bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,971
|
Post by bean29 on Feb 20, 2012 10:59:03 GMT -5
The views of candidates like Santorum on Women and birth control, and the fact that Republicans are willing to elevate nut cases like him to viable candidates for Presidency makes me mistrust the whole Republican party. they take the views of extremists on birth control and abortion and make eliminating Women's rights part of their platform.
I will not give such people even an appearance of credibility. I will not pass it off and say oh, it will never happen so it doesn't matter. It does matter. It is a very serious issue.
I think Obama's re-election looks more and more likely as time goes on. I don't think we will suffer for it either. The signs are pointing to a recovery.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Feb 20, 2012 11:16:22 GMT -5
"Santorum: Obama's agenda based on 'phony theology'" www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/santorum-obamas-agenda-based-on-phony-theology-114929.html"Via POLITICO's Juana Summers, Rick Santorum made comments at an event while campaigning earlier today as he spoke at an Ohio Christian Alliance event. Slamming the president's agenda on a range of points, Santorum said the agenda is "not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology." When reporters questioned what he meant later, Santorum stood by the comments. "The Catholic church has a theology that says this is wrong, and he’s saying no I’ve got a different, I’ve got a different – you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it’s a different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church." He added, "If you don’t want to call it a theology, I’m fine, you can have them let me know what they want to call it, but it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church, and that’s not a new low. That’s a reflection of exactly what….it is a new low. I should go back, it is a new low. The president has reached a new low in this country’s history of opressing religious freedom that we have never seen before. If he doesn’t want to call his imposition of his values a theology that’s fine, but it is an imposition of his values over a church who has very clear theological reasons for opposing what the Obama administration is forcing on them.” And then, “He is imposing his values on a church that has theological reasons for, and moral reasons for not allowing this type of care to be given through their institutions.”" Santorum attacking Obama's "theology" might win him people who are already on his side but nobody else. If Santorum wins the nomination, people will find out about him, and it's going to be a big disaster like how he lost his last Senate race.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 20, 2012 14:58:51 GMT -5
Well, Santorum brought up the Bible over the weekend. Didnt take him long. A Social Conservative and a fiscal Liberal. Maybe in 2016 we will get our act together. What Santorum said about Obama's devotion to the theology of the green movement is spot on. The only reason there's an attempt by the establishment in both parties to paint him as a wanna-be theocratic ruler is precisely because he nailed Obama on leading in just that way. So, it's easier to misdirect, obfuscate, and make a lot of noise to drown out the real argument. Here- let's review: Rick Santorum: the "president’s agenda” is “not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your job.” “It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology. But no less a theology,”. He is referring of course to this nonsense about global warming, cap and tax, rising sea levels- the whole green doctrine. And he is right. I mean, how does Obama sound here? Is he preaching a theology, or giving a policy speech? Can you even IMAGINE, in your wildest dreams a Republican Presidential candidate delivering a messianic message like this- especially referring to their own candidacy? This is the speech of a mentally deranged megalomaniac, and the only reason it was allowed to fly right by with nary a word is the media is an arm of the Obama campaign and did not provide objective coverage: I mean, I get that some people don't get where Santorum is coming from- and some may disagree. But Obama was talking crazy during the 2008 campaign. It was and is sheer lunacy-- and he's NEVER been called on it. So, it's a little odd now that we're so worked up about one guy that has the nerve to tell the truth about it.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Feb 20, 2012 15:04:37 GMT -5
Santorum didnt say Green Movement. And when asked to clarify he AGAIN didnt say Green Movement.
Santorum = Loss
There is a reason he lost his Senate seat in the biggest landslide in the history of our country.
What is wrong with the Republican party?!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2012 15:15:57 GMT -5
Theology is the study of religion. Who is the deity in charge of the "Green Movement," Paul?
I think your interpretation of his intent is probably accurate, but it suggests three things that bother me. (1) does he not know the word "theory"? or "doctrine"? or "policy"? Buy the man a thesaurus. or (2) is it really so foreign to him that a political belief system might arise out of something other than religion? Buy that man a copy of the Constitution. and, on that note... (3) why is it inherently wrong to have a theology based on something other than the Bible? An awful lot of Americans do. Again, buy that man a copy of the Constitution.
Edited because the number of things that bothered me kept increasing.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Feb 20, 2012 15:30:00 GMT -5
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Feb 20, 2012 15:50:06 GMT -5
Ma Earth appears to be the only planet available to us at the moment.
Santorum can foam at the mouth all he wants about the theoretical paradise in the sky, and the rules for inheriting that potential paradise, but here in River City, we have real issues.
I like it here, and I'll address my concerns to the known knowns. Otherwise, I might be mistaken for Ronald Dumsfeld.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 20, 2012 15:51:51 GMT -5
Santorum didnt say Green Movement. And when asked to clarify he AGAIN didnt say the Green Movement! He sure did. It was CRYSTAL CLEAR what he was talking about: m.upi.com/m/story/UPI-71471329738259/Obama Elevates The Earth Above Man
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 20, 2012 15:56:13 GMT -5
Ma Earth appears to be the only planet available to us at the moment. Santorum can foam at the mouth all he wants about the theoretical paradise in the sky, and the rules for inheriting that potential paradise, but here in River City, we have real issues. I like it here, and I'll address my concerns to the known knowns. Otherwise, I might be mistaken for Ronald Dumsfeld. The only people foaming at the mouth are the enviro whackos. Santorum is very calmly, and methodically articulating and exposing their theology- and that's why all the contortions. You can tell when the fringies have been nailed when they start screaming hysterically about us 'crossing a line" which is translated: that topic is off limits because we have no intelligent counter argument.
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Feb 20, 2012 16:05:06 GMT -5
I prefer science over religion, Paul .... hope that doesn't offend you.
In either case, all theories need to be proven, and IMO, only one of them is likely to affect me, since I'm firmly grounded on planet Earth.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 20, 2012 16:05:13 GMT -5
Well, Santorum brought up the Bible over the weekend. Didnt take him long. A Social Conservative and a fiscal Liberal. Maybe in 2016 we will get our act together. that combination makes me vote 3rd party every time.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 20, 2012 16:11:16 GMT -5
Well, Santorum brought up the Bible over the weekend. Didnt take him long. A Social Conservative and a fiscal Liberal. Maybe in 2016 we will get our act together. What Santorum said about Obama's devotion to the theology of the green movement is spot on. i see that the mancrush has moved from Cain to Gingrich to Santorum. shocking.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 20, 2012 16:14:52 GMT -5
Theology is the study of religion. Who is the deity in charge of the "Green Movement," Paul? Santorum's whole argument is built on a false premise. ecologists don't put the environment ABOVE man. they say that we must work together. it is not any different than stewardship, actually- which is why many evangelicals call themselves ecologists, and people the green movement. the fact that Santorum doesn't know that demonstrates either extreme ignorance, or a willingness to lie in the face of that inconvenient truth.
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Feb 20, 2012 16:16:00 GMT -5
i see that the mancrush has moved from Cain to Gingrich to Santorum.
God hath proclaimed it.
And the followers will swallow it.
My characterization: they went from 999 to 666.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 20, 2012 16:17:52 GMT -5
Santorum didnt say Green Movement. And when asked to clarify he AGAIN didnt say the Green Movement! He sure did. It was CRYSTAL CLEAR what he was talking about: m.upi.com/m/story/UPI-71471329738259/Obama Elevates The Earth Above Man nothing he says here proves anything of the sort. nor do i believe that Obama actually does that. nor does anyone i know who considers themselves an ecologist do so. what they do is say that we have to work for a sustainable future. that is actually for the benefit of mankind, by the way- that is what "sustainability" refers to.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 20, 2012 16:19:02 GMT -5
Ma Earth appears to be the only planet available to us at the moment. Santorum can foam at the mouth all he wants about the theoretical paradise in the sky, and the rules for inheriting that potential paradise, but here in River City, we have real issues. I like it here, and I'll address my concerns to the known knowns. Otherwise, I might be mistaken for Ronald Dumsfeld. The only people foaming at the mouth are the enviro whackos. only. LOL! only.....haha.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 20, 2012 16:35:21 GMT -5
I prefer science over religion, Paul .... hope that doesn't offend you. No, it does not offend me. It offends Obama & The Greens, because science doesn't support their theology. But as for me, I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that theirs no scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming and what little there used to be was completely discredited, shown to be false, doctored, tampered, and otherwise unreliable.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 20, 2012 16:38:40 GMT -5
I still support Newt. I think Santorum is another Johnny Come Lately to the conservative movement. I could vote for him, or Paul. Still cannot vote Romney.
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Feb 20, 2012 16:56:09 GMT -5
But as for me, I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that theirs no scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming and what little there used to be was completely discredited, shown to be false, doctored, tampered, and otherwise unreliable.
Lotta credible scientists disagree with you. But I get that it's easy to disagree with something that doesn't resonate with your politics.
If you live in Florida, you might be among the first to get the evidence you are denying.
Regardless, as I mentioned earlier, I have more faith in science than in the religious ramblings of Santorum, who wants to return to the days when the air was clean, and sex was dirty.
Who needs reality when the grand illusion is available?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 20, 2012 17:15:27 GMT -5
But as for me, I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that theirs no scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming and what little there used to be was completely discredited, shown to be false, doctored, tampered, and otherwise unreliable. Lotta credible scientists disagree with you. But I get that it's easy to disagree with something that doesn't resonate with your politics. If you live in Florida, you might be among the first to get the evidence you are denying. Regardless, as I mentioned earlier, I have more faith in science than in the religious ramblings of Santorum, who wants to return to the days when the air was clean, and sex was dirty. Who needs reality when the grand illusion is available? Thank you for making my point. A lot of people are threatened by genuine science.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 20, 2012 18:11:25 GMT -5
And back to "Rick Santorum: Frontrunner"...
That may be so, but I don't see him winning Georgia, or Texas- where Gov. Perry has endorsed Newt. I see Newt winning both states- Texas alone has 155 delegates.
I like Newt because ONLY Newt has the winning record:
While in congress, Newt
Founded the Conservative Opportune Society which met weekly to discuss ideas many of which were adopted by Reagan during his second term supporting the group’s conservative goals on economic growth, education, crime, and social issues.
Co founded the Congressional Military Reform Caucus and the Congressional Aviation and Space Caucus
Led charges against the Democrat Speaker of the House Jim Wright
Became House Minority Whip in 1989
In 1990, he came up with a paper titled ”Language, a Key Mechanism of Control”, that encouraged Republicans to “speak like Newt” and contained lists of “contrasting words” – words with negative connotations such as “radical”, “sick,” and “traitors” – and “optimistic positive governing words” such as “opportunity”, “courage”, and “principled”, that Gingrich recommended for use in describing Democrats and Republicans, respectively…Now we know why he is so good with words during the debates.
Gingrich and several other Republicans, in an effort to offer an alternative to Democratic policies and to unite distant wings of the Republican Party came up with a Contract with America which laid out ten policies that Republicans promised to bring to a vote on the House floor during the first hundred days of the new Congress if they won the elections. The contract was signed by Gingrich and other Republican candidates for the House of Representatives. The contract ranged from issues such as welfare reform, term limits, tougher crime laws, and a balanced budget law, to more specialized legislation such as restrictions on American military participation in UN missions. In the November 1994 elections, Republicans gained 54 seats and took control of the House for the first time since 1954.
Congress fulfilled Gingrich’s Contract promise to bring all ten of the Contract’s issues to a vote within the first 100 days of the session Legislation proposed by the 104th US Congress included term limits for Congressional Representatives, tax cuts, welfare reform, and a balanced budget amendment, as well as independent auditing of the finances of the House of Representatives and elimination of non-essential services such as the House barbershop and shoe-shine concessions.
Newt led the Republican majority to an re-election in 1996, the first time Republicans had done so in 68 years, and the first time simultaneously with a Democratic president winning re-election.
In 1996, Newt pushed for the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act which was intended to reconstruct the welfare system. The act gave state governments more autonomy over welfare delivery, while also reducing the federal government’s responsibilities. It instituted the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which placed time limits on welfare assistance and replaced the longstanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Other changes to the welfare system included stricter conditions for food stamp eligibility, reductions in immigrant welfare assistance, and recipient work requirements. The said act was signed into law on Aug 22, 1996.
