Republicans for Obama

[aestus]

Santorum represent the extreme example of everything that is wrong with the GOP. He is also a good example of why we need separation of church and state. Sorry, but the idea of a "evangelical christian version of the taliban" is not what I want in America and putting people like Santorum in power would bring us closer to that.

 

[Spec ops Grunt]

I don't get the impression that many people here recognize and understand statism, or what Santorum really stands for. He wants to restrict personal liberties through laws and regulations implemented by government authorities, in a manner that tracks with his personal religious dogma. There would be no real separation of church and state in his ideal political scenario. While his personal views may be similar to the views of many conservatives, his intentions on governance are anything but conservative. I repeat, he is not a conservative. He is a theological statist, which should not be confused with someone who is for states rights in the face of federal authority. His primary interest is in regulating the everyday lives of the people, rather than good governance that would empower the people.

Kinda like all the people that get elected to office here in Oklahoma.

 

[Glocktogo]

Kinda like all the people that get elected to office here in Oklahoma.

Pretty much. We see how effective they are at good governance. NOT!

 

[purplehaze]

He is against BJs??!!! aww heall nawww

Masturbation, like heterosexual oral sex, is sodomy and should be strictly prohibited. (Floor speech June 6, 2006)

 

[RickN]

I'm not missing the word "not". He's saying marriage is not a homosexual union, just like it's not pedophilia or bestiality...which is a totally insane, asinine and classless comparison for a United States senator to make during an interview, regardless of his views on same-sex marriage. He's talking about fawking dogs in an interview, and there's really not a way you can twist it to make it sound uncrazy.

He's arguing for state's rights? Gimme a break. He's arguing for theocracy, big government, and and social engineering. The sheer amount of time he spends talking about bodily fluids, gays and dogsex shows where his priorities are, and that's Crazyville. He's said he would not vote for these laws? What happened to the RickN that says politicians will say anything to get elected? Or does that just apply to Ron Paul?

As far as a right to privacy, right - it's not mentioned in the Constitution. First of all, that alone doesn't mean it doesn't exist (enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny blah bitty blah blah). Second of all, it's pretty clear by the first, third and fifth amendments that the guys who came up with that thing had a right to privacy in mind. Freedom does not exist without a right to privacy.

Like I say, nobody is a fanatic if you happen to agree with their fanaticism.

We are not talking about Ron Paul here.

Look if you go back and do some digging you will find that at the time he made those comments there were groups trying to use the so called Privacy right as an excuse for incest and bestiality. You will also find that the so called right to privacy was never mentioned until around 1965 or so when the left thought it would make good cover for whatever they want to do.

Like I have said before, I do not agree with Santorum or many issues, but you folks are twisting what he says and his beliefs just as much as you claim others do to RP.

 

[Glocktogo]

It's just not feasible to think Santorum isn't nuttier than a fruitcake. That is, unless you're part of the religious right that wants to legislate the bedroom.

 

[RickN]

It's just not feasible to think Santorum isn't nuttier than a fruitcake. That is, unless you're part of the religious right that wants to legislate the bedroom.

Incorrect. For one I am not part of the religious right or any organized religion. I just study what they do more then what they say. An example, do you know where the push for birth control and legal abortion came from in this country????

 

[purplehaze]

If by 1965 you mean by Plato, then sure you have a point.

You will also find that the so called right to privacy was never mentioned until around 1965 or so when the left thought it would make good cover for whatever they want to do.

Like I have said before, I do not agree with Santorum or many issues, but you folks are twisting what he says and his beliefs just as much as you claim others do to RP.

 

[1fast8]

well i dont pretend to know the views of all the politicians but i think banning same sex marriage is a good thing should never been available in the first place.
seperation between church and state was put in so that one religion would not take over ,our founding fathers were not atheis "one nation under God"and in "God we trust"
I will tell you one thing though if we had leaders that feared God and tried to lead this country in the path of rightousness we would prosper!!!!!!!

 

[Dale00]

Beware of those who have something bad to say about every candidate except the one in the White House.