Posted on 02/09/2012 8:03:54 PM PST by true believer forever
“I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat,” Santorum added. “And I think that’s not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”
Such remarks may please some social conservatives who were never that keen on women serving in the military, but this may not sit well with women who work, sometimes in male-dominated jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
My point was that it wasn’t the usual editorial, where some pundit writes an opinion and describes a person’s position, often inaccurately or negatively, through paraphrasing or misstatements, or intentional lies.
The quotes were there, and she commented on them. She didn’t ask for the readers to take a leap of faith with her... here’s what he said, here’s what I think about it.
Very funny.
What are you talking about? Here is what I posted, specifically refuting the coup portion of Satin Doll’s comments... You need to stop with the name calling... I refuted what she said about the coup... black and white, see below:
A few weeks ago Santorum claimed he was “the go to guy” for the coup against Gingrich, back in the 90s. What a shocking thing for a ‘moral’ person to claim, boasting of his own deceit!
go-to-guy - accurate.
in the senate - accurate.
not a coup; so coup - inaccurate.
Sanctimonium has many times called himself the go-to-guy in the Senate, he’s almost made it a campaign theme - I am the stable one, the dependable one, why, I was the go-to-guy in the Senate, the one people came to when they needed to get things done. I am sure you have heard him. She said he was the go-to-guy in the coup. And that was incorrect, which is what I said:
“Actually, the term “go-to-guy” is accurate, and it was in the Senate, but not the coup.”
“Actually, the term “go-to-guy” is accurate, and it was in the Senate, but not the coup.”
That's not really a coherent statement since a phrase taken out of context is neither accurate nor inaccurate. Only a full statement can be termed one or the other. That's what made that confusing. All I had to go by was the fact that you were responding in reference to someone else's post and what you said seemed to be a contradiction in terms.
“We were the one standing up and fighting,” Santorum said. “I was the go-to guy.”
Well, I did. Because the quote about Sarah having responsibilities with her family that he didn't have just didn't sound believable to me.
So, if you're interested, here is the interview with SE Cupp on Glenn Beck's radio program discussing her interview with Santorum that stirred up all the controversy. Beck actually plays the conversation between Cupp and Santorum, then speaks to Cupp about it.
If anyone is actually interested in the truth.
Well, I did. Because the quote about Sarah having responsibilities with her family that he didn't have just didn't sound believable to me.
So, if you're interested, here is the interview with SE Cupp on Glenn Beck's radio program discussing her interview with Santorum that stirred up all the controversy. Beck actually plays the conversation between Cupp and Santorum, then speaks to Cupp about it.
If anyone is actually interested in the truth.
“He reminds me so much of President Jimmy Carter it is disheartening. People believed Carter was such a decent Christian and they voted for him on that reasoning alone. Yech!”
Ummmmmm.....NO!
The reason Carter was elected was because of Watergate.
NO Republican, even Reagan, would have been elected in ‘76.
No other reason...and how old are you for you to not to know that?
I hope you both know that the links you’ve posted were to
LAST YEAR’S
CPAC and Glenn Beck’s show.
Lordy...how many doofuses are on this forum?
Your link is to LAST YEAR’S CPAC.
Admin Mod, do we have an influx of trolls, or are they stupid people?
Your call.
Thanks for posting that. Santorum’s comments about Palin were actually quite generous and gracious given that he was asked to speculate about why she turned down a speaking engagement. He simply proffered some reasonable and likely possibilities.
Whatever the date was trying to twist his words into a negative when they were actually very positive is definitely trollish. Not to mention using Politico as a source for bashing a conservative.
You’re kidding, right?
Someone posted that Santroum had said some snarky stuff about Sarah at c-pac, no mention of which year... and someone asked for proof, and a later poster found it... The phrase Cpac 2012 never even occurred, especially since its barely off the ground this year...
The one thing I despise is someone not only taking things out of context, but deliberately being disingenuous to the point of outright lying.
No, I am NOT kidding.
I refer you to this post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2844712/posts?page=114#114
You’ll hate this thread then.
You’re kidding, right?
Someone posted that Santroum had once said some snarky stuff about Sarah at c-pac, no mention of which year... and someone asked for proof, and a later poster found it... The phrase Cpac 2012 never even occurred, especially since its barely off the ground this year...
Which is why I am leaving this thread.
It’s been good to see you, though. ;o)
Have you ever done a profile search on 'admin?' lol
Good Lord.
Keep current, quit twisting things, or get out of here.
And, don’t you “admin” me.
I didn’t hit the abuse button on you, and don’t plan to. That’s not how I roll.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.