Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

From day one, I saw RIGHT though the devout religious fanatic Rick Santorum! Hard to believe that this cold hearted douche-bag, who has a son with Edwards syndrome, and another was stillborn, never developed empathy for the families who can't afford health insurance for a family member with a serious pre-existing condition.

Rep. Alan Grayson was so right when he said, "If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly."

Another thing I found ludicrous about this Santorum hypocrite, was when John McCain said that a person going through enhanced interrogation techniques often times will lie to stop the suffering, and Santorum, a man who never served in the military shot back with these words: “"I respect his opinion, but I think he's wrong."

If I were a Republican, which I am NOT, I’d go for either Huntsman or Ron Paul.

I'd like to know your thoughts on Santorum.

Please read this:
Santorum To Mother Of 5 year old Cancer Survivor: Sick To Blame For Pre-Existing Conditions, Should Be Charged More

Santorum To Mother Of 5 year old Cancer Survivor: Sick To Blame For Pre-Existing Conditions, Should Be Charged More

And watch Santorum in this Youtube video:

The mother of a five-year-old cancer survivor confronts Rick Santorum on his health care stance


( 26 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 9th, 2012 11:21 pm (UTC)
Santorum is a sanctimonious moron anyway. He's would outlaw contraceptives. Because it (contraceptives) cause bad behavior. Duh???

There are some scary things going in Texas, I swear. There just Austin and there's East Texas. They're the ones that got you Santorum. West Texas is libertarian. So it's a wash. No wonder the Republicans hold hand in pocket with Texas.

I like Ron Paul (the libertarian in me makes me....) but he made a big gaf during one of the debates with Newty Newt. He said he was drafted by the Air Force! Duh....only the Army drafts. What he did(and should have said) is that he dogged the Army and enlisted in the Air Force. That's what a lot of young men did in the 60's Vietnam. One reason he did that was even though he had a medical degree, if he was drafted by the Army, he would have been a grunt or canon fodder. Legally the Army can do that. At least in the Air Force as an enlistee, he would have been an officer. Weird how only the Army is allowed to get away with that. You enlist in the Navy, Air Force and Marines. Otherwise you're sunk in the Army if there is a war going on.
Jan. 10th, 2012 12:16 am (UTC)
One would think this holier than thou jerk is running for Pope instead of the President of the United States of America!

I still have to express my thoughts on his stance on abortion in rape cases. It's a topic that hits me with a double bang!

I didn't know about Paul's gaff on the draft issue. I still like the man, but I like and respect Huntsman even better. Perhaps I'll change my mind about them, since I haven't really paid attention to their past political stuff.
Jan. 10th, 2012 12:26 am (UTC)
That's the only one. He's pretty sharp as a tact going against Newt (who is very sharp on his feet) I'm sure he meant he enlisted in the Air Force to avoid serving in the Army. Just didn't come out right. LOL...

My husband enlisted in the Air Force too. That's how he wound up in Texas. They didn't have the draft then, but he wanted to serve. Just didn't want to do it in the Army. But he went to some pretty nice places. His favorite place was in Thailand. He really liked the Air Force.
Jan. 10th, 2012 02:35 am (UTC)
Santorum belongs in a sanitarium!
Jan. 10th, 2012 03:54 am (UTC)
I have a holier than thou cousin who looks like a younger version of Santorum. Needless to say, I can't stand my cousin, either!
Jan. 10th, 2012 03:15 am (UTC)
He's a nutjob, plain and simple. It doesn't really matter whether he believes that his positions regarding homosexuality are discriminatory or not. They are.
Jan. 10th, 2012 03:50 am (UTC)
He's a dangerous nutjob. Amazing that those who are for him can't see it.

I've been meaning to make a post about my views on homosexuality.
Jan. 10th, 2012 04:47 am (UTC)
Santorum's my guy. He was my guy when he first announced, he was my guy when he was way down in the polls. I think his bump is only temporary -- the fix is in, it's going to be Romney -- but I'm still voting for him.

Re: Your video. I watched it at the Examiner website. Santorum said nothing untrue. Was there an article at your handler's website (the ThinkDumbfuck one) that tells you why to be OUTRAGED! at Santorum?

Frankly, you've attacked every frontrunner in the Republican primary. The only guy you haven't gotten around to is Huntsman. Are you going to go after him, or have your handlers deemed him "Not a threat" and so they haven't sent you any articles telling you why he's sacrificing babies to raise the Antichrist from the bowels of Hell itself?

EDIT: And while I'm at it, you hypocritical cow, Santorum is a family man with strong conviction. Hasn't that been your defense of Obama for the last three years?

Edited at 2012-01-10 04:49 am (UTC)
Jan. 10th, 2012 05:40 am (UTC)
Okay, you’ve called me a hypocritical cow and I’ve taken it with a stiff upper lip. Hope you do the same when I call you a fanatical religious wannabe monk! Hope that Bible you’ve got between your armpit isn’t too heavy!

There is absolutely no comparison between President Obama and that old Douche bag Santorum who is a fruitcake. If this man became president, which he NEVER will, he’d be preaching with an iron fist from the pulpit to all of us, and God only knows what he would do to those who refused having his religious beliefs shoved down their throats. The man forgets that religion belongs in the church; not in politics.

I don’t believe I’ll ever be an attack dog toward Huntsman, because he’s the only one of the whole bunch who has behaved like an intelligent, compassionate gentleman. Anyway, there’s nothing for me to worry about since President Obama WILL win a 2nd term as president!
Jan. 10th, 2012 06:09 am (UTC)
You call it fanaticism, I call it conviction. The difference is, I've known who Santorum was for the last six years; you've only just heard of him since his bump in the polls.

Santorum stands behind his values. Barry says, "Oh, these guys? The terrorist and the fanatical preacher? They're just guys in my neighborhood, nothing to worry about. Never mind these avowed Communists that I'm appointing to brand new positions. Just ignore the man behind the curtain."

Barry's got a snowball's chance in Hell this time. You don't get away with failed economic policy for four years by blaming the last guy the whole time. Nobody's going to buy that "Hope and Change" bullshit this time. All your fanaticism will have been for naught.
Jan. 10th, 2012 03:16 pm (UTC)
Really? Every Republican, INCLUDING Romney, is presently polling behind O'bama. And of all the Republicans, only Romney came statistically close. Go check it out on the RCP website. I don't usually point to Republican pollsters, but even THEY paint a grim picture for the Republican party for the presidency.
Jan. 10th, 2012 05:27 pm (UTC)
Most of those results are within the margin of error (admittedly, that includes the two where Romney was ahead), and this early on (before the RNC takes place) they don't mean a whole lot. Wait until the Republicans are focused on Obama rather than each other, that's when the polls will start to mean something.
Jan. 10th, 2012 11:08 pm (UTC)
You best check your polls again right now Obama is ties with Ron Paul at 47%.

Plus according to a recent poll the one thing most people are afraid of is a second term of the greatest parasite that has ever occupied the white house. Obama and his money grubbing Ho.
Jan. 11th, 2012 07:13 am (UTC)
You are QUITE wrong. I gave the link. Check it. It's REALCLEARPOLITICS.com, which I abbreviated to RCP. The generic Republican vs. Obama is polled slightly ahead, but EVERY named Republican, including Romney, is behind, as of today.

Here's the link, dude, since you somehow grabbed that weird business of a tie from wherever: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Present polls:

Obama vs Romney: Obama +1.5%
Obama vs Gingrich: Obama +8.8%
Obama vs Santorum: Obama +7.3%
Obama vs Perry: Obama +11.8%
Obama vs Paul: Obama +6.8
Obama vs Huntsman: Obama +9.7%

Now mind you, this is a Republican pollster, using well established polls as an aggregate. You can call the president all the names you like. You can declare that the blue sky is polkadots, for all I care. Your opinions don't alter the truth of reality.
Jan. 11th, 2012 08:30 pm (UTC)
Boy are You wrong! Realclearpolitics?? You believe the trash they put out?? They are as honest as Moveon.org. Just another example of the left "socializing" the media.

Lets talk about a real polling agency, not a "republican pollster" If you have to add that its evidently slanted to the left big time.
GALLUP says:
Obummers daily APPROVAL numbers,
January 21-23 2009 was 68%
January 8-10 2012 is 43%

Obummers daily DISAPPROVAL numbers,
January 21-23 2009 was 12%
January 8-10 2012 is 49%

That is pathetic for an incumbent!

But fair is fair, lets look at your numbers.
Obama vs Romney: Obama +1.5% The incumbent, a president who attempts to bluff everyone by telling people that he is one of the top 5 presidents ever, the person who try's to make people believe that HE is the one who is personally responsible for taking out Osama,
is only 1.5% higher than the person whom the Democrat party is trying to hatchet not only because he is a Mormon, is the real author of Obamacare since it was Obama's WhiteHouse who questioned Romney on the Romney care in Mass.

I could go on but its a feeble attempt, FACTS only confuse a liberal.

Jan. 12th, 2012 12:46 am (UTC)
Believe? The guy responsible for the website publishes not only HIS methodology, but also the methodologies of all of the polls he aggregates. Go LOOK at the link. Notice the methodologies are published right there NEXT TO THE POLL NUMBERS.

It's funny you mention GALLUP. That's one of the polls he uses. Since you like quoting it, please note that he uses THEIR data. Go LOOK at the link instead of trying to get a rise out of me with insults, and you'll see a listing of the polls he uses. Among those are Rasmussen, USA Today/Gallup, CNN, Associated Press, Reuters, ABC, CBS, and NBC. I guess next you have to howl at me about how ALL of these lean to the left, right? Despite the fact that they provided an accurate readout of the electorate in 2010? And 2008?

And no, the website author hasn't slanted in any way to the left. I watched the live video of an interview about how excited he was about the polls leading up to the congressional elections in 2010, and how his party was due to pick up at least the House of Representatives, and likely the Senate as well. The latter changed, as you know.

And let's straighten things out. He's a pollster who is a staunch Republican. So is Rasmussen. I look at ALL the pollsters, not just a one of them, hoping that they'll tell me something I want to hear.

Also, I know the difference between Romney and Obama in terms of policy. Yes, the Affordable Health Care Act is modeled after the policies that came into being under Romney's governorship. It's not a secret; everyone including the president has said so. I was a resident in MA during Romney's tenure as governor there. None of his policies (or the about-face changes) are surprises to me.

Are you capable of political discourse without throwing meaningless insults? I can talk about Obama without twisting his name, and without referring to his wife as a 'money grubbing ho'. Can you? Are you capable?

I can refer to George W. Bush without twisting his name, and without calling his wife a whore.
I can refer to William J. Clinton without insulting him, and without calling his wife a whore.
I can refer to ANY president, regardless of how much or how little I agree with his policy, and not trash his spouse as a whore. Can you? Or is that all you have in your bag of tricks to debate with? Can you only quote sources you aren't even aware undermine your own arguments? Were you even AWARE that RCP used GALLUP's poll data? Show me you can actually debate, dude, instead of muckrake.
Jan. 17th, 2012 10:20 pm (UTC)
Your disrespect for the standing president borders on unpatriotic but assailing the first lady is simply reprehensible. I'd have loved to hear your response to anyone using cowardly words for your elected candidates.

Please, go back to Fox News and suck up a little more hot air.
Jan. 17th, 2012 11:59 pm (UTC)
Ahhh yes I was waiting for more of the Obama unlearned to crawl out from their hiding spaces and complain about the truism's I attempt to share with ya'll. You are just upset because I can truthfully mark the cretins occupying the white house. So many of you have accepted that total failure as your Messiah.

Remember it was Michelle who opened her mouth and said that she had NEVER been proud of America until Her husband was able to buy the nomination.

I'll not even bother with any of her other stupid statements that she has made while a socialist instigator.
Jan. 18th, 2012 12:16 am (UTC)
Upset? I feel sorry for you. Your mind is tarred with the vile mud of the worst of the conservative movement. There's no conversation with you, much less debate. You'll die alone with only your hatred to wrap around you, cause no one will bother to set up your service with a flag.

Good luck with that. I'll stay in the middle and wait for someone to actually fix government instead of the masses who just lob blame.

So, just so you know, though you don't care, there is not an Obama sign in my front yard.
Jan. 18th, 2012 12:38 am (UTC)
Well I am glad there is no Obama sign in your front yard, I do not display any sign in my yard either.

And as for Lobbing Blame, WHO is the greatest blame artist in US history? WHo is a greater Blamer than Jimmy Carter ever thought he could be? OBAMA Every time Obama fails to do what he promised that he would do during his campaigns he blames NOT his own incompetence or the failure of his jackass cabinet, but he blames Bush or the Republican House and sometimes even the Democrat Senate.

Everyone else is to blame but him!

