Rick Santorum Megathread: A Frothy Mixture of Opinions

[Lakeland]

Yes pointing out how Obama isn't the holy savior he and his banker friends at Goldman made him out to be is very unconstructive isn't it.

Where do you see anyone making him out to be a holy savior? I see some people deriding him for not being one, but nobody actually acting like he is one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShhO6Ddzmxg

[The Steel Magnolia]

Where do you see anyone making him out to be a holy savior? I see some people deriding him for not being one, but nobody actually acting like he is one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShhO6Ddzmxg

From 2008; your point is...?

[Kaeshar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShhO6Ddzmxg

From 2008; your point is...?

Not to mention that it was election night. Of course every supporter of his is going to try and show up.

[Lakeland]

Why do you hate independence and self reliance? Just curious.

Are you gonna bark all day little doggy, or are you gonna bite?

First you claim Santorum's platform is not crazy, despite this thread being filled with evidence to the contrary. When made aware of his positions, you changed the subject to "Prove that Santorum and the Republicans will damage the country." When given examples of how a Tea Party government would be potentially disastrous, you didn't refute it and changed the subject once again to "The Republicans have principles." Their principles aren't worth defending. You must be getting tired, I bet those goalposts are heavy.

Last time I checked, I've just been responding to other people's posts. Your "evidence" so far has basically been your continual claim that he'll "be bad for the country". As to the OP, the only other part of the thread I've wasted my time on, I don't really care about 2%, 10%. People tried to make a big deal about Rev Wright, 57 states, and a bunch of other stupid stuff about Obama. The important thing is the platform. Obama has shown he can't lead, and if he's as far "left" we're going to get then we'd be better off going further right. Better to be committed to one solid ideology than a dysfunctional hodge podge of both. The dems are spineless, at least the republicans present a more or less unified front and ideology, which has been proven to work, because it's worked for most of human history.

When have you ever mentioned Tea Party anything? Those people are just the right wing version of OWS, both fools.

[Lakeland]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShhO6Ddzmxg

From 2008; your point is...?

Not so cheery eyed now?

[Wikkiwallana]

Where do you see anyone making him out to be a holy savior? I see some people deriding him for not being one, but nobody actually acting like he is one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShhO6Ddzmxg

I see your problem, you seem to be confusing appropriate enthusiasm for your choice winning a major victory with worship. This is worship.

[Lakeland]

Expanding civil rights to persons under 9 months of age? What a terrible person.

By taking them away from their mothers? And harassing people for their orientation? Or not belonging to a church he personally approves of? Or having the wrong skin color or last name?

No as in 9 months as in unborn.

[Lakeland]

Because I actually give them credit for not being listless. But if you think I should have a lower opinion of them, please, convince me.

Upward social mobility is hard in the US, and getting harder every year. You cannot expect a majority to accomplish a statistical improbability. Statistics just doesn't work like that.

They can try going to school for a STEM degree, yeah I know it's harder than women's studies, but I managed to pull it off. There is nothing wrong with being blue collar, if we actually valued real work and didn't outsource everything to China...

[Wikkiwallana]

By taking them away from their mothers? And harassing people for their orientation? Or not belonging to a church he personally approves of? Or having the wrong skin color or last name?

No as in 9 months as in unborn.

…
It can also refer to a response that is totally unrelated to the original statement or question:
Mary: I wonder how Mrs. Knowles next door is doing.
Jim: Did you hear that the convenience store two blocks over got robbed last night? Thieves got away with a small fortune.[3]

[New England and The Maritimes]

By taking them away from their mothers? And harassing people for their orientation? Or not belonging to a church he personally approves of? Or having the wrong skin color or last name?

No as in 9 months as in unborn.

I lol'ed. That's a very stupid proposition for a number of reasons that have been done to death. TL;DR if you are anti choice it is because you are 1. stupid, or 2. a misogynist.

[Lakeland]

Prior to that a [D] and you know it.

And? He's the one that decided to change it. Not my fault you asked a question then didn't like the actual answer.

The actual answer is he'd still be D if he didn't get primaried.

[Hittanryan]

Upward social mobility is hard in the US, and getting harder every year. You cannot expect a majority to accomplish a statistical improbability. Statistics just doesn't work like that.

They can try going to school for a STEM degree, yeah I know it's harder than women's studies, but I managed to pull it off. There is nothing wrong with being blue collar, if we actually valued real work and didn't outsource everything to China...

Who, exactly, do you think is outsourcing manufacturing jobs to China?

[Lakeland]

Because I actually give them credit for not being listless. But if you think I should have a lower opinion of them, please, convince me.

Horatio Alger called, he wants his naive, pie-in-the-sky mythology back.

Thanks for convincing me that leftism is actually a pessimistic ideology.

[New England and The Maritimes]

And? He's the one that decided to change it. Not my fault you asked a question then didn't like the actual answer.

The actual answer is he'd still be D if he didn't get primaried.

Like how Eisenhower was an R, despite having fuck all to do with today's Republican party. Lieberman was a Democrat a long time ago, when the party was full of very stupid people, a time when he fit in.

