Santorum's comment is on an Einstein level."
Posted on 03/22/2012 9:00:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn't the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy.
Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast.
"You win by giving people a choice," Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas....
(Excerpt) Read more at seattlepi.com ...
Hear Romney's stooges now: "Those right-wingers have sh*t for brains and empty pockets (thanks to the combo of investment bankers selling their jobs to Bangladesh and Obozo's depression)! We will buy the nomination and they will have no choice but to elect us and then we will etch a new sketch and finish them off."
Coming to a nation we love: a national GOP every bit as effective as its local squishball parties in Rhode Island, Taxachusetts and Connecticut. Or California, or Oregon or Illinois (at least on a state level).
We may hate to hear it but Santorum is right. We are being taken for a despicable ride of Biblical proportions and the spaghetti spines can only see the evil we know (Obozo) and refuse to see an even worse evil to come (Robamney). And no, this has nothing to do with Robamney's Mormon religion. If he were a reliable Mormon, he would be dependably pro-life, pro-family and pro-gun. Instead, he is a soulless megabusinessman concerned only with his own personal power and with increasing his trust funds. He is a political whore who needs to be historically rejected. Anyone who disagrees, check back in four years.
A never-divorced, never-had-a-years-long-affair Gingrich (and one who wasn’t 50 pounds overweight) would be the best.
Maybe, if he hadn’t supported cap and trade, and the endangered species act. Oh and if he hadn’t taken $25,000 a month to be a history teacher for Fannie.
Well said.
Welcome to the United Soviet States of America..where the Pravda State Media “vet” the candidates to the pleasure and needs of the RinoCrat UniParty.
This “election” will be a non-election...featuring the state approved “candidates”-whose only distinction is whether they are black or white.
Bloody stupid of him.
I’ve about lost all confidence in him.
Now I KNOW that we don’t have ANYONE that can beat 0bama.
Newt, smart as he is, reformed as he is, remains a “no sale” to the mushy middle and “independents”.
And Romney is 0bama-Lite.
I’ll vote for the Republican, whoever that may be, at least as a protest vote against the Kenyan Marxist.
But I fear that’s all it will be.
If we end up with Romney, the election will not matter. Two liberals will be running and I will do a write in. Romney and Obama are 110 percent the same. Absolutely no difference. Even the Supreme Court nominees would be very similar. I will not vote for Romney under any circumstances. Santorum is 110 percent correct here.
Rick has just endorsed Obama basically. He should had Not said this running for president.
I don’t understand your reasoning. Romney is as bad if not worse then Obama. I think Rick saying this is the TRUTH. You aren’t going to vote for Romney are you? I can’t imagine you voting for a liberal like Romney. You are WAY better than that. Patriots like yourself don’t lower yourself to a creatin like Romney.
Sadly, I tend to agree.
I felt like crying when I heard Santorum makes such an over the top statement. He is not a perfect candidate - nobody is - and I overlooked his support for Specter, his whining, and his knack for getting off message. But now he has reached a new low. Of course, I would take him over Obama.
Argument from silence can be a convincing form of abductive reasoning.
At any rate, the burden of proof would seem to be on you.
But, of course, you chose to pose your ad hominem as a question, so you can dodge that bullet.
What do they call that?
Argument from silence can be a convincing form of abductive reasoning.
***Abduction is a kind of logical inference described by Charles Sanders Peirce as “guessing”.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
And yet, it is still classed among the fallacies.
Your usage of it here is not convincing at all. Since you’ve offered the postulation, the “burden of proof” is on you. But you know that you cannot prove it, since it involves abduction. So that raises the question why you would suggest that proof of any kind is involved?
But, of course, you chose to pose your ad hominem as a question, so you can dodge that bullet.
***I used an Ad Hominem? How am I attacking you or even Gingrich by asking about whether he has the courage to do something?
What do they call that?
***They call it a hodge-podge, as in, you’re not really familiar with classic fallacies, abductive reasoning (which emphatically does NOT involve proof nor burdens of proof), and you just threw all of it together hoping it would sound intelligent.
The enemy should be statism and tyranny is whatever incarnation we find it. I think the establishment is getting a bit target fixated.
The cancer of Obama”care” now extends to choosing a “Public health expert for the World Bank Presidency.”
_______
The major problem with THE NINE SUPREMES is that they are chosen for political reasons by the POTUS, and then they vote as an un-accountable democracy, for a Nation that is NOT a Democracy, but a REPUBLIC.
As a result, THE NINE SUPREMES commonly vote 5 to 4 on most issues. Constitutionality is seldom a consideration, and their up-coming ruling on Obama”care” will prove my point.
Now is the time to stand and deliver to address our grievances to the dictates of the Left.
Oppose the dictates of Dictator Baby-Doc Barack!
Our ONLY chance to ABOLISH Obama”care” rests with THE NINE SUPREMES, because Romney will be defeated by Obama.
IMHO, if Romney is anointed as the RNC Nominee, THE main issue in the National Election, Obama”care,” will be taken off the campaign table. Hence, Romney will not only lose, but suffer another crushing, and sadly typical, RINO defeat.
To those who want poster ideas, here are a few ideas for demonstration posters:
Obama”care” was robo-signed by Congress, and is therefore illegal.
Obama”care” was 2700 pages long, and is still being written, but not by Congress: witness the forced contraception coverage recently added by HHS Regulators.
Obama”care” has caused “The Catholic Spring.”
Obama”care” reduces competition, and therefore is illegal by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law.
Obama”care” is designed to be a US Federal Government monopoly, with no competition.
Obama”care” also is illegal according to the US Constitution, because it violates our freedom of choice.
Will THE NINE SUPREMES notice any of these three violations? I seriously doubt it.
Impeached Bill Clinton proved that the US President is above US Federal Law, so anything that the President wants he gets, regardless of the Federal Laws that he has violated.
It was not MSM picking on Sarah’s children. It was talking heads at MSNBC (hardly a Main Stream) and disgusting left wing comedians like Letterman. He had to apologize so it backfired.
I do not even know details of gov. Martinez’s policies or agenda but have read she is conservative. Will the lefties attack her? For sure. But it will create a backlash, if I have learned something about politics after 40 years of voting in elections. If she has some closet issues, then of course all bets are off.
Newt is where is at because he is a loose cannon.
But not the temperament to be the nominee. He let Romney's attacks cause him to implode. There are no more debates and no more chances to make up for his errors.
Santorum is the only one that can even force a brokered convention at this point.
Of course I was being silly.
Responding in kind.
But your “question” was certainly an implied ad hominum on Newt. That’s what I was referring to.
Which is absurd in itself as it presumes that it takes balls to make a stupid statement.
All it actually takes is stupidity.
But being the expert on logical fallacies, you knew that.
Peace. :-)
Of course I was being silly.
Responding in kind.
But your “question” was certainly an implied ad hominum on Newt. That’s what I was referring to.
Which is absurd in itself as it presumes that it takes balls to make a stupid statement.
All it actually takes is stupidity.
But being the expert on logical fallacies, you knew that.
Peace. :-)
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.