As for my mind, It is free of any trash from the current regime. Conversations are always possible with anyone who will accept the truth. Unfortunately liberals are not known to accept facts, they only confuse them.
Jan. 10th, 2012 11:03 pm (UTC)
Its good you could see through Santorum but its a shame that you were so blind that you did not see through Obama and his phony christianity ploy, or any of his other lies he blew up yalls asses!
Jan. 11th, 2012 03:37 am (UTC)
Frothy the No-man is an interesting fellow in that many libertarian types are getting pissed at their Tea Party cohorts because he's the antithesis of the libertarian small government ideal. These are his words and not out of context either : "The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.”
Jan. 11th, 2012 03:26 pm (UTC)
I love this time of year because for me as someone who almost considered pursuing a doctorate in election year history and politics (heavy concentration in the three way contest between Wilson, Taft and Roosevelt in 1912. Right now it's too early to look at presidential polls between Obama and any candidate. I can predict without going out on a limb that Romney will take this. Very rarely does someone win both N.H. and Iowa in the caucus/primary function and not get the nomination.

You really have to remove any biases you have when looking at these polls and figuring out what to make out of them. You have to look at metrics, demographics, etc. Also you have to study the past ones by specific pollsters and judge their accuracy with foresight. You should checkout Nate Silver's blog fivethirtyeight.com In the 2008 election he aggregated every poll he measured and would weigh the significance and strengths of pollsters based on how well they they predicted things. And then he'd run a formula over 10,000 times and would weigh his results. he was well within margin of error on his predictions.
It's a lot like handicapping horse races (somethign I did a lot of) you pay attention to past performances and try to figure out what will happen.
I think the big deciding factor in this election will be the blue-collar vote. And if Romney expects to win after getting the nomination his best bet would be to pick a candidate with a blue-collar background but appeals to the social conservatives that don't warm up to Romney.
If Santorum wants the nod he'd have to double down on the blue-collar thing yet balance his social conservatism where he isn't trying to restrict things like contraceptives,etc. I doubt he'll get the nod I think it'll be a southerner like Hayley Barber in Mississippi.
I think you can't discount enthusiasm as a factor. I can't think of a poor polling incumbent though that lost to someone with less charisma. If Romney is still lukewarm and Obama's number rise into the 50% range by election time he will win again. That's just a historical trend.
Jan. 12th, 2012 03:44 am (UTC)
Very interesting, it sounds to me like predicting politics is down to a science. I find it a little scary.
Jan. 13th, 2012 12:20 am (UTC)
It's about knowing your history and following trends. Obama's approval is not high but instead of going down they've been rising over the last two months. You can't use the gauge against his potential opponents yet because right now it's about newness of someone else with not enough information. However, you can judge things more accurately as he polls against a GOP congress in which case when only the GOP congress was polled in the 4 big polls they polled no higher than 13% and at one time they hit a historical low of 9%. The metric was also asking how those polled felt about the GOP congress not congress as a whole so it's definitely dissatisfaction with the party establishment in power.
So compare 45.5% average to an 11% average. Also 45.5% with 10 months away from an election is not hard to turn around and he'll get a bounce if the unemployment trends continue past the "holiday hiring" numbers and it drops down to the 7% level. Housing figures have gone up and Wall Street responded to that.
If you look at these GOP debates the anti-Romney GOP candidates have already gave Obama's people ammunition. This isnt about stupid "culture warrior" crap or anything the voters don't give a shit about (like the birther wingnuttery, or the sharia law idiots) this is about Romney's record with Bain capital. Gingrich called him a corporate raider who doesnt create and help a business grow but ravages and drains it for profit then lets it die. Huntsman said Romney enjoys firing people more than hiring them. People who worked for that company lost good jobs and that's going to bite Romney on the ass.
Remeber one thing before people in here start citing Obama's poll numbers. Harry Truman was at 36% approval rating before the 1948 election and even one newspaper prematurely had the headline "Dewey Wins!". Truman won that election.
So, I'm not saying Obama can't lose this election but I am saying the GOP picked the wrong guy to do it . Romney is a done deal.
Jan. 15th, 2012 10:09 am (UTC)
Santorum is a chicken-hawk who likes to talk tough but who is a weak coward at heart. He has no respect for other people and shouldn't be allowed any where near public office. Sadly he may be the vice-president one day if Romney wins it all.
( 26 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015


Powered by LiveJournal.com