Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: lets be realistic!

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,917

    Default lets be realistic!

    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
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Waterloo
    Posts
    1,161

    Default Re: lets be realistic!

    Quote Originally Posted by blue adept View Post
    How many people out there honestly would support rick Santorum?
    Depends on the alternative.
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on the article of the Constitution which grants a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
    --James Madison

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,917

    Default Re: lets be realistic!

    Quote Originally Posted by nathandiehl View Post
    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.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Waterloo
    Posts
    1,161

    Default Re: lets be realistic!

    Quote Originally Posted by blue adept View Post
    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.
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on the article of the Constitution which grants a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
    --James Madison

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,917

    Default Re: lets be realistic!

    Quote Originally Posted by nathandiehl View Post
    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?

  6. #6
    Todd Ianuzzi Guest

    Default Re: lets be realistic!

    Quote Originally Posted by nathandiehl View Post
    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.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Waterloo
    Posts
    1,161

    Default Re: lets be realistic!

    Quote Originally Posted by blue adept View Post
    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?
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on the article of the Constitution which grants a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
    --James Madison

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,917

    Default Re: lets be realistic!

    Quote Originally Posted by nathandiehl View Post
    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.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,917

    Default Re: lets be realistic!

    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

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Right side of the midwest
    Posts
    203

    Default Re: lets be realistic!

    Quote Originally Posted by blue adept View Post
    .......... 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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •