Why should you correct false claims, Santorum? Doesn't the church you claim to follow have a Commandment about not bearing false witness? Or are you only a follower of Jesus when it suits you politically?

The reason you might be able to take into your little brain? That's what leadership is. LEADING! Which includes educating the illiterate like this poor soul.

Santorum, you are not fit for any office, least of all the Presidency.

If there was any doubt who the only honest man in this campaign is santy just cleared that one up...

I wonder when is the last time Santy and the Grinch went to confession?....or is that a thing of the past in the Catholic religion.

that is correct. it is not his job to retract his false claim. it is his job, as all republican politicians, to make them.

Feisty, thanks for the reminder. John McCain had the moral courage to do what was right by stating the truth and correcting that woman; he did the right thing.

Sadly, it should not come as a surprise that Rick Santorum has no moral courage but he had the audacity to claim McCain didn't know what he was talking about regarding enhanced interrogation techniques.

NewdayD, well said.

chilled,

Nope. We still go to confession. I would recommend my priest to Mr. Santorum. He can be very creative with the penance. And trust me, this would tick him off royally!

Where is Dan Savage when we need him? ;o)

Feisty, thanks for the reminder.

You're welcome Jody!

It was one of the rare moments during his campaign when he did the RIGHT thing.

I still claim Rick spells his name with a silent "P".

Santorum is a piece of work. I get great pleasure in knowing that our Country will never elect a True Conservative, especially a Social Conservative like Rick Santorum.

that is correct. it is not his job to retract his false claim. it is his job, as all republican politicians, to make them.

Zaruski shoots, HE SCORES!!

I hope these freaking ignorants like this are in the small tiny minority - I truly do. Otherwise somebody like Blingrich or Santorum will get elected.

I long for the days when Catholics were the ones these brain-compromised people were afraid of .... oh sorry - that was only when they were democrats..... lol

Great idea, phine.....the penance sounds like it may be delightfully awful but appropriate for Santy.

Santorum? Santorum? HMMM that name sounds familiar, didn't he make his fortune in the ANAL LUBE business?

Rick Santorum,

It's called "integrity". Google it. You might try some sometime. Share it with your fellow candidates. Might change your lives.

Thanks,

LMarcT

That's right...John McCain was honorable to stop someone during his 2008 campaign and say, "No, ma'am. He is not a Muslim. He is a Christian and a decent man." Though I didn't vote for McCain, I will always remeber that he did the right thing when he didn't have to. Santorum should take notes from McCain.

Memo to the other GOP Candidates:

Want to shut Santorum up tonight at the debate?

All you have to do is make a false claim about Santorum. When he challenges you on the statement you just made, simply remind him that he doesn’t think it’s his obligation, nor should it be our feeling that it’s his obligation to correct somebody who says something that he doesn’t agree with.

"He has no legal right to be calling himself president."

...other than being elected, you mean.

"He is an avowed Muslim and my question is why isn't something being done to get him out of our government. He has no legal right to be calling himself president,"

I was unaware that the Constitution said anything about Muslims not having a legal right to be elected President of the Untied States.That woman is a menace, yes she has the right to free speech but she doesnt have the right to be that stupid.

I have to wonder if honesty is something this presidental want to be knows anything about ? If he has a problem disagreeing when someone is wrong ... what will happen if he himself is qusetioned on honesty in what he says or makes claims too? So far..ALL of these republican tea party presidental want to bes have stretched the truth to fit their own needs....and these same people are making claims of our president doing the same things they are now doing to get elected....It seems our political system is moving toward a default..with neither party representing the voters , only wall street and the mega wealthy.

Really Bob? So pointing out the fact that Muslims have a legal right to be president makes me stupid? How so? are you one of those revisionists who believes that our founding fathers intended for this to be a white, christian only country?

The Treaty With Tripoli

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

deprog, to understand bob, you have to watch the movie "What about Bob?"

bob-1805084 - and for stupidly trying to work the stupid Santorum / anal sex joke into the thread.

That's a joke?

You can never correct all the false claims. If you did you would never move forward on the real problems.

It is the job of any good republican to perpetuate lies, encourage ignorance, establish fear, and establish hatred, in the pursuit of wealth and power for themselves and their lords, as directed by their makers and keepers, the corporations of the USA.

How about one at a time? How about the ones that are posed to you? It's not as though false claims have no effect on real problems.

That's a joke?

Known as a "practical" joke. Created by Dan Savage, in response to Rick's anti-gay stance.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/rick-santorums-google-problem-resurfaces-with-jon-stewart-plug/

I, like others here, was grateful for that moment of integrity shown by John McCain with that silly, old woman last time around. It will be the thing I remember longest about his campaign (other than his self-sabotage of a vice pick). Rick Santorum says it is not his job to correct what he knows to be a lie told about someone else. But, if elected, it would be his job to "stick-up" for the rest of us? It is a lot, from some, to expect that truth be told to power, Rick, but, it is not a lot to expect that it be told to ignorance and hatred. Shame on you, Mr. Moral Rightness. You acted the cowardly panderer.

I would think that "conservatives" might be all over the, "Not my job" statement by a public servant. Is there ever a time the President can pull off that line?

Boob numbers put yourself on ignore do the rest of us a favor stfu.

When members of the Democratic party don't want to answer a question, a Congressional investigation is in order, when a member of the Republican party doesn't want to answer a question, it is a "Gotcha" question (see Newt and Santorum).

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." The woman in the Santorum crowd had her own facts and Santorum knew she was wrong. Unfortunately, Santorum responded like the group at Penn State who chose not to speak out because it was not in their best interests. They put their interests above doing the right thing, above those of children who were abused - and they are no longer in those positions, are they.

Santorum wants peoples' trust and believes he is the best person to make decisions that will be for the good of the country. We can't be sure of that. Santorum wants voters to believe he's a pious altar boy but his look-the-other-way-if-it-suits-him behavior tells us the guy is short on character. Penn State had to remove people who showed a lack of integrity; voters should not elect Santorum in the first place.

Sorry, Santorum, you failed the simplest test of integrity. Who would want as the leader of their country someone who is such a panderer that he can not raise his voice in opposition to a woman who is short on facts? One does not put the person who lacks backbone in a position where being confronted by the most powerful people in the world is the norm. It would be a mismatch.

Santorum's record is not looking good. He was not re-elected as a Senator. He was named by CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, as one of the 20 most corrupt US legislators.

Santorum showed a distinct lack of character, and a regretable inability to think on his feet. It would have been easy to stand up for truthfulness, take a swipe at the President, and ingratiate himself to the potential voter at the same time, but he chose the coward's way out by pandering to ignorance and prejudice instead.

Even that wouldn't be so bad, if he had the backbone to think about it and later admit he was wrong. But, nooooo, he basically pointed the finger at the lady and blamed HER for lying, while shamelessly claiming that HE has no obligations to the truth. (What does THAT tell you about him?)

As to conveniently forgetting the Christian values he is so proud of, he does it a lot, particularly where the weak and downtrodden are concerned. Social justice? Not for him. Even when he talks about it, it's ONLY talk.

Step aside, Rick.

