Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thanks I just zapped it. Strange. Tbone must have peed on the local intranetz again.

Yep, Santorum's a terrifying dude.

His upside is that there's not the slightest chance he could make it through the general election. Not even close. You can win without certain constituencies, but you can't win without the, "I'd prefer it if the president didn't tell me what sort of sex I'm allowed to have," people. Because there's a lot of those.

He's basically this year's Palin. Palin could've waltzed into the Oval Office in the five minutes between the Republican nominating convention and her first interview, and then the majority of the country realized how flying rodent gak she was. Santorum's on the rise now; he'll probably even pick up some primary wins. But it's not going to take the public long to realize he's not only a theocrat, but a big-government theocrat.

I don't know anything about Santorum. Whats the issue?

Frazzled wrote:I don't know anything about Santorum. Whats the issue?

He doesn't believe in the right to privacy.

He has suggested that laws against adultery, sodomy, and any sex acts he believes don't contribute to a wholesome family should exist.

He's a creationist, and believes it should be taught in schools.

He thinks contraceptives should be outlawed.

I could go on.

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I don't know anything about Santorum. Whats the issue?

He doesn't believe in the right to privacy.

He has suggested that laws against adultery, sodomy, and any sex acts he believes don't contribute to a wholesome family should exist.

He's a creationist, and believes it should be taught in schools.

He thinks contraceptives should be outlawed.

I could go on.

does he believe these are state or federal issues?

Federal issues.

Now that I think about it, that just sounds like Catholic positions. After Kennedy, I thought we moved past that already.

Frazzled wrote:Now that I think about it, that just sounds like Catholic positions. After Kennedy, I thought we moved past that already.

They really aren't.

They're evangelical protestant positions. He's a horrible catholic.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Now that I think about it, that just sounds like Catholic positions. After Kennedy, I thought we moved past that already.

They really aren't.

They're evangelical protestant positions. He's a horrible catholic.

So evangelical protestants can't be President?
Which one isn't Catholic actually?

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Now that I think about it, that just sounds like Catholic positions. After Kennedy, I thought we moved past that already.

They really aren't.

They're evangelical protestant positions. He's a horrible catholic.

So evangelical protestants can't be President?
Which one isn't Catholic actually?

Catholics almost universally support evolution for one.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Now that I think about it, that just sounds like Catholic positions. After Kennedy, I thought we moved past that already.

They really aren't.

They're evangelical protestant positions. He's a horrible catholic.

So evangelical protestants can't be President?
Which one isn't Catholic actually?

Catholics almost universally support evolution for one.

really? Don't tell the Pope that. He'll cut ya.

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Now that I think about it, that just sounds like Catholic positions. After Kennedy, I thought we moved past that already.

They really aren't.

They're evangelical protestant positions. He's a horrible catholic.

So evangelical protestants can't be President?
Which one isn't Catholic actually?

Catholics almost universally support evolution for one.

really? Don't tell the Pope that. He'll cut ya.

Please don't talk about things you really don't know about

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-creation-vs-evolution-clash-absurdity/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And that's even a slight backslide from JP2 who was a lot stronger in his support.

I wouldn't read MSNBC if it was wrapped around a brick thrown through my window. sorry.

However this does support your claim:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/preview.aspx?id=236

So as long as they aren't protestants, or are fallen Catholics in regards to birth control they can be President. How about Muslims? Got a problem with them being President?

Frazzled wrote:I wouldn't read MSNBC if it was wrapped around a brick thrown through my window. sorry.

However this does support your claim:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/preview.aspx?id=236

So as long as they aren't protestants, or are fallen Catholics in regards to birth control they can be President. How about Muslims? Got a problem with them being President?

I am not really sure how you decided that was my position.

You said santorum's positions are catholic. I said that they weren't. They are in-fact, evangelical protestant positions.

I didn't say anything about who "cannot" be president. Though people with those positions certainly won't get my vote.

It really seems like you've lost the thread of the argument. Go back and re-read please.

No, Frazz is still stuck on that other religion thread from a week ago I think.

Melissia wrote:No, Frazz is still stuck on that other religion thread from a week ago I think.

It comes from trying to be funny and not really saying anything.

alarmingrick wrote:

Melissia wrote:No, Frazz is still stuck on that other religion thread from a week ago I think.

It comes from trying to be funny and not really saying anything.

I disagree. Sounds like nonsense to stir up the base, lefty this time. But like Republicans everyone's interested in sticking their nose in private affiars for good or bad.

Taking the below at face value as if he actually said these things:

He doesn't believe in the right to privacy.

***That’s problematic. Evidently most of Congress doesn’t either. Fortunately that’s fairly settled by SCOTUS. It’s the Economy Stupid.

He has suggested that laws against adultery, sodomy, and any sex acts he believes don't contribute to a wholesome family should exist.

Good for him. He's so cute when he's pandering. That’s a state issue, although largerly trumped by that evil SCOTUS again (maniacal laugh…maniacal laugh…if you know what that is from you’re a Kermit fan!) It’s the Economy Stupid.

He's a creationist, and believes it should be taught in schools.

***State issue. It’s the Economy Stupid.

He thinks contraceptives should be outlawed.

*** Fortunately that’s fairly settled by SCOTUS. It’s the Economy Stupid.


Evidently you hippy tree huggers have your own bugaboo talking points to distract from real issues.

He doesn't believe it's a state issue.

Melissia wrote:He doesn't believe it's a state issue.

So? SCOTUS doesn't believe its an issue at all.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:He doesn't believe it's a state issue.

So? SCOTUS doesn't believe its an issue at all.

It's still a reason not to vote for him.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:He doesn't believe it's a state issue.

So? SCOTUS doesn't believe its an issue at all.

It's still a reason not to vote for him.

Pfff....come on you know you want to...

I'm not really sure how someone thinking that the STATE should take away rights rather than the fed makes it any better.

Frazzled, are you under the impression the states are not bound by the constitution?

Rented Tritium wrote:I'm not really sure how someone thinking that the STATE should take away rights rather than the fed makes it any better.

Frazzled, are you under the impression the states are not bound by the constitution?

President is federal government. State issues are like handled at the state. Of course most of the items noted have already been adjudicated on by SCOTUS so its a non issue.

Except when republicans don't think the states will handle them the way the republicans want them to be handled.

Melissia wrote:Except when republicans don't think the states will handle them the way the republicans want them to be handled.

Almost exactly like the Democrats.
Of course, as noted, the ones you seem to have a bugaboo about are already settled law so its pretty irrelevant.

Someone who campaigns for president on the platform of doing things that are already settled as illegal is maybe not who I want in charge of anything.

Seaward wrote:His upside is that there's not the slightest chance he could make it through the general election. Not even close. You can win without certain constituencies, but you can't win without the, "I'd prefer it if the president didn't tell me what sort of sex I'm allowed to have," people. Because there's a lot of those.

Damn, really?

I could've sworn that there are all kinds of laws on what kind of sex I'm allowed to have.

Except in Oregon, of course. And Florida maybe.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Except when republicans don't think the states will handle them the way the republicans want them to be handled.

Almost exactly like the Democrats.
Of course, as noted, the ones you seem to have a bugaboo about are already settled law so its pretty irrelevant.

Democrats aren't usually the ones that do "state rights" arguments.

Rented Tritium wrote:Someone who campaigns for president on the platform of doing things that are already settled as illegal is maybe not who I want in charge of anything.

Most Presidents do that. Running on "I'll manage the Department of the Interior efficaciously!" just doesn't have the same pizzaz factor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Seaward wrote:His upside is that there's not the slightest chance he could make it through the general election. Not even close. You can win without certain constituencies, but you can't win without the, "I'd prefer it if the president didn't tell me what sort of sex I'm allowed to have," people. Because there's a lot of those.

Damn, really?

I could've sworn that there are all kinds of laws on what kind of sex I'm allowed to have.

Except in Oregon, of course. And Florida maybe.

Don't forget Arkansas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Except when republicans don't think the states will handle them the way the republicans want them to be handled.

Almost exactly like the Democrats.
Of course, as noted, the ones you seem to have a bugaboo about are already settled law so its pretty irrelevant.

Democrats aren't usually the ones that do "state rights" arguments.

True that. they're usually the ones imposing said law at the federal level.

biccat wrote: I could've sworn that there are all kinds of laws on what kind of sex I'm allowed to have.

Tell Santorum.