[Wikkiwallana]

And? He's the one that decided to change it. Not my fault you asked a question then didn't like the actual answer.

The actual answer is he'd still be D if he didn't get primaried.

That wasn't the question you asked.

[Kaeshar]

Are you gonna bark all day little doggy, or are you gonna bite?

First you claim Santorum's platform is not crazy, despite this thread being filled with evidence to the contrary. When made aware of his positions, you changed the subject to "Prove that Santorum and the Republicans will damage the country." When given examples of how a Tea Party government would be potentially disastrous, you didn't refute it and changed the subject once again to "The Republicans have principles." Their principles aren't worth defending. You must be getting tired, I bet those goalposts are heavy.

Last time I checked, I've just been responding to other people's posts. Your "evidence" so far has basically been your continual claim that he'll "be bad for the country". As to the OP, the only other part of the thread I've wasted my time on, I don't really care about 2%, 10%. People tried to make a big deal about Rev Wright, 57 states, and a bunch of other stupid stuff about Obama. The important thing is the platform. Obama has shown he can't lead, and if he's as far "left" we're going to get then we'd be better off going further right. Better to be committed to one solid ideology than a dysfunctional hodge podge of both. The dems are spineless, at least the republicans present a more or less unified front and ideology, which has been proven to work, because it's worked for most of human history.

When have you ever mentioned Tea Party anything? Those people are just the right wing version of OWS, both fools.

True, he could have done things a whole lot better and his inexperience has hurt him to a degree.

Also, what in your opinion would be 'going further right''? The republicans are already far to the right, what in your opinion would be further to the right than what they are saying now?

[Lakeland]

No as in 9 months as in unborn.

…
It can also refer to a response that is totally unrelated to the original statement or question:
Mary: I wonder how Mrs. Knowles next door is doing.
Jim: Did you hear that the convenience store two blocks over got robbed last night? Thieves got away with a small fortune.[3]

I think you need to reread my post, he supports fetal personhood. It expands civil rights to unborn persons, ie the 9 month gestation period. You claim he supports taking away rights when the exact opposite is true.

Please point me to the plank in his platform that mentions religious or ethnic intolerance?

Meanwhile "African Americans for Obama", heh, imagine "Whites for Romney". Ah the double standards amuse me so.

[Kaeshar]

He's not talking about fetal rights, he's talking about womens rights.

[Lakeland]

Last time I checked, I've just been responding to other people's posts. Your "evidence" so far has basically been your continual claim that he'll "be bad for the country". As to the OP, the only other part of the thread I've wasted my time on, I don't really care about 2%, 10%. People tried to make a big deal about Rev Wright, 57 states, and a bunch of other stupid stuff about Obama. The important thing is the platform. Obama has shown he can't lead, and if he's as far "left" we're going to get then we'd be better off going further right. Better to be committed to one solid ideology than a dysfunctional hodge podge of both. The dems are spineless, at least the republicans present a more or less unified front and ideology, which has been proven to work, because it's worked for most of human history.

When have you ever mentioned Tea Party anything? Those people are just the right wing version of OWS, both fools.

True, he could have done things a whole lot better and his inexperience has hurt him to a degree.

Also, what in your opinion would be 'going further right''? The republicans are already far to the right, what in your opinion would be further to the right than what they are saying now?

The fifties were pretty nice, in the north anyway.

[Ruridova]

The name of this thread cracks me up.

[Lakeland]

The actual answer is he'd still be D if he didn't get primaried.

That wasn't the question you asked.

True blue, dem-o-crat.

[Lakeland]

They can try going to school for a STEM degree, yeah I know it's harder than women's studies, but I managed to pull it off. There is nothing wrong with being blue collar, if we actually valued real work and didn't outsource everything to China...

Who, exactly, do you think is outsourcing manufacturing jobs to China?

Both parties.

[Wikkiwallana]

I think you need to reread my post, he supports fetal personhood. It expands civil rights to unborn persons, ie the 9 month gestation period. You claim he supports taking away rights when the exact opposite is true.

Please point me to the plank in his platform that mentions religious or ethnic intolerance?

Meanwhile "African Americans for Obama", heh, imagine "Whites for Romney". Ah the double standards amuse me so.

In an interview with ABC's television program This Week, Santorum said, "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

He has openly stated his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants. He supports the construction of a barrier along the U.S.–Mexican border, an increase in the number of border patrol agents on the border, and the stationing of National Guard troops along the border.

[Wikkiwallana]

That wasn't the question you asked.

True blue, dem-o-crat.

Seriously, what is it with you and responding to me with non-sequiturs?

[Lakeland]

No as in 9 months as in unborn.

I lol'ed. That's a very stupid proposition for a number of reasons that have been done to death. TL;DR if you are anti choice it is because you are 1. stupid, or 2. a misogynist.

A misogynist to most people on this site is someone that doesn't imbibe fully the drink of radical feminism. I happily call my self a misogynist when presented with such slander.

I also noticed you didn't actually make a case, only presented two ridiculous options. I don't think you can actually make the case why women should be able to kill their future children on a whim.