Hey Rick, what if she had said Jesus was a Muslim? Would you have corrected that? To have stayed silent, was to have this woman speak those words for you. Shame on you sir...

How very Christian of you, Ricky. Jesus must be SO proud of you for taking that high road. POS.

You can never correct all the false claims. If you did you would never move forward on the real problems.

The thing is, DB, all the false claims - the LIES - are a huge part of the list of "real problems" that needs to be addressed.

Li'l Ricky should learn that there's a big difference between challenging someone on something you just don't agree with, and making a correction to something you KNOW to be false. Redirect on the first, fine. Ignore the second, please go away - you're not qualified to hold public office.

Hey Ricky! I have a question for you. You say it's not your job to correct a wrong. Well then, ask yourself - "What would Jesus do?"

I'm waiting.....

Agree Feisty! Am I the only one, or did anyone else find the woman's voice and comments strangely similar to those of the woman who showed up at the McCain rally?

Agree Feisty! Am I the only one, or did anyone else find the woman's voice and comments strangely similar to those of the woman who showed up at the McCain rally?

SilverFoxUna,

You betcha!

I commented here from memory last night, but, when I heard the old tape from 2008 I couldn't believe it!

Is there a possibility that she/they are posting here?

From the comments I've read above and some of you peoples previous post, there seems to be some contradiction. Your stance on Christianity and morality can not change when it suits your candidate or it makes you a hypocrit. Your p!ssed that Santoum did not defend the President as a Christian but bash him for courting the evangelical vote and promoting his Christian family values. You all bash him (Santoum) for not defending the President from being a Muslim. So are you all against being a Muslim? Do any of you know if the President is a Christian or a Muslim? Does he(President) promote his religion or its values? Pick some values and stick with them. I'm sure some will have smart @ss comments without reflection but I'm a damned good smart @ss too, just ask my wife.

Mech

Most are disappointed in hypocrites. Santorum is a prime example. You can't just talk you also have to walk with Christ.

To proclaim Christ has a responsibility.

Lots of people want Jesus as their savior, but they don't want him as their Lord.

As far as Obama being Christian or Muslim or anything else? He has been very clear he is a Christian, but it really doesn't matter in America even a Druid has the right to be President.

Does he(President) promote his religion or its values?

It isn't his job to do that, but yes he does as the video I mention next shows.

On Obama and Christ check out the youtube vid from my post below:

#2.23 - Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:31 PM PST

Clicking on #2.23 should get you there.

What you just stated is bullsh!t sir. As a Christian it is your responsability to spread the teachings of Jesus Christ, Rick Santorum has publicly done that. I did not say the President was a Muslim, reread my post. In case you don't get it, my point is you can not bash someone for not standing up to their Christian values and another time bash the same person for promoting Christianity. In other words you can not be for and against something to make your point or you are a hypocrite.

As a Christian it is your responsability to spread the teachings of Jesus Christ

That is part of it. The word "Christian" means to be Christ like.

You still are commanded to walk the walk. Rick didn't.

1 John 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

A PERSON is commanded to spread the gospel.

That doesn't mean you are to do that on your employers clock. That would be stealing from your employer.

As PRESIDENT, Obama is not obligated to spread the gospel. That would be a violation of the position.

If you listen to the video you can hear Obama publicly proclaiming the gospel and its values..

I did not say the President was a Muslim, reread my post.

What you said is:

Do any of you know if the President is a Christian or a Muslim?

I didn't say you called him a Muslim - reread my post.

Mech,

Your stance on Christianity and morality can not change when it suits your candidate or it makes you a hypocrit

You're right, however, you would only have a point if we were promoting Christianity in our laws/government. We're not. Santorum is, ergo when he doesn't walk the "Christian" walk we have every right to point that out. Us showing inconsitancies in his morality, which he wants to impose on us isn't us being hypocritical, it's us pointing out how he is hypocritical. Come post that again when you know; A. Any of my religious/spiritual beliefs and B. How I have been inconsistant in them. Until then, the only person who can illustrate hypocrasy in Santorum's beliefs, is Santorum himself.

President as a Christian but bash him for courting the evangelical vote and promoting his Christian family values

It isn't about the President's religion, it's about Santorum's honesty and courage in the face of ignorant, false claims. Remember what rightousness is??? The rightous and ethical thing for him to have done is calmly and politely state that the President has every legal right to hold the office, that regardless there is no religious test in our country, and that he would prefer to remain focused on current issues. Being a grandma doesn't mean you can't also be hateful and stupid.

You all bash him (Santoum) for not defending the President from being a Muslim. So are you all against being a Muslim?

No, we're bashing Santorum for not telling the truth and for pandering.

Do any of you know if the President is a Christian or a Muslim? Does he(President) promote his religion or its values?

Yes, he's Christian, why shouldn't I take him on his word? No, he doesn't, nor should he. That's his personal belief and I could give two hoots. Also, who the hell cares???

my point is you can not bash someone for not standing up to their Christian values and another time bash the same person for promoting Christianity.

Yes you can, very easily, if those values he's promoting are the same ones he's not living up to. That means he's preaching to us to do the things he himself is not even capable of doing. Barf, get off your high horse.

In other words you can not be for and against something to make your point or you are a hypocrite

Here's where you really miss the point, we're never for Christianity in our laws. Santorem is, not us, ergo the burden is on him to live up to what he preaches, not on us to live up to what he preaches.

As a Christian it is your responsability to spread the teachings of Jesus Christ, Rick Santorum has publicly done that

Dude, that may be what you're called to do, but I've yet to receive the call to listen, or allow it to be shoved down my throat, or used to persecute my fellow citizens.

I'm sure some will have smart @ss comments without reflection but I'm a damned good smart @ss too

No, you really aren't.

Oregon, Sarah- You both are still blinded by your vision of politics. Oregon you stated above:

A PERSON is commanded to spread the gospel.

That doesn't mean you are to do that on your employers clock. That would be stealing from your employer.

As PRESIDENT, Obama is not obligated to spread the gospel. Where in the Good book does it state that? From your logic its not the The Presidents requirement to support his faith on "the clock" but it is Santorums requirement to support Obamas faith on "the clock".

As PRESIDENT, Obama is not obligated to spread the gospel. Where in the Good book does it state that?

The President of the United States is not mentioned in the bible.

His job description is found in the laws of the United States of America. Where does it say his job description is to spread the gospel?

The bible teaches us to not steal. Since it is not in his job description to spread the gospel if he used his position to do that it would be stealing from his employer - the people of the USA (Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, Atheists, etc).

it is Santorums requirement to support Obamas faith on "the clock".

No, it is Santorums requirement to stop lies and gossip when he knows the truth. That is called LIVING by your beliefs, a whole different concept from proclaiming the gospel.

From what I have seen from Obama he has LIVED by his beliefs without the need to preach.

I did not vote for him last time, I was prepared to vote McCain until I took a good look at Palin. I didn't vote for president at all.

This time I am prepared to vote for a true FAMILY VALUES candidate and an honorable man - Obama.

Santorum is not an honorable man.

So by your last statement your saying the laws of man trump the word of God. Atleast while your at work. If I'm a drunkard, cheat on my wife, lie and steal, I'm exempt from upholding my religous obligations as long as I'm at work. You know my original post was about the comments made by many who have two totally different(conflicting) opinions about Christianity. It was not even about reliion but rather the double standard when someone opposes your candidate. Nowhere in the article did I see where Santorum mentioned the word Muslim or in any townhall meeting/debate did I see him call The President a muslim. I personally don't know if he is a Christian or not, but since I have heard him say that, its ok. If he said he was another religion thats ok too.

Do you often have comprehension problems?

So by your last statement your saying the laws of man trump the word of God.

Didn't say that at all. I said the word of God tells us not to steal. If you are being paid by your employer to do a job that is the job you are to do. I'll repeat:

His job description is found in the laws of the United States of America. Where does it say his job description is to spread the gospel?

He is not being paid to spread the gospel. If he takes time away from his job to do that, he is stealing. Besides the Government of the United States was deliberately set up to separate religion from government. The bible does tell us to obey the law of the land, in our land that means a separation.

1 Peter 2:13 ¶ Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1 Peter 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
1 Peter 2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

If I'm a drunkard, cheat on my wife, lie and steal, I'm exempt from upholding my religous obligations as long as I'm at work.

I VERY CLEARLY SAID:

No, it is Santorums requirement to stop lies and gossip when he knows the truth. That is called LIVING by your beliefs, a whole different concept from proclaiming the gospel.

From what I have seen from Obama he has LIVED by his beliefs without the need to preach.

The complaint many, including me, have is; Santorum knows Obama is a Christian. There is a certain element of the Right that continues to spread lies and rumors about Obama. A true Christian stands for honesty, and refutes lies when they appear. For that matter any HONORABLE person does that whether they are Christian or something else.

Santorum did not mention Obama was a Muslim, someone else did.

Since they did that, in a direct question to him, he has an obligation to set the record straight - that is, IF he was an honorable man.

"He is an avowed Muslim and my question is why isn't something being done to get him out of our government. He has no legal right to be calling himself president," a woman asked, referring to President Obama.

At least THIS Christian would have set her straight.

The only one that does not comprehend is you. Because you quote scripture does not make you a Christian. Studying theology is not the same as giving your life to Christ. I see where you are going here. If the roles were reversed you would not support Santorum and condem Obama, you would come up with some reason to justify not defending him. If your a Christian I'm sure the comment about clinging to their guns and religion offended you. How about Obama's stance on issues such as Roe v Wade and homosexuality.

Studying theology is not the same as giving your life to Christ.

You are right about that. You see that all the time with these so called preachers that fleece the flock. You also see that in many churches today on the issue of homosexuality, answering your last question.

A Christian is commanded to go into all the world and preach the Gospel (good news).

The Gospel is not to run around pointing out the sins of those in the secular world. I wish people would look at their hand when they are pointing so they would see those other 3 fingers are pointing right back at them.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

The Good News (Gospel) is deliverance from sin. Both the penalty of eternal death and the grip of sin in life. The Gospel isn't that you are a sinner.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

We are commanded not to judge.

Matthew 7:

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

What you see in many churches is a message of judging those in the secular world, yet in their own church they celebrate sin.

They want to condemn someone who is born gay and they bless adultery.

According to the bible if you are divorced and you remarry you have committed adultery.

Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Adultery is a choice. Most of the militant antigay churches will marry divorced people. I have been divorced for 15 years, I don't date because I am a Christian. Hardest thing I have ever had to do. Before I was a Christian and before I was married I played around a lot.

Being gay is not a choice. It is the way they are born. We are born with lots of imperfections, it is the result of mans fall from the garden.

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Obviously babies don't talk as soon as they are born this is talking about mans condition, we are born sinners.

When someone becomes saved they become a new creature. Not by selfwill, or power of the mind, but by the power of God to change them. He does it in his time.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

It is an act of creation.

We don't have to point out the sins of the unsaved they know they have sins of one kind or another, let God deal with their sins.

I am opposed to abortion, unless the mothers life is in danger. It is not a parasite it is a child.

*The fifth week of pregnancy, or the third week after conception, marks the beginning of the embryonic period. This is when the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form.

*Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby's back is closing and your baby's heart is pumping blood.

*Seven weeks into your pregnancy, or five weeks after conception, your baby's brain and face are rapidly developing.

*Eight weeks into your pregnancy, or six weeks after conception, your baby's arms and legs are growing longer, and fingers have begun to form. The shell-shaped parts of your baby's ears also are forming, and your baby's eyes and nipples are visible. The upper lip and nose have formed. The trunk of your baby's body is beginning to straighten.

Your baby may begin to move this week, but you won't be able to feel it yet.

*At the beginning of the 11th week of pregnancy, or the ninth week after conception, your baby's head still makes up about half of its length. But your baby's body is about to catch up, growing rapidly in the coming weeks.

Your baby is now officially described as a fetus. This week your baby's eyes are widely separated, the eyelids fused and the ears low set. Red blood cells are beginning to form in your baby's liver.

*Twelve weeks into your pregnancy, or 10 weeks after conception, your baby is developing fingernails. Your baby's face now has a human profile.

That's the first trimester. I am very opposed to late term abortions.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

If the roles were reversed you would not support Santorum and condem Obama, you would come up with some reason to justify not defending him.

You have no idea what I believe, and there you are telling me what I believe - Unbelievable.

Mech,

I love how you make that assertion and than eleborate on it not at all. How am I blinded? What didn't make sense in my above post?

Care to actually explain and support your position, or just make assertions?

another example of liberal media. let us all stray from the issues that are killing this country. let us fall into the trap laid before us. hide behind your religion, or slam someone for their choice in life. at this point we have lost sight of the real issue...patriotism. where do we stand in the execution of our constitution? who obeys the law of the land? who respects these rights and how they apply to the masses? preservation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA should be the target that we all watch carefully. honesty and integrety should follow closely after.

dmond

If you are going for the Ron Paul angle here you are going for a man that will destroy this country.

When this nation was founded the wealthy rode horses the poor walked.

There was no internet, phone or electricity.

Jets didn't fly back and forth over the ocean and bombs weren't designed to blow up everything within miles.

Our forefathers built flexibility into the Constitution so that issues could be addressed when they arose.

Ron Paul wants to send us back in time to ignore those changes in the constitution that made this country better.

Paul believes an employer should be able to fire anyone they want for any reason - Including if you don't "put out".

He doesn't think there should be laws protecting employees from sexual harassment.

He even blames the employee.

Page 25 of the book HE WROTE:

Freedom Under Siege
The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years
by Ron Paul

Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable. If force was clearly used, that is another story, but pressure and submission is hardly an example of a violation of one's employment rights.

The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea of the voluntary contract. By what right does the government assume the power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to? The idea that a businessman must hire anyone and is prevented from firing anyone for any reason he chooses and in the name of rights is a clear indication that the basic concept of a free society has been lost.

Paul isn't for individual rights he is for Corporate rights - BIG CORPORATIONS.

Monopolies did more to destroy free trade and squash all competition. Our government passed anti trust legislation to put an end to those monopolies. Paul would like to put an end to the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act of 1914.

From page 13 of his book:

During the twentieth century, America has gone through a transition that has radically changed the political system established by the Founding Fathers. Although many seeds of statism were sown in the nineteenth century, they have matured in the twentieth century.
The trends in legislation in this century are clearly anti-free-market, starting with the Sherman Antitrust Act passed in 1890 to the strong federal control over trade with the Clayton Act of 1914. With the establishment of the FTC to current-day regulations, this century has certainly witnessed a loss of confidence in a truly free market. Even the term "laissez faire" is universally shunned by all politicians who fear that in championing capitalism, support will be lost.

Ron Paul is all about the über rich getting richer and the rest of us being low paid slaves.

J- We agree on some aspects of religion. But we also disagree. you say we are commanded to not judge but you pass judgement on Mr Santorum for not being an honorable man. You say being gay is not a choice, may I suggest Romans 1. I interpet that as a different case. Also, how about bi-sexual people? It seems they have a choice and just don't care. Then tell me what you would do if the roles were reversed regarding this news article. I don't believe you will answer that question because that would give light to what you truely believe. I hope I'm wrong. Did you ever get the point of my original post? It is not about the specific content of the Bible or Christianity, but the fact that people use Christianity as a crutch to promote their agenda and condem someone elses but contradict that opinion in a different situation.

I said we are not to pass judgment on the secular world.

In the bible Judgement relates to eternal damnation. Where have I judged Santorum in this manner?

Criticized yes.

Also Santorum claims Christ. He claims to not be part of the secular world. The bible gives us directions to address those of the body of Christ that go astray. Paul did just that when he addressed the Church at Corinth and when he criticized Peter in Galatians 2.

I don't see anything in Romans 1 that says it is a choice. In fact what it says is God gives them up to their sins. Just as God can change a so that they will walk more in accordance to his will he withdrew his protection from man and we turned to sin.

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

This was not directed to the secular world it was directed to the Jews. They were the only people that knew God.

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

They turned away from God so he withdrew his support from them.

Bi-sexual people are attracted to both, it is in their nature. It is the way they are born. Most do live a heterosexual life, though I would guess that many of the very anti-gay people out there are probably naturally Bi, but think it is a choice everyone must make. They are among the minority that have to make a choice. Again that is just a guess, I really don't know.

Then tell me what you would do if the roles were reversed regarding this news article. I don't believe you will answer that question because that would give light to what you truely believe.

You really didn't ask it before as a question you made it a statement of fact.

I am a free thinker. I am neither liberal nor conservative. I am not a Democrat I am not a Republican. I follow what I believe to be right. If the rolls were reversed I would say the same, "grow a pair and set the record straight".

As I said earlier:

I did not vote for him last time, I was prepared to vote McCain until I took a good look at Palin. I didn't vote for president at all.

This time I am prepared to vote for a true FAMILY VALUES candidate and an honorable man - Obama.

Santorum is not an honorable man.

If the rolls were reversed then Obama wouldn't be an honorable man, but the rolls aren't reversed. So far I am not liking a whole lot of what Obama has done, BUT he is the one honorable man left.

...people use Christianity as a crutch to promote their agenda and condem someone elses but contradict that opinion in a different situation.

That isn't what is going on. Most many of the people who have responded don't claim Christ. The only one using Christ as a Crutch is Santorum.

He uses Christ as an excuse to pass judgment.

You are flat out wrong. I feel sorry for you. You are still trying to use the STUDY of theoligy to justify one political candidate and demonize another. Romans 1:24-28 is about Gods wrath against mankind for this sin, not against Jews only. Furthermore, where did Santorum pass judgement? And against who? Cherry picking parts of a sentance, statement or quote and trying to apply pieces of scripture to justify what you want to believe is not gonna hold water with me and most evangelicals or anybody with a political agenda.

You don't know much about Rick Santorum, do you?

On Gay Marriage
"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."

Is this guy for real? Oh yeah, Big time. But does he have a dog?

On poverty-stricken unwed mothers:
"The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong."

So selling drugs or resorting to prostitution is more cost-effective?

On a woman's right to choose:
"But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave."

Noooo. I wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.

On working mothers:
"And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home."

Yeah, we want to work to pay the mortgage and buy food because staying home is a pain in the ass.

On teaching the theory of evolution:
"I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom. What we should be teaching are the problems and holes ... in the theory of evolution"

I'm not comfortable with religion being taught in the science classroom.

On religious views and politics:
"All of us have heard people say, 'I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it's not right for somebody else?' It sounds good, but it is the corruption of freedom of conscience." National Catholic Reporter

On Senate Democrats and use of the filibuster:
"I mean, imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942, "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine."

How dumb do you have to be to invoke modern history's most evil name in furtherance of your cause? About as dumb as Rick Santorum, I guess.

On the disastrous Hitler comment above:
"I compared it [the filibuster] to something that Adolf Hitler didn’t do, as opposed to something he did do. And that’s a big difference. It was an attempt to make a joke. You probably have learned this in your career, I’m still learning that you don’t make jokes using Hitler."

There you go. A United States Senator has to learn not to make jokes about Adolf Hitler. That's the biggest joke of all. Now he's making a run for President. If we don't do something to stop him, the joke will be on us.

On priests molesting children:
"In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it."

HUH? Read that again. He's saying that because priests were having sex with teenagers, it must have been consensual, and therefore okay.

On why priests in Boston molested children:
"It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

Right. Liberals made them do it. This one makes me want to bang my head against a wall. Or his.

Santorum told "Christianity Today" that "faith is a source of morality; it's a source of virtue; it's a source of reason. It's a tremendous influence on my worldview."

Great. Another member of The God Squad claiming to make critical decisions for America based primarily on his dedication to fundamental Christian beliefs.

Somebody tell me, please, when did Jesus ever say, "Love thy brother as thyself, unless he doesn't agree with you 100%, in which case you should starve him, berate him, refuse to help him and tell him how to live his life."

There's a great weight of hypocrisy on America's shoulders. The Republican primaries are just beginning and already we're inundated with radical right wing candidates pontificating on their own Personal Relationship with God and their definition of Christian values.

All the while they've been breaking Commandments ... and the backs of average Americans whose lives are in their hands.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning their faith. I'm expressing serious doubts about how well they practice what they presume to preach.

If Rick Santorum has a chance to lead, well, actually, I don't know what will happen. But I can guess.

"[The] right to privacy…doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution." Rick Santorum

http://open.salon.com/blog/sally_swift/2012/01/20/rick_santorums_greatest_hits_his_past_as_prologue

Mech

You are flat out wrong. I feel sorry for you.

I'm baffled about this one. Care to explain WHY you feel sorry for me? Because I don't believe like you do? I'm OK with that. Trust me, I think that is a pretty good place to be.

You are still trying to use the STUDY of theoligy to justify one political candidate and demonize another.

No, I am using the study of Hypocrisy. I have said Obama is HONORABLE, that has nothing to do with theology. The Right has brought religion in where it doesn't belong. Belief in any particular faith, or even in God, does not belong in a discussion of a candidate for public office.

This Nation was not founded on ANY faith. Our forefathers purposely kept religion out of the US Government.

The R-wingers have brought it into the picture and so far, with one exception, EVERY SINGLE GOP candidate has shown themselves to be Hypocrites, or just plain whacked out.

The exception was Huntsman. From what I saw he was an honorable man.

Romans 1:24-28 is about Gods wrath against mankind for this sin, not against Jews only.

Two things here.

1. You said it showed homosexuality was a choice:

You say being gay is not a choice, may I suggest Romans 1.

Romans 1 doesn't say it is a choice at all. Where did you get the idea that it did?

2. Before Jesus went to the cross the only people that knew God were the Jews. They were God's chosen people.

Now review the verse:

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Christ was sent for all mankind that is why in verse 16 he says first the Jew, then also the Greek (the rest of us).

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Furthermore, where did Santorum pass judgement? And against who?

John B, posted above, lays a lot of it out there.

Santorum said (From USA Today):

And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.

People are born Gay. All those examples are choices.Is he saying you don't have a legal right to commit adultery? Does that mean Newt is a criminal?

How does he deal with this:

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

He also said:

Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Surprise! There ARE strong healthy families where sodomy happens (both straight and gay).

There are some totally wrecked families that have none of those characteristics. If nothing else he should have been out of this a long time ago just because he is an idiot.

Cherry picking parts of a sentance, statement or quote and trying to apply pieces of scripture to justify what you want to believe is not gonna hold water with me and most evangelicals or anybody with a political agenda.

I care more about what God thinks than I care what you, or any of the others you mention think.

It is nice you know to tie Evangelicals and Politicians together. They do have about the same percentage of honesty.

Agreed, Chucky. Santorum should be ashamed of himself. And he calls himself a "good Catholic". I have seen better, morally and spiritually, Catholics that only show up for mass on Easter and at Christmas!!

Howdy Phine. I guess Rick has a low bar for what he considers a "good Catholic" to be.

Chucky,

That's only if you can agree that he is a good Christian,

In my view no catholic is a "Good" christian cause they do not follow the teachings of Christ, just their dogma, but that being said, most organized religions don't either so they shouldn't fee all alone out there.

But of course, Ricky does his best to prove the rule...

I guess his version is a whole lot different than mine. How low can these people go? Differ and fight all you want about policy, but this!?!?!

How you doing, Chucky. Was a little wound up there, but I am better now.

He is a total scumbag like the rest .His presence cheapens the office of President . I really think these cult members are nuts. And he cant understand why no one will trust him to hold public office .

Egilman,

Good Christian, good Catholic, good person; I think Rick has proven he is none of those.

Chucky, reread my post you will see it agrees with yours.

I would like to think I am a good christian, but since I am a sinner I'm afraid I will have to leave that judgement to the man above and just slog along doing the best I can.

but actively denying or ignoring the truth is not christian in any way....

Ricky fails miserably on that point.

Don't worry Eagleman, we are definitely on the same page. I'm still rootin' for your guy in the primary also.

You people are too much. Sitting here judging a person because he chose not to correct someone that disagrees with the liberal stance? Let's say the shoe was on the other foot... let's say someone at an Obama rally stated something about a republican candidate and that comment was questionable. Would Obama come to that republicans defense? I doubt it very seriously. And you people attack Santorum for his religious values... some even calling him non-christian because he happens to be catholic. What do you think about that phancy? Aren't you in the least offended by Egilman's remarks? Then Egilman adds insult to injury by saying that Santorum didn't come to the defense of Obama because Egilman believes Obama isn't a muslim. There are a lot of us out here Egilman sitting on the fence about Obama's belief system. Obama hasn't convinced me that he's a Christian. Not by any shred of the imagination.

And how many times has Obama corrected false information? And, howmany times has Obama told peopleto knock it off with using false charges of racism? It goes both ways!

BB

Not to get you more fired up, but let me ask this. Where does it say in the constitution one has to be Christian to be president? I think everyone is missing the boat (including me up to this point). What difference does a person's faith make if there is to be a seperation of church and state? We could go back to 1960 and subsitute Catholic for Muslim.

Just some points for all of us to think about.

What actions, words or deeds state otherwise? What the crap kind of a statement is that to make with zero to back it up? Christ are there actually people who really still BELIEVE this religious switcheroo crap? Lord almighty...

Santorum should have simpyl said "he was voted in by a majority of Americans and the electoral college - My intent is to replace him in Nov" or something of the like. His silence indicates he wants people to think these things. What is the point of a "town hall" meeting if not to inform and listen to ones constituents? He's SUPPOSED to educate the voting public, and that includes correcting misinformation.

Dirt, I don't know if your being facetious or not, but Obama has said many times that calling his opponents racist is unfair and untrue. Even the few times they WERE being racist, he has said to focus on the policy differences.

You are on the boat Phine ... The Constitution does not qualify any religious belief as a necessity to be President. It's only the minority fanatics found in every religion (unfortunately) that feel everyone should follow their beliefs.

Egilman,

Rick Santorum is a very conservative Catholic - not the kind of Catholic - like Mother Theresa for example - who take the words of Jesus to heart and turn them into actions. I liken his kind to the Pharisees who liked the rules - Republicans? - and try to tell everyone they are going to hell because they don't follow the rules. Real Christians of all denominations are more concerned about the needs of others and are willing to share their time, talents and money to help make this world a better place for everyone. "Love thy neighbor...." Real Christians try to lift people up - not tear them down and keep them down! They also wouldn't let that ignorant woman spew that hatred, listen to the applause and not call her on it. He didn't have a rule against that apparently! He's not my kind of Catholic.

Thanks TOG.

BB

Here is something just to think about later, ok? Not arguing here. In our history, we have hated Irish immigrants (they had a lifestyle), Italian immigrants, Catholics, blacks, native Americans - and all these groups have their own ways of living. A Baptist of today practices a lifestyle that I do not as a Catholic (and the Baptist probably disapproves of how I live my life). Just as all groups have bad, evil people who would, if they could do harm, there are, I hope, more who would do good.

Just something to reflect upon.

Brianb, what test does Obama need to pass to prove to you that he's a Christian? It really shouldn't matter what his religion is (we do have freedom of religion still, don't we?), but he has publicly stated that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Savior. That's it. That is all that is required: believe, confess our sins, and tell others. Obama is much more tolerant of others' beliefs than someone like Santorum, who calls himself "pro-life" but then doesn't want anyone to have access to birth control or affordable health care. Which man's positions will lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies, and thus, fewer abortions?

The point of the article is that Santorum had a chance to show some class (like McCain did), and he blew it. By doing so, he seems to be tacitly agreeing with the lies stated by the woman. Obama might miss the opportunity to correct something, too, but this article isn't about him. If you have a parallel example involving Obama, by all means, please share it.

Bethie - send me a youtube video link of him saying that and I will conceed I am wrong about him. I'll play the part of Thomas and not believe it until I see and hear it with my own eyes and ears.

BB

I guess it is because I have Muslim friends and the hubby works with some, I feel that somehow, as a society, we do them a disservice by lumping all of them together. I am just trying to add some common sense to the discussion.

On a side note, my English son-in-law, likes and respects my husband, but hates the fact he is Irish and catholic. It is one of those topics never brought up at family dinners. It's that Northern Ireland thing - that the English brand all Irish Catholics as killers.

Brian, Obama went to Rick Warren's Saddleback Church and participated in a forum with McCain in which they discussed various topics, including their faith and what it means to them. In this video, Obama confirms his belief in his salvation through Jesus Christ. In addition, he quotes from Micah 6:8, which serves as a guiding verse for his life: youtube.com/watch?v=V28824FUfwI

He mentions his desire, also, to help "the least of these". In Obama's books, he talks about his faith in these as well.

Brian

Bethie - send me a youtube video link of him saying that and I will conceed I am wrong about him. I'll play the part of Thomas and not believe it until I see and hear it with my own eyes and ears.

You might try this one. Obama begins at around 9 minutes in the video.

At around 11:45 he gets into his religious background.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ChF2Chjpd0

Do you need more? Not sure if I can find it, but I think this is pretty telling.

Beth, phine and everyone else. Please don't feed the trolls. Don't even bother with them.

A wise person once said "Against stupidity, no argument can succeed." So, why even argue with them? They are nothing and their words mean nothing. Just as the neanderthals died out, so will today's version die out as well. And some of them will bleed to death before then...from their knuckles constantly dragging on the ground...

Julie

Demons acknowledged Jesus Christ and feared HIM.

Precisely.

Probably one reason why our forefathers purposely kept our Government from being based on any religion.

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

For that reason it not only doesn't matter what (if any) faith someone has if they are to be President of the USA.

After all how can we know if Perry, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, or any other candidate is a true believer?

Only God can know the heart.

Since we can't know, a discussion about anyone's faith is pointless.

In my view no catholic is a "Good" christian cause they do not follow the teachings of Christ

There are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. Have you interviewed ALL of them to determine that not even one single Catholic follows the teachings of Christ? Would you say that you do?? It seems to me you have a lot in common with the lady at the Santorum rally.

Somebody has swallowed some bigoted propaganda without stopping to question it. That's just intellectual sloppiness.

Obama ... participated in a forum with McCain in which they discussed various topics, including their faith and what it means to them. In this video, Obama confirms his belief in his salvation through Jesus Christ.... He mentions his desire, also, to help "the least of these".

Sanorum has pretty much said that he doesn't care about "the least of these". Go figure.

Santorum, who calls himself "pro-life" but then doesn't

lift a finger to protect the unborn, not even when the Republican Party had control of the House, the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court, and most state legilatures and governships for 6 years?

That's what I thought you were going to say.

"because he chose not to correct someone that disagrees with the liberal stance?"

Because everyone who isn't a liberal believes Obama is a Muslim? Seriously?

Most of us don't have a problem with the religion of a candidate.

The problem I have, is when they use their religious views, to make policies that suit their own beliefs.

If you are going to govern a nation of many different faiths and cultures, leave your own religious dogmas and sales pitch at the door.

Do any of you super "Christians", believe Jesus would have gone into politics? Didn't Jesus say " leave those things(government) unto Caesar" ?

"because he chose not to correct someone that disagrees with the liberal stance?"

It isn't a liberal stance to believe that the President is legally allowed to hold the office, nor is it a liberal stance to believe he's a Christian or that his religion doesn't even matter.

Those are what we call facts.

Tune into ALEX JONES!!!

1. Why?

2. Never heard of him

3. These guys are like internet rumors.

4. Too many talking heads out there already and ALL of them L&R are full of $*!^

Santorums silence translates to consent....he agrees with the ignorant woman!

You ever notice how the MSM won't show their ignorant faces?

Like the one last week congratulating Newt for putting Juan Williams in his 'place'!

Let's see what these bigots look like for a change... what do they have to hide?

I have noticed, Feisty!...

MSM let's the bigots hide....... I'm sure they know who they are and they should be outed!

They have nothing to hide Betty. Only in your world, they are bigots. Your definition of bigot is anyone that disagrees with you.

Bravo, Brianb

Your definition of bigot is anyone that disagrees with you.

Actually that is not true - I looked up the definition of 'bigot' and lo & behold YOUR picture was next to it... Go figure... lol

XOXO,

Betty Boop!

Bravo, Brianb

Dirtbag - you might try something original for a change - humping the leg of a RWNJ isn't furthering your cause little buddy...

Consider it a helpful hint! ;o)

Betty, you know I'm not a bigot. If I were, we'd be best friends. You couldn't help yourself... you gravitate towards the lowest lifeforms.

you gravitate towards the lowest lifeforms.

I have ZERO problem getting into the mud pit with people like you BB! ;o)

Best part is, I eat you for LUNCH everyday and three times on Sunday little man...

PS: Why are you & your ilk so terrified of me? All of the ad hominum off topic attacks do not bolster your cause?

It's the norm these days to understand that bigotry is wrong. However, the fear and self confidence issues that make up bigots, are still very prevalent. So, in order to maintain their defense mechanism and egos, which is most easily done through bigotry, those who are intolerant demonize those that call them out on their intolerance.

The bigots have effectively made a taboo out of calling someone a bigot. So now, yes it may be uncomfortable for one to be seen as intolerant, but it also may be uncomfortable for someone to point that intolerance out.

I, howeve, have no problem doing so, hang with me here... The difference that makes the Juan Williams lady a bigot, and the people who call the lady a bigot, not a bigot is the BUT FOR test. But for the comment she made, we would have no problem with her. It is her comment, not her we have the issue with.

Now, you can but for the question Juan Williams asked... But I'm going to have to ask the impossible of you, that you look at this logically. Race issues and poverty are a problem in this country. Juan Williams, as a journalist, had every right to ask a question in regards to a comment which was at best miscontrued, and at worst racist and insulting, by/to the very people Newt wants to elect him. You can agree/disaggree with Newt's stance, but the context of that comment, by that women, the tone, the wording, the everything, was quite clearly underlined with racism.

Afterall, you don't have to jump off the Empire State Building to know it's gonna hurt when you land. Somethings are just obvious, and when they are, what better way to discourage the honest people from calling out the intolerant, than by making honesty itself the demon.

Great definition of a liberal stoney - I'll have to remember that one.

they SHOULD publish photos of these idiots

Reminds me back at the Palin klan rally's in 2008 & people hollering 'kill him' about then Senator Obama!

While Bible Spice stood there grinning from ear to ear....

@!$%# like this really turns my stomach!

....Maybe those bigots aren't camera ready......don't have their 'fancy pointed hats on'!

Bible Spice ...oh that's rich ........such an apt description,can't believe I missed that......you know..... patterning my admiration for the idiot of dittoes,more commonly and accurately called Lush Dimbulb

Rusty Limpnoodle

Caribou Barbie, is another accurate name for Palin.

As a Sarah myself, I highly promote anything you want to call her besides Sarah. I always enjoyed Mama Grizzley. Of course, I would enjoy even more, taping a Salmon to her face and showing her what a real Mama Griz can do.

As for Rush, well plain old Sh(% - For - Brains works for me.

And when have Obama and the DNC corrected false information?

Or--when have they not??? This article is about Santorum and his total lack of decorum.

Hey--I'm a poet!

Two wrongs don't make a right--is this your best defense? The deal is, you can't defend his childish behavior.

Santorum who?

If this report of his reply: "Well yeah," said Santorum. " is correct, he was actually agreeing with her!

He has just lost all credibility as an honest, Christian, Catholic, and what ever else he has in his holier than thou resume. Santorum, the Sanctimonious, you are just like the rest of the lying low-down, win-at-any-price politicians. Don't let the door hit you on the way out of the race! Oh, and don't forget to turn out the light!

You liberals were just looking for something to demean Santorum on... I think you complain way too much. In fact it's almost childish... what? You're only 12 years old.... I rest my case.

So, Brianb--you agree with allowing people to get away with lies? At the very least, Santorum lost a golden opportunity to look like the grown-up in the room. That's one silly politician, in my book. How old is he, anway?

Wait, what? Getting away with lies? How many lies has your prez. gotten away with of which you agree? How old is Santorum? How old is O? I didn't realize he is in his golden years.

Perfectly said Jody. Every freakin' time there's an election, we have to put up with this crap. It's a real eye opener when we see what this country is made up of and it's not pretty.

You know, Dr Paul and the rest of us moderate progressive Conservatives have been trying to take back the Republican party for a few years now, if you moderate Democrats want to help get rid of the the phoney religious fanatical flakes, you can help us, if you really want to get rid of them rather than just whine and complain.

It's what the GOP voters feed on.

I agree Pat...

From all appearances their appetite is insatiable!

Can you imagine what other country's are thinking watching this mess?

Pat, also perfectly said!

Egilman, I don't watch Fox; I have been railing against their message for years. I don't vote Republican. If it's too late it's because the Republicans in this country said nothing. They may have been ashamed, but they said nothing. We Democrats have been fighting their bigotry for years.

And they win because when the MSM attempts to confront these issues, Fox, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Newt & Co. scream LIBERAL MEDIA!

I don't think you're going to get very far if you accuse "moderate Democrats" of doing nothing but "just whine and complain."

It may make you feel superior to call names -- which is a logical fallacy -- but it won't win any converts. If you represent Ron Paul's supporters, you're going to have to get him elected on your own. Unless you can stop whining and complaining about those who whine and complain.

AS have I Pat, as have I....

It's not to late, it is for this election cycle, but not overall. I'm not ashamed of my position, I left their brand of Republicanism years ago. Their brand will kill this country.

But I also disagree with the socialism of this country, a little bit of social help is good but not the massive controls that come with the Democrat brand....

Someday we will have our party back, then we can get on with making this country greater than what we have descended to today.

Robert,

Well this is a first, someone calling me a "Name Caller" that is far from the truth brother, I may be a conservative but I believe in honesty on all sides.

Calling me a "Name Caller" just proves my point better than I ever could.

This is priceless People who come on here everyday saying some of the most vicious, hateful, untrue things are going to "call the kettle black". ROTFLMAO

Egilman, I guess classifying "moderate democrats" as people who "just whine and complain" isn't technically name calling. It just sounds like it.

Libertarianism has a long and respectable history in political theory, going back farther than Lock's "unalienable rights."

The position, taken to its extreme, though -- or not EVEN to its extreme -- gets to look a little antiquarian and brings some logical baggage alone with it. If Paul can come up with some sensible answers to questions about segregation and the like, he might win over some of those moderate democrats and independents.

As it stands, his problem is his insistence on ideological purity. Ron Paul was asked -- without anger -- what would prevent segregation from returning if a libertarian government were in power. His answer was a mish mash of Adam Smith and Charles Darwin. He could easily have gotten out of it just by saying, "Libertarianism provides us with a useful set of guidelines for governance -- with some exceptions." Instead he chose the General Custer option.

Modern libertarians, like Nuzick, have argued that since your body belongs to you, and since your labor is a product of that body, then it's yours to do with what you will. In other words, there is nothing that can stop you from selling yourself into consensual slavery.

Granted that the question sounds silly. So what's the answer?

What most people find appealing is Ron Paul's emphasis on small government, individual freedom, and no interference in private lives. What alienates people is that some of us want to go to war, prevent gay marriage, make abortion a crime, and want to keep our government benefits while making others sacrifice theirs.

Paul would do better explaining some of these conundrums instead of bewailing the inaction of independent and moderate Democrats. At least he doesn't have to worry about moderate Republicans, because there are none.

That's because the Moderate and progressive Republicans like me have either left the party and become independents or joined the Democrats, just because they became closer to their ideal than the republicans., much like Reagan leaving the democrats to join the republicans. Parties do shift positions over time. In today's world, democrats most closely resemble republicans of the 1850's except for the Keynesian economic and big government theories. Republicans on the other hand, especially the Neo-Con wing, resemble the southern christian wing of the democrat party in 1865-66 or so, the birthplace of the KKK. The hardcore libertarians of today, would resemble the whigs of 1840 or so just before they died out and were supplanted by the republicans. The moderate libertarians of today, (Dr Paul is their leader) resemble the Democrats of 1860, basically leave us alone and get the hell out of our lives.

The parties have shifted quite a bit over the last 150 years or so.

I agree that Dr Paul could use some help in the speech making side of his campaign, heck he has said it himself, he needs to clarify and expand on his positions instead of spouting libertarian philosophy, when he gets to that point, watch out he will be a force to be reckoned with..

(Hopefully, before the campaign ends)

Dr Paul wasn't and isn't bewailing the lack of support from moderates, I WAS...

Okay.

Then he wonders why he has a google problem.

I almost lost it garybob. That is so disgusting!!!

Ol' Frothy...I'm thinking that, as a good Catholic boy, he may have some firsthand knowledge of this, explaining his homophobic views.

It is a shame to go to such lengths to appease voters. However, politicians will prostitute themselves for a vote (no matter which side of the divide)

Excuse me, Progressive, you have it backwards.

It is the Governments duty to protect and defend ME and every other citizen of this country and our rights.

It is not the citizens duty to protect the Government.

It is the citizens duty to throw off such a government as you describe.

Marty, you shouldn't feel too bad about not speaking out when your close friends say stupid things. For one thing, everybody needs close friends, and your disagreement on an issue they feel strongly about is likely to leave you isolated.

For another, the values you find so obnoxious are systemic ones. I've lived in the rural South and in other equally benighted areas and your lone voice isn't likely to change the state's opinions. So it would not just be painful for you to speak out, but pointless.

The best way to handle this insanity if it comes up in conversations is not to rise to the bait but to downplay the issue in an offhand way. Example: "Well, I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other but my philosophy is give the guy a chance -- live and let live -- and see what happens."

Admit (or claim) that you don't know and you're witholding your judgment. It's hard to argue with a position like that. It doesn't push your friends away, and it may even cause some of your listeners to wonder if that's not a pretty reasonable idea after all.

That's my advice. I speak to you as your psychologist. That will be ten cents.

AWW christ, talk about inflation!!! 10 CENTS? it used to be 2 CENTS?

Oh that's right you need to make a living... ;-0)

(just in case you missed it it was a joke)

Marty,

I really enjoyed your post! Good for you, for both wanting to do the right thing and admitting when you didn't. Don't worry too much, my generation will eventually clean this all up. Just after we finish eating and paying for the sh($-burger the boomers left us. :)

$-burger the boomers left us.

