Republicans for Obama

[Glocktogo]

Santorum is a theological statist. He is NOT a conservative. While some conservatives and Santorum may agree on certain issues, he would be a HUGE disappointment overall. The only ones who would be pleased with him as POTUS are the ones who believe government and the people should be ruled by religion.

Making me choose between Santorum and Obama would be like making me choose between death by torture or death by torture with fire.

 

[RickN]

You guys should really spend more time researching Santorum and what he has really said. Most of what I have seen posted here is spin and nothing but the spin including the man-dog thing. I do not agree with him on many issues, but he is not the fanatic some of you are trying to make him appear.

 

[copertop80]

with what we have left to deal with...... santorum is the only semi concertive, decent choice for this contest, in my never to be humble opinion. We'll never have what we want in a leader as long as we have a bloodless change of power.

 

[RidgeHunter]

You guys should really spend more time researching Santorum and what he has really said. Most of what I have seen posted here is spin and nothing but the spin including the man-dog thing. I do not agree with him on many issues, but he is not the fanatic some of you are trying to make him appear.

Yes, please. I encourage everyone to research what Santorum has really said, including the man-on-dog thing (and his follow-up comments addressing the original interview). And go see him in person if you ever get the chance. You'll find that he's twice the fanatic some of us are trying to make him appear.

Santorum is not a fanatic if you happen to agree with his theocratic fanaticism.

 

[RidgeHunter]

OK, the man-on-dog line is not even the most absurd line from an interview where Santorum was voicing his support for laws regulating consensual sex within people's homes and denying the existence of a right to privacy, closing by comparing consensual sex between adults to pedophilia and bestiality, really driving home his point.

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And 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. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.

And then we can start working through the infinite number of asinine things he has said. Start with a couple weeks ago when he called rape a gift from God?

 

[Glocktogo]

OK, the man-on-dog line is not even the most absurd line from an interview where Santorum was voicing his support for laws regulating consensual sex within people's homes and denying the existence of a right to privacy, closing by comparing consensual sex between adults to pedophilia and bestiality, really driving home his point.



And then we can start working through the infinite number of asinine things he has said. Start with a couple weeks ago when he called rape a gift from God?

I lol that people call RP nutty, then give Santorum a pass. He's nuttier than a Payday bar.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

I lol that people call RP nutty, then give Santorum a pass. He's nuttier than squirrel dookie.

I command you to use this phrase from here on out so that I might chuckle when I read it.

 

[RickN]

Ridgehunter, I think you are missing the key word in that quote.

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And 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. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.

And if you read most of what he has said, he is arguing for states rights. He has clearly said that things like this are up to the states to decide and that he would NOT vote for them.

He is also right that the Constitution says nothing about a right to privacy. It should, but it does not.

EDIT: Also he did not call rape a gift from God. He said even a child born from rape can be a gift from God. To those that hold that all life is precious that is a pretty common belief. I do not agree but I understand what they are saying.

 

[Glocktogo]

I command you to use this phrase from here on out so that I might chuckle when I read it.

Done! Though literary license may sometimes compel me to call it squirrel poo, in deference to Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo.

 

[RidgeHunter]

Ridgehunter, I think you are missing the key word in that quote.

And if you read most of what he has said, he is arguing for states rights. He has clearly said that things like this are up to the states to decide and that he would NOT vote for them.

He is also right that the Constitution says nothing about a right to privacy. It should, but it does not.

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.