Very well.
So you agree that “religious and social issues are only being used to promote a perception of character and cover up a lack of substance”.
As for me. I reject that. Totally. I will NOT be told by a newbie (or anyone else) that religious and social issues are not be discussed and that if I do so they only “cover up a lack of substance”.
“As for me. I reject that. Totally. I will NOT be told by a newbie (or anyone else) that religious and social issues are not be discussed and that if I do so they only “cover up a lack of substance”.”
I didn’t say that they aren’t to be discussed. I’m totally for it, and you don’t see me criticizing Newt Gingrich who has been, since at least the 80s, talking about the moral and religious decline in the United States. His war against the welfare state was full of messages just like that, incase you didn’t know. I’m saying that it is being cynically used to cover up a lack of substance, and I’ll add that the standards he is putting out there are not standards that he himself can meet.
It’s rare when I totally agree with a poster’s every word, so I will defer. I think Santorum tends toward a holier than Thou preachy style, that’s a turn on for some and a turn off for some. I also think he sometimes aims his Catholicism at his mentor, Catholic convert, Newt Gingrich, and I find that very tacky.
Every candidate is pro-life, save for the abortionist pig, Romney, and Newt Gingrich was the first to bring the issue of Obama’s attack on the Catholic Church and Freedom to light during one of the debates, so let’s not pretend that social issues are the exclusive realm of Rick Santorum.
Like most other issues, from Afghanistan and obama’s apology, Newt Gingrich is responsible for first bringing them to light.
He is the candidate with solid well-thought out solutions.
,
I think that’s Apollo5600’s point, but I don’t expect him to agree with me 100% either.