We Boomers didn't leave you that - look to the Reagan years.

Quit making excuses. Your generation has made enough of it's own mess, every generation does.

My generation hasn't done anything yet, except fight the wars for you, that your generation started and aren't physically capable of taking on. And those who took power during the Regan years ARE the boomers, the sons and daughters of my grandparents generation.

Perhaps you should sit back and take a look at the world you've left us, as we begin to graduate, build careers and inherit this mess. Environmental issues, debt, endless nation building war, demonization of gay people and poor people... Those are the consequences of the policies put into place in the 70's, 80's, and '90's.

Maybe you should be more grateful that, not only are we willing to go fight your battles for you, we're also willing to pick up the tab. Don't tell me to quit making excuses, I've already started the labor intensive job of fixing things, seeing as I get paid a piss poor amount as a social worker, all while watching my clients get called lazy and entitled.

If you are so blinded to the mess that the upcoming generations are facing, than YOU are part of the mess.

Sarah

My generation hasn't done anything yet, except fight the wars for you, that your generation started and aren't physically capable of taking on.

EVERY GENERATION DOES THAT! Did you think Vietnam was started by my generation?

Reagan was not a Boomer, nor was GHW Bush who came after, nor Jimmy Carter who was before.

Those are the consequences of the policies put into place in the 70's, 80's, and '90's

No those were consequences in place way before then.

*Environmental issues?

Should have seen it before we took over. Lead in gas, acid rain, second hand smoke, factories dumping directly into rivers - are you aware in Cleveland the river caught on fire?

*Debt?

During the Reagan years the national debt tripled.

*Endless nation building war?

Vietnam, Korea, Desert Storm; Reagan invaded Grenada for goodness sake. US support for evil clowns such as the Shah of Iran turned so much of the world against us.

*Demonization of gay people?

You really need to study up on the treatment of Gays before the Boomers took over, while you're at it you might study up on Civil Rights.

*Poor people?

We have always had poor. Drugs and alcohol being main contributors.

You are typical of your "give me what I want" generation. Selfish and spoiled we left some things for you to work on.

I really can't believe how spoiled you are.

Every generation has things to work on and improve, do your part.

EVERY GENERATION DOES THAT! Did you think Vietnam was started by my generation?

And you had a right to be angry about it too.

No those were consequences in place way before then.

DOMA, the repeal of Glass-Stegall, DADT... All repealed in the decades I mentioned.

Should have seen it before we took over. Lead in gas, acid rain, second hand smoke, factories dumping directly into rivers - are you aware in Cleveland the river caught on fire?

Not fixed yet. Should I not be angry?

You really need to study up on the treatment of Gays before the Boomers took over, while you're at it you might study up on Civil Rights.

Gays were completely excluded from the civil rights movement. They are not a protected class under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Nor are they given civil rights now.

We have always had poor. Drugs and alcohol being main contributors.

We haven't always demonized them though, have we?

You are typical of your "give me what I want" generation. Selfish and spoiled we left some things for you to work on.

I really can't believe how spoiled you are.

And you were quoting the Bible above??? You don't know me from jack, nor are you in any position to tell me what I am or am not. I have every right to be fed up with the state my country is in, and with the people who have led it here. No upward mobility has occurred IN MY LIFETIME. My grandparents came back from WWII and built you a middle class, which has ceased to grow since 1973. We have a congress that can't accomplish the most basic tasks, presidential candidates running on the platform of "Let's blame brown people", and idiots on newsvines who think they know people well enough to pass judgment.

I'm also willing to bet that in the 10 years I've been an adult, I've done more than you have in a lifetime to make things better.

When you live in a tent for two years acting as everything from jail guard to mother to 10 emotional disturbed teenagers...

When you move to Detroit and work as an in-home social worker and family preservationist on call 24/7...

When you do that for less than you could make as an auto mechanic, after putting yourself into debt in order to cover two degrees...

When you take out ANOTHER loan for a law degree and pick civil rights as a concentration...

Preach to me about doing something about it.

Sarah

You don't know me from jack, nor are you in any position to tell me what I am or am not.

Your words speak for you.

Just after we finish eating and paying for the sh($-burger the boomers left us. :)

When you form negative opinions on GROUPS of people by color, creed, sex, orientation, age, GENERATION, religion, etc. it is called - Prejudice.

My generation was perhaps the first to publicly voice that prejudice was wrong. That we need to look at the individual rather than criticize them as some kind of group.

My generation hasn't done anything yet, except fight the wars for you, that your generation started and aren't physically capable of taking on.

You want to bring Prejudice back - shame on you.

B&M Gates just donated $750 Million to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

On the opposite end of the scale, and in the same generation, you have people like Don Blankenship CEO of Massey, responsible for the Upper Big Branch mine disaster. As Blankenship said, “Violations are unfortunately a normal part of the mining process.”

For every B. Madoff, there is a W. Buffett.

It is true some generalizations can be made about a generation but your generalizations are overblown, negative, and inaccurate. You whine and complain because you weren't given a silver platter - NONE OF US WERE!

Whoever is in power causes the problems and creates the solutions, those people will usually be of the same generation, but not the same mind.

And there are always holdovers. After all Senator Frank Lautenberg was born in 1924.

DOMA, the repeal of Glass-Stegall, DADT... All repealed in the decades I mentioned.

Personally I believe repealing DADT was a good thing. I don't think someone's sexual orientation has a negative effect on the military and they should serve openly. DADT was maybe a necessary stepping stone, but I am glad it has been repealed.

Same with DOMA. I think it is wrong that 2 people of the same sex have not been allowed to enter into lifetime commitment with all the benefits people of the opposite sex enjoy. I am glad Pres. Obama has issues on it's constitutionality.

The Glass Stegall repeal was brought about by Representative Jim Leach, and Senator Phil Gramm BOTH born in 1942 - pre-Boomer generation.

On the environment:

Not fixed yet. Should I not be angry?

No, you shouldn't be angry - KEEP FIXING IT!

Before we started nobody even considered fixing it. We were angry, that is why we chose to stop it. Anger can bring change now we have to fix it. You don't have to be angry to work, now it is time to be rational.

A couple hundred years of abuse takes time to stop.

It was a big ugly train that was flying down the mountain with no brakes, it is going to take a while to stop.

Gays were completely excluded from the civil rights movement. They are not a protected class under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Nor are they given civil rights now.

That wasn't the point. Remember that prejudice point up there? Previous to the Civil Rights movement people usually categorized others by color, sex, income level, religion (because I am a Christian many lump me together with Santorum, P. Robertson, or the Westboro Baptists), or Sexual Orientation.

The civil rights movement changed that. We looked at people as people instead of groups. It is a mind set.

Now you want to use "Generation" as a new form of Prejudice. You want to turn back time.

We haven't always demonized them though, have we?

Yes we actually have. Until recently we didn't demonize "Generations", that idea is new.

You don't know me from jack, nor are you in any position to tell me what I am or am not.

I am going by what you have said. You whine and cry and moan because life isn't perfect.

That has nothing to do with your commendable charity work. Many of us have done similar. You seem to think that makes you superior, you are not. You are just one of us.