Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

mikeyx said:
if its any consolation I still think you ride the yugo of motorcycles. Does yours have a car phone?

I also bet it's pink....
Click to expand...

more correctly, it is the 'lada' of motorcycles.
i have owned 2 lada nivas over the years and would own another, without hesitation.
sturdy reliable and simple, and in 4x4 low, it would climb a tree.:)
btw...my bike is green, and has no phone in the sidecar.
[/derail]
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
It's called democracy, ever heard of it?
Click to expand...
Yes. Those who want to only vote can. Those who want to speak out against OWS and call them "occutards" can because of the first amendment. They don't have keep silent. Even if those who speak out against OWS are engaging in stereotypes and relying on anecdote to make their case they have that right. Free speech together with Democracy, it's a beautiful thing. Democracy without free speech is pointless.
 
I think the real problem is that those nasty, mean-spirited Republicans aren't going to give Randfan a chance to vote against Santorum, since he seems fated for an early exit from the primaries.
 
Brainster said:
I think the real problem is that those nasty, mean-spirited Republicans aren't going to give Randfan a chance to vote against Santorum, since he seems fated for an early exit from the primaries.
Click to expand...

happily, the republicans are going to force any thinking voter to vote for obama, because they refuse to pick a viable GOP candidate.
no rational person could elect any of the bozos that are in the running.
(not that obama is a prize...)
 
Last edited:
bikerdruid said:
more correctly, it is the 'lada' of motorcycles.
i have owned 2 lada nivas over the years and would own another, without hesitation.
sturdy reliable and simple, and in 4x4 low, it would climb a tree.:)
btw...my bike is green, and has no phone in the sidecar.
[/derail]
Click to expand...

really, not pink (o) !

:cool:
 
Brainster said:
I think the real problem is that those nasty, mean-spirited Republicans aren't going to give Randfan a chance to vote against Santorum, since he seems fated for an early exit from the primaries.
Click to expand...
If the GOP wasn't waging a war against women and science, if they didn't play to people's fears and prejudices of gays, if most of the candidates would embrace science and reason then I wouldn't give a damn about Santorum. But he does go on talk shows and spew his insanity and the people at the debates cheer killing, homophobia and all the other kinds of things that are consistent with the BS Santorum says.

When the GOP finds people like Santorum disgusting and abhorrent I'll gladly ignore the ass.

If the GOP would endorse Huntsman and his ideas, I would be a potential GOP voter. Not that I agree with everything he says but he accepts science. This home team, rah rah, cheer leading is BS. Winning at any cost is harmful to society.
 
In the highly edited video you linked to in the OP, he says his views on homosexuality are irrelevant to how he intends to do public policy, he also says that things he views as "sin" shouldn't be necessarily illegal.
 
Pardalis said:
In the highly edited video you linked to in the OP, he says his views on homosexuality are irrelevant to how he intends to do public policy, he also says that things he views as "sin" shouldn't be necessarily illegal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well I would raise an eyebrow to that anyway!
 
Pardalis said:
In the highly edited video you linked to in the OP, he says his views on homosexuality are irrelevant to how he intends to do public policy, he also says that things he views as "sin" shouldn't be necessarily illegal.
Click to expand...

So you support him then?
 
Brainster said:
I think the real problem is that those nasty, mean-spirited Republicans aren't going to give Randfan a chance to vote against Santorum, since he seems fated for an early exit from the primaries.
Click to expand...

Hmmm? Last time I looked, by the end of it all there has to be two contenders in the general election. One is a Republican and the other would be a Democrat. If I'm not mistaken, RandFan's point is that the Republicans have this issue against science and reason. I'm not okay with that and I'm sure you're not either.
 
Pardalis said:
In the highly edited video you linked to in the OP, he says his views on homosexuality are irrelevant to how he intends to do public policy, he also says that things he views as "sin" shouldn't be necessarily illegal.
Click to expand...
Why do you suppose this "highly edited" tape would include that?

He also says that our laws should comport with god's law (1:10) and he says he supports a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage (1:26). That is why I said he is morally inconsistent.
 
It is remarkable that someone so patently unqualified to be president could have remained "in the running" (though that's debatable) for so long.
The man is a dolt.
Either he consorts with and sympathizes with extreme religious nut-jobs (Dominionists and New Apostolic types) or he cynically uses these people to "shore up the base".
Either is despicable...
Add in his fuzzy grasp of foreign affairs, his simplistic notions of economics...
Perry, Cain, Bachman... Three sides of the same coin.
Of course, the remaining three are scarcely any better.
 
RandFan said:
Why do you suppose this "highly edited" tape would include that?

He also says that our laws should comport with god's law (1:10) and he says he supports a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage (1:26). That is why I said he is morally inconsistent.
Click to expand...

His personal morals influence his decisions just like any politician, and just like any politician he also seems to be aware that this has its limits. I don't see him as any different as any other politicians you ever had., on both sides.

I don't think he's any more bigoted than any other Christian, Muslim or Jew out there in the political arena in the US. People who are religious don't like gays, that's well known.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
His personal morals influence his decisions just like any politician, and just like any politician he also seems to be aware that this has its limits. I don't see him as any different as any other politicians you ever had., on both sides.

I don't think he's any more bigoted than any other Christian, Muslim or Jew out there in the political arena in the US. People who are religious don't like gays, that's well known.
Click to expand...
It's not about liking gays. It's not about his personal morals influencing decisions. It's about inconsistency.

Pardalis said:
In the highly edited video you linked to in the OP, he says his views on homosexuality are irrelevant to how he intends to do public policy, he also says that things he views as "sin" shouldn't be necessarily illegal.
Click to expand...

RandFan said:
He also says that our laws should comport with god's law (1:10) and he says he supports a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage (1:26). That is why I said he is morally inconsistent.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom