Would you vote for Rick Santorum?

[NoMoreLunacy]

To know more about Santorum, google him. Lots of good links and information out there.

[Cookies Galore]

I took pleasure in voting against him in 2006.

[privateinvestor]

Would you vote for Rick Santorum?



No...No Way!! No How!!...He is all fluff and no substance to be brief

[txbo]

I don’t need santorum in my life.

[NoMoreLunacy]

I think it is wrong to write off a guy without goggling him and doing some research. The first few links are very informative.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I will vote for ABO.

[chiver78]

Jun 12, 2011 16:19:32 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

I think it is wrong to write off a guy without goggling him and doing some research. The first few links are very informative.

to answer your question though, hell no.

[Deleted]

Nice link to the facts, lunatic...........

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 12, 2011 17:22:37 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Nice link to the facts, lunatic...........

I am not in the business of providing links. You can google him yourself.

[lakhota]

Santorum is a raving lunatic! And a religious nut.

Santorum: Doctors Providing Abortions To Rape And Incest Victims Should Be Criminally Charged

thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/12/243113/santorum-rape-incest/

[Virgil Showlion]

I don't know much about Mr. Santorum, but the more I learn, the more I like.

What is his position on aggressive cost cutting to balance the US budget?

[lakhota]

My favorie Santorum story is about him taking a dead fetus home to his children. Man, that is warped...

Father First, Senator Second

In his Senate office, on a shelf next to an autographed baseball, Sen. Rick Santorum keeps a framed photo of his son Gabriel Michael, the fourth of his seven children. Named for two archangels, Gabriel Michael was born prematurely, at 20 weeks, on Oct. 11, 1996, and lived two hours outside the womb.

Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.

"That's my little guy," Santorum says, pointing to the photo of Gabriel, in which his tiny physique is framed by his father's hand. The senator often speaks of his late son in the present tense. It is a rare instance in which he talks softly.

He and Karen brought Gabriel's body home so their children could "absorb and understand that they had a brother," Santorum says. "We wanted them to see that he was real," not an abstraction, he says. Not a "fetus," either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described -- "a 20-week-old fetus" -- on a hospital form. They changed the form to read "20-week-old baby."

More (if you can stomach it): www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61804-2005Apr17.html

[lakhota]

Yeah, Virgil, Santorum sounds like your kinda guy...

[lakhota]

Jun 11, 2011 20:49:01 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

To know more about Santorum, google him. Lots of good links and information out there.

Nice trap. However, I'm aware of the Internet definitions...

Santorum: The frothy mix of... (yuck)...

The Urban Dictionary definition is even worse...

[chiver78]

Jun 12, 2011 19:42:11 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

My favorie Santorum story is about him taking a dead fetus home to his children. Man, that is warped...

Father First, Senator Second

In his Senate office, on a shelf next to an autographed baseball, Sen. Rick Santorum keeps a framed photo of his son Gabriel Michael, the fourth of his seven children. Named for two archangels, Gabriel Michael was born prematurely, at 20 weeks, on Oct. 11, 1996, and lived two hours outside the womb.

Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.

"That's my little guy," Santorum says, pointing to the photo of Gabriel, in which his tiny physique is framed by his father's hand. The senator often speaks of his late son in the present tense. It is a rare instance in which he talks softly.

He and Karen brought Gabriel's body home so their children could "absorb and understand that they had a brother," Santorum says. "We wanted them to see that he was real," not an abstraction, he says. Not a "fetus," either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described -- "a 20-week-old fetus" -- on a hospital form. They changed the form to read "20-week-old baby."

More (if you can stomach it): www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61804-2005Apr17.html

wow. I have issues with a couple things here.....first - the pictures of the dead baby. this child was born live and did not survive. life and fate happen. the whole concept of immortalizing the dead through pictures both offends and completely confuses me. to each his own, I guess. I could never, and will never subject any loved one of my own to this odd practice. I do realize that it's been practiced throughout history.....I'm more from the camp that believes you steal someone's soul when you take a picture. if you take a pic of a dead body, you prevent that soul from finding its next path. may their saints and saviors cleanse their souls. mine would not.

second - the changing of the vital forms. a 20-week old baby is vastly different than a 20-week old fetus that survived for 2 hours post-birth. not only is that different from any legal definitions, it is drastically different from a developmental perspective. does that mean that the next jump is to declare a baby delivered at full term a "40-week old/10-month old baby"? US custom has been to declare age 0 as birth. this doesn't even line up to the Japanese custom of declaring age as "in the first year" for newborns - Japan still starts the clock at birth. I fully understand the ulterior motive here, but it's astounding that it was allowed to happen.

[Virgil Showlion]

I could care less how Mr. Santorum dealt with the loss of his child. His behaviour is unusual, certainly, but not immoral according to any religious or ethical standard I can think of.

If he believes abortion is murder, he shares my ideology in that respect. If he believes in radical measures to expunge the US deficit, he shares my ideology in that respect too.

[lakhota]

Jun 12, 2011 21:02:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I could care less how Mr. Santorum dealt with the loss of his child. His behaviour is unusual, certainly, but not immoral according to any religious or ethical standard I can think of.

If he believes abortion is murder, he shares my ideology in that respect. If he believes in radical measures to expunge the US deficit, he shares my ideology in that respect too.

Regarding the U.S. deficit, as a U.S. citizen, it matter to me HOW the U.S. deficit is reduced.

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 12, 2011 21:50:11 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

Jun 12, 2011 21:02:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I could care less how Mr. Santorum dealt with the loss of his child. His behaviour is unusual, certainly, but not immoral according to any religious or ethical standard I can think of.

If he believes abortion is murder, he shares my ideology in that respect. If he believes in radical measures to expunge the US deficit, he shares my ideology in that respect too.

Regarding the U.S. deficit, as a U.S. citizen, it matter to me HOW the U.S. deficit is reduced.

Same here. The way to do it is to cut spending to the bone. Medicare and Medicaid and the Military - the 3 Ms - should go away immediately. Then follow it up with Social Security.

[NoMoreLunacy]

Also, cutting taxes to close to 0 for the rich will generate unprecedented amount of tax revenue per the Laffer Curve.

[lakhota]

ravinglunatic, I'm starting to understand the logic of having the "ignore" function...

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 12, 2011 22:10:17 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

ravinglunatic, I'm starting to understand the logic of having the "ignore" function...

You can ignore me, but you can never silence me. Even if you silence me on this board, there is no way you can silence all the rich people who are rising up for their rights to low taxes. They will make lots of campaign contributions to the Republicans and the DINOs and ensure that sooner or later the social safety net is gutted. The revolution is coming.

[Virgil Showlion]

cutting taxes to close to 0 for the rich will generate unprecedented amount of tax revenue per the Laffer Curve

Cut spending to the bone I can agree with.

The Laffer curve only works under the assumption that a nation is solvent. Such does not apply to the US post-2008.

You can ignore me, but you can never silence me.

Isn't this a quote from one of those poorly-dubbed Japanese movies?

[NoMoreLunacy]

The LAffer curve always works. Under any circumstances. The Wall Street Journal has done lots of research on this and has proved that it is like magic. If you cut taxes to 0 for the rich and raise it heavily on the middle class and the poor tax revenue skyrockets.

[mmhmm]

All your post are belong to lunatic, virgil.

[Deleted]

no way in hades...

[lakhota]

Jun 12, 2011 22:19:56 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

The LAffer curve always works. Under any circumstances. The Wall Street Journal has done lots of research on this and has proved that it is like magic. If you cut taxes to 0 for the rich and raise it heavily on the middle class and the poor tax revenue skyrockets.

Sounds like some of Stephen Moore's twisted nonsense. Trickle down, baby, trickle down...

How Your Tax Rate Is Determined

The Laffer curve, a mound-shaped indicator, was designed to find the "ideal" tax rate that would help the government, as well as the people it serves, prosper. The idea is credited to economist Dr. Arthur Laffer, although Laffer himself notes that Muslim philosopher Ibn Khaldun wrote about it in "The Muqaddimah", a 14th-century text. Economist John Maynard Keynes also wrote about it in his economic works. In this article, we will take a general look at this economic concept and its impact on how much you lose off your check each month.

Determining the tax rate at which productivity and revenues are both maximized is the subject of great political debate because the Laffer curve does not provide a clear numerical answer to the taxation question - it merely suggested that such a hypothetical rate does exist.

In the world of politics, it all comes down to theories on how to manage the economy. The Laffer curve is an idea closely aligned with supply-side economics and the tax-cutting policies of former President Ronald Reagan, which are often referred to as "Reaganomics". (To learn more, read Understanding Supply-Side Economics.)

More (w/links): www.investopedia.com/articles/08/laffer-curve.asp#axzz1P7fFV4Vc

A Laughable Laffer Curve from the WSJ

scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/07/a_laughable_laffer_curve_from.php

Debunking the Laffer Curve - Democratic Underground

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1539550

[Deleted]

Jun 12, 2011 22:19:56 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

The LAffer curve always works. Under any circumstances. The Wall Street Journal has done lots of research on this and has proved that it is like magic. If you cut taxes to 0 for the rich and raise it heavily on the middle class and the poor tax revenue skyrockets.

lol... i assumed you were joking... were you serious?

[Virgil Showlion]

The LAffer curve always works. Under any circumstances. The Wall Street Journal has done lots of research on this and has proved that it is like magic.

*lol*

Because we all know the WSJ has never endorsed an economically suicidal policy--deregulation of OTC derivatives, NINJA loans, rocket docket foreclosures, ZIRP, etc., etc.

[SweetVirginia]

Jun 12, 2011 22:05:22 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Also, cutting taxes to close to 0 for the rich will generate unprecedented amount of tax revenue per the Laffer Curve.

[ed1066]

Jun 12, 2011 16:19:32 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

I think it is wrong to write off a guy without goggling him and doing some research. The first few links are very informative.

We get it! You're a sexual deviant. Congratulations...typical liberal...