lets be realistic!

[blue adept]

How many people out there honestly would support rick Santorum? How much do you really know about Mr. Santorum? I honestly couldn't think of a worse candidate for the president of the United States of America than this guy. I hope you take the time to read this profile, I checked most of it on Fact check, and it appears to be an honest portrayal of this man.
http://www.biography.com/people/rick-santorum-20688005

[nathandiehl]

How many people out there honestly would support rick Santorum?

Depends on the alternative.

[blue adept]

Depends on the alternative.

Tell me Nathan, what about Obama is so bad? I would really like to know, considering the fact that presidents really do not have a lot of power.

[nathandiehl]

Tell me Nathan, what about Obama is so bad? I would really like to know, considering the fact that presidents really do not have a lot of power.

I thought your question was about Santorum. Sorry.

I would fully support Santorum over some socialist like Bernie Sanders.

My point is that you cannot compare a common stone to the entire world of fine gems. If Santorum is a worthless stone--and as bad as that is, then some socialist like Bernie Sanders is comparably like a 3-inch kidney stone stuck inside your bladder.
Every other candidate might be better than a common stone, but I'll take a common stone over a huge kidney stone each and every day.

Like I said, it depends on the alternative.

For the record, I am engaging in a discussion about Santorum. I am not interested in analyzing Obama's presidency at this time, and I won't. That's all I have to say about that.

[blue adept]

I thought your question was about Santorum. Sorry.

I would fully support Santorum over some socialist like Bernie Sanders.

My point is that you cannot compare a common stone to the entire world of fine gems. If Santorum is a worthless stone--and as bad as that is, then some socialist like Bernie Sanders is comparably like a 3-inch kidney stone stuck inside your bladder.
Every other candidate might be better than a common stone, but I'll take a common stone over a huge kidney stone each and every day.

Like I said, it depends on the alternative.

For the record, I am engaging in a discussion about Santorum. I am not interested in analyzing Obama's presidency at this time, and I won't. That's all I have to say about that.

My point is this, since about two weeks into Obama's presidency, the right has called him everything except a redheaded step-child. They really haven't produced any evidence of all the dirt they have thrown at him, and yet, people I view to be intelligent, deny him even the dignity that should go with the office. I will admit, I would have been happier with a gung ho type that took the problems congress has made, and took them before the American people, to have them force congress into action. That hasn't happened, and he has [in my opinion] molly-coddled both parties trying to be peace maker. That being said, Santorum will put the Papacy, into a leading role in our government, which will automatically back fire and cause numerous problems. If only McCain hadn't picked a nut for vice-president?

[Todd Ianuzzi]

I thought your question was about Santorum. Sorry.

I would fully support Santorum over some socialist like Bernie Sanders.

My point is that you cannot compare a common stone to the entire world of fine gems. If Santorum is a worthless stone--and as bad as that is, then some socialist like Bernie Sanders is comparably like a 3-inch kidney stone stuck inside your bladder.
Every other candidate might be better than a common stone, but I'll take a common stone over a huge kidney stone each and every day.

Like I said, it depends on the alternative.

For the record, I am engaging in a discussion about Santorum. I am not interested in analyzing Obama's presidency at this time, and I won't. That's all I have to say about that.

Ok, Santorum is unelectable and will win about 8 states if he runs against Obama in the general elecitoin. . I welcome voting for Obama and watching Santorum take down the Republican house with him.

In the future, if you wish to define the terms of your discussion, you might get your own blog. They are free.

[nathandiehl]

My point is this, since about two weeks into Obama's presidency, the right has called him everything except a redheaded step-child. They really haven't produced any evidence of all the dirt they have thrown at him, and yet, people I view to be intelligent, deny him even the dignity that should go with the office. I will admit, I would have been happier with a gung ho type that took the problems congress has made, and took them before the American people, to have them force congress into action. That hasn't happened, and he has [in my opinion] molly-coddled both parties trying to be peace maker. That being said, Santorum will put the Papacy, into a leading role in our government, which will automatically back fire and cause numerous problems. If only McCain hadn't picked a nut for vice-president?

Santorum is not my ideal candidate, if that is what you're asking?

[blue adept]

Santorum is not my ideal candidate, if that is what you're asking?

I guess what I am getting at, is the fact that there are no good candidates out there. definitely not the rabid religious right candidates. Maybe Gingrich, but he is part of the old school that got us in such financial problems. I think it would be a toss up for me between the lesser of the two evils, Gingrich or Obama. At least they are known quantities, and with a republican congress won't be able to accomplish much. The other two are just too scary.

[blue adept]

I have been corresponding to a great many of like mind on this whole "forcing the Catholic Church to pay for contraception BS" thing, and I am strengthened in my position that this is not about religious freedom, it is about medical issues which should remain between a patient and doctor. For the Catholic church to hold to it's no contraception clause is archaic at best, and destructive at worst. If a woman can no longer afford to get pregnant, whether financially, or physically, it is between her and her doctor, not some rabidly religious politician, or Pope. The conservative right wants you to think that this forces a religion to go against it's principles, yet, this country has no problem in forcing some religions to do exactly that. How many times have you heard of a child undergoing surgery to save their life even if their religion forbids it? it is essentially the same argument, The Catholic church as an employer should be held to the same standards as other employers. The standards are there for the protection of all, and should not be considered as restrictive for a religion. These standards are put in place for secular reasons, and this is a secular country whether you believe it or not. The word secular came into being to describe the United States, as a country where religion holds no sway over politics. The last 50 years have been interesting as the very nature of our great country has been rewritten by religious leaders, and the only thing missing is the fact that none of them think their religion will be beneath the one that comes out on top.historychurch480.jpg

[BigDeel]

.......... I think it would be a toss up for me between the lesser of the two evils,..............

I have not been voting very long. Every time I have, it's always this way as far as Presidential elections.