Posted on 02/15/2012 6:55:30 PM PST by Mariner
Ever since ~0~ decided he didn't want his daughters "punished with a baby." (well, probably before that, but he was very blatant)
Why yes there are Little Mister Romney helper and I will make a list and send them to ya later.
Do have to go for now...know you will miss me (LOL) but I shall return
I’ll be honest I am not enthused about his candidacy but I won’t bad mouth him. The Dems will do enough of that.
God has already defined marriage and I don’t think Santorum’s definition is any different than what God has said. The problem is that people do not want to go where God leads them.
If I pay a premium to cover a cost I know I am going to have like cleaning my teeth then I am paying somebody a fee to pay those costs for me. That is not insurance.”
I wish every voter in the U.S. understood this point.
What if Newt doesn't go up? What then? You've been working hard trashing Santorum. Wouldn't you prefer him over Romney?
Your anti Santorum articles and comments are not at all helpful to the conservative cause.
Seriously, so much of the election race is about traction. I've heard so many opinions expressed, even on these boards, to the effect that "such and such a candidate cannot possibly win", followed by a rash of reasons that basically boil down to "who they?" or "they're nobodies". Well, with the recent opinion polls, Santorum IS suddenly a somebody. I'm not personally quite sure WHY - the reasoning behind why people make choices about candidates are never very clearly explained. It might be that the voters are turning to him because they are sick and tired of hearing Romney and Newt gouge lumps out of each other. Perhaps that will change when the guns are turned on Santorum instead.
Any conservative voter, who wishes for small government, lower taxes, less spending and less intrusion of the state in his/her private life and choices, should be turned off by a big-spender, pro-nanny statist as Rick Santorum.
“The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions, I disagree with that. I think we (the government) absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.” pro-big government Rick Santorum
I don't want another Obama, who by diktates from the pulpit, order me how I should live my life. Santorum is continually saying "that's wrong" and "that's right" as if he was the supreme arbiter of what's wrong or right in this world. He doesn't speak to people, he's preaching to them. All that sets my teeth on edge.
Besides neither he nor Romney presented a coherent plan for America.
So far ONLY Newt Gingrich did that, and he has a good plan.
http://www.newt.org/solutions
Ping
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEWT & ROOSTER RICKY in an egg-er-NUTshell
BigGov Ricky sees the Oval Office as an altar
Newt sees it as a loan
“BigGov Ricky sees the Oval Office as an altar
Newt sees it as a loan”
MORGAN: How would it shape you as a president in the sense that you’re going to face, if you become president, moments where you have to decide, do you take your country to war? It’s going to happen to you. What does that tell you about warfare? I know you’re a military historian in many ways.
GINGRICH: Well, it’s deeper than just going to war. It’s the question of, how can you make the historically right decisions to give your children and grandchildren a prosperous, safe, free country? I mean maybe avoiding going to war because you use the right build-up or the right diplomacy, because you have foresight.
It’s also, how do you operate in a principled manner? Because you can’t just ad hoc all these different decisions. You have to have some underlying set of principles that enable you to say, you know, for America to remain a great nation, for America to remain an exceptional nation, these are things we have to focus on.
And you have to set priorities. And where possible, you have to get ahead of the problems. I mean, one of the amazing things about both Eisenhower and Reagan was that they were able to sort of see around the corner. And so they could take steps that achieved a great deal at minimum risk. And both of them tended to avoid risk.”
Wisdom, foresight, durability.
The depth of this man is inspiring. The leader we need.
I wanna be LED by you,
just you,
nobody else but you.
I wanna be LED by you
a-lone...
boo boopy doo
GO NEWT!!!
In the years before he lost his Pennsylvania Senate seat in 2006, Rick Santorum worked hard to win 400 millions dollars in additional Medicare money for hospitals in Puerto Rico.
He sponsored at least two Senate bills and pushed to amend a mammoth Medicare overhaul to include the extra spending, which would have benefited Universal Health Services, a Pennsylvania-based hospital management company with facilities in Puerto Rico. It seems at odds with the small-government philosophy Mr. Santorum now espouses in his presidential campaign ...
After Santorum severely lost his Senate seat 41% to 59% in 2006, Universal Health returned the favor:
"Within months of leaving the Senate, Mr. Santorum joined the board of Universal Health Services, where he collected $395,000 in director’s fees and stock options before resigning in 2011. During his years on directors board UHS was indicted for fraud on Medicare reimbursments .
I see you are in a singing mood this morning :)
Always! “;^)
We have a LOT to “make a joyful noise” about!
GO NEWT!!!
Speaking of which, my company, in its contest to win the most PC award, has decided to offer health benefits to same-sex 'couples'. This is, of course, after double digit percentage premium increases this year. So I asked my wife, "If I tell them I'm sleeping with the dog, do you think they'll pick up the vet bill?" I wish some body with a platonic roommate of the same sex as themselves would try to add them on to their policy. What's the difference? Would they ask for a demonstration to prove their 'orientation'?
I'm sure as a professor at Smith College, she can't imagine ANYONE who is not a Democrat, as President.
The hold up was polygamy, if they did not outlaw it they were told they would not be admitted to the union.
That was long before the 20th century.
They were other places where the fed got involved in marriages, usually in whether a mixed race marriage was "legal".
One these had to do with the Cherokee being forced out of the south. There were mixed marriages and they had to decide who would be forced out and who could remain.
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.