive

Republican candidates for 2012