Pushed Clinton for a Federal Balanced Budget- The plan included a total of $152 billion in Republican sponsored tax cuts over five years. Other major parts of the spending plan called for $115 billion to be saved through a restructuring of Medicare, $24 billion set aside to extend health insurance to children of the working poor, tax credits for college tuition, and a $2 billion welfare-to-work jobs initiative. Plan was to have a balanced budget by 2002 but was achieved in 1999, three years ahead of schedule.
Through the Contract with America, Gingrich was credited with the largest Capital Gains Tax Cut in US History with the 1997 US Tax Relief Act
I can see Newt winning this thing yet- but it is gonna be Newt, Paul, or Santorum. I think at this point, the thing that is most clear is that there is very strong resistance to a Romney candidacy.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Feb 20, 2012 18:27:38 GMT -5
Yet Newt was forced to resign and pay a $300,000 fine.
Newt has no chance.
|
|
Don Perignon
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2011 18:46:42 GMT -5
Posts: 2,024
|
Post by Don Perignon on Feb 20, 2012 18:39:07 GMT -5
Gingrgrich's role is that of "Rodeo Clown"... A diversion. His job is to distract el toro (potential voters) long enough for the cowboy contenders to take shelter behind their barricades.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Feb 20, 2012 18:45:50 GMT -5
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 20, 2012 18:47:11 GMT -5
Does this explain all the silliness with using words like regime, greenies, etc.? It didn't work on me then but I will say now I'm so sensitized to such extremism I probably miss anything worthwhile someone says if they use exaggerated and untrue terms like the above. Santorum may rile up his followers using words like the Earth above Man and theology but most of us will see it as the BS that it is. Stewardship is using the earth wisely. Not a surprise we all don't agree on how that should be done.
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Feb 20, 2012 19:49:22 GMT -5
Thank you for making my point. A lot of people are threatened by genuine science. Oh please ..... your only science is political science. Hard to debate someone who denies objective evidence. But then, here I am arguing with you anyway. So Newt is your guy? Do you actually think he can win the general election, or do you just want him to be the candidate? There's enough evidence in this primary to prove, to me at least, that none of the above have a chance in November ... with the possible exception of Romney. But he first has to get rid of those Mommy jeans .... and then move to the center, like any credible candidate must.
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Feb 20, 2012 20:04:51 GMT -5
Guys, I am getting concerned that the Republicans are catching on to the fact that we have planted our people in their camp who have managed to get these nuts elevated to potential Republican candidates. This was a trick we learned from Nixon, when he did his best to discredit all democratic candidates except McGovern. Please keep a low profile, and by all means, keep a straight face when they talk about future president Newt, Santorum, or Paul. Adopt a thoughtful expression, and appear deeply concerned that one of these guys might actually win.
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Feb 20, 2012 20:09:21 GMT -5
Hard to keep a strait face with this crew vandals. I keep saying "they can't be serious, can they?" But apparently they are.
How's life in the desert by the way? A lady that worked for me was happy to retire to Tennessee, getting away from the snow and all that. So today it snowed in Tennessee to beat hell, and we're still snow free and mild up here.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Feb 20, 2012 20:23:04 GMT -5
And back to "Rick Santorum: Frontrunner"... Paul, how on Earth you can support Newt is beyond me. Haven't you had enough Boomer leadership to last 100 lifetimes? All they do is mudsling, compromise our liberties, and I'd love to see the corruption comparisons to *any* previous political generation. Look at what they have done to the fiscal state of this country. This is a generational war, not a class war. They are 100% vested in the status quo. I don't care if it's a Republican or Democratic Boomer, they will NOT give up their wars or welfare because we are the ones paying the ultimate price, not them. We are the ones dying for the bullshit wars, and we are the ones footing the bill for their welfare. The amount they paid in isn't even enough to cover 1/4 of what they will extract. We can't afford Newt! Vote for someone who will cut them off the heroin, IMMEDIATELY, before the markets do it for us.
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Feb 20, 2012 20:29:21 GMT -5
sgt, It peaking out around 70 degrees every day. We have not had a freeze all winter. My grapefruit and orange trees still have fruit on them.
My family is from Tenn. I sometimes miss the South, with the seasons and the greenery, but the beauty down here is so magnificent and the weather so terrific, I could never leave. The county I live in has more sunshine days than any other county in the USA! There is a hotel in Yuma that still does not charge for any day in which there is no sunshine.
|
|