Rick Santorum on the Freedom to Impose Your Values
by Reason TV“The essential issue in this race is freedom,” said Senator Rick Santorum in a triumphant speech on the eve of his strong second-place showing in the Iowa caucus.
But what kind of freedom is Santorum talking about? Reason.tv caught up with Santorum at a campaign stop at Des Moines Christian Assembly in Urbandale, Iowa, where he spoke to schoolchildren and their parents about the importance of electing a leader who will promote good social values to the citizens.
“Why wouldn’t leaders in this country stand up and promote marriage?” asked Santorum. “Stop, in any way they could, the sexual promiscuity that goes on that leads to out-of-wedlock births.”
Santorum picked up the endorsement of Jim Bob Duggar, patriarch of the Duggar family (of TLC’s “19 Kids and Counting”), who sung the national anthem to kick off the festivities. Also in attendance was social conservative activist and founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Ralph Reed. Reed has not endorsed a candidate in the race yet, but he stresses that social conservatism remains a core value to GOP voters.
“You’re not going to do well, either in Iowa or beyond, if you’re not pro-marriage, pro-family, and pro-life,” said Reed. “Whether you’re coming from a libertarian perspective or a more traditional conservative perspective.”
If GOP voters want candidates who are ready to fight the culture war, Santorum seems ready to deliver.
“I love it when the Left, and the president, says, ‘Don’t try to impose your values on us, you folks who hold your Bibles in your hand and cling to your guns,’” Santorum said. “It’s equally imposing values. It’s just in their world, if it’s Biblically based or religiously based, it’s out. If it’s anything else, bring it on.”
This video was produced by Sharif Matar and Zach Weissmueller.
Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel to receive immediate updates when new material goes live.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
91 Comments
Oh please, I'm so sick of the nazi like libertarians propaganda, it's bad enough seeing their Hitler Jugen like campaign signs, but deliberately misrepresenting, and taking out of context what Rick Santorum, the only GOP candidate who has populist support, like Reagan, to win this election, has stated. He has NOT said he would outlaw contraceptives. He's said he would never do that, Santorum respects the constitution. What Santorum has stated is that he will not allow taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortions. Look at the abortion mills that are outsirigh slaughtering, cruelly babies who survive the late term abortion process. Butchered corpses found in freezers in Baltimore, Philadelphia, and elsewhere, by these monsters.
What Reasontv is showing us, is that like Obama and the left, they never let the truth get in the way of their blind lust for power and not to be trusted with power.
Santorum is a 'godhead'.
Not that it's a bad thing; it isn't. He's principled and out in the open about it. But he is this year's Mike Huckabee.
Neither are truly 'conservative'.
Santorum never saw an earmark or pork barrel project he didn't like- just so he could 'bring home the bacon'. He is not a big 2nd amendment proponent and refused to fill out the surveys give him by the NRA and other groups. He would be best described as a 'big government compassionate moderate/conservative'.
Just like one George W Bush.
Is that better than our nascent fascist oligarch in chief? You bet. But just so you don't 'project' (Herman Cain, anyone?) and get too disappointed, know what you're getting here…
I would be pleased if my tax money was not funding abortion.
My tax money shouldn't be used for a LOT of things.
Good post. Putting Sanrorum in context as well as the rest is why we look at the GOP candidates and weep.
Not sure I like Reed's comment, that the schools should reinforce what is said in students' churches, synagogues and mosques. Far too general. What about Reverend Wright's church, where we heard that "Amerika's chickens came home to roost on 9/11?" What about in the mosques where hatred of the "infidel" is preached?
In this day and age the only thing wrong with the truth is,………
that it has become the hardest thing to package,……..
in order to be able to have people buy it.
Just because we have never tried it,…..
can anyone prove that we can NOT,…..
go back to Kansas or put the toothpaste back in the tube.
He's a typical Pennsylvania republican polititian, spawned from Allegheny county, a place where more votes are cast in the last moments of an election than Chicago.
On the the internet, people tend to pick usernames and labels they are not. Sexyman4u is never sexy, Hotgurl21yr, is never hot and never 21.
Reasontv is not tv and not based on reason, nor actual libertariansim, they like John Stossel and Judge Nep, are neo libertarians , confused and a product of the twisting of idealogies tht came out of the radical 1960's,
Its this Ron Paul style of neolibertarians that has effectively protrayed the right as racist, unreasonable and downright nuts.
.
Fearing the freedom of others.
We must be concerned when people try to tell vets who left pieces of themselves on the battle field how to live their lives.
Good grief, people. It is patently obvious in history that under some circumstances/traditions/rules people thrive, and under others there is decay and chaos. The original point of freedom, for the founding fathers, was twofold– to be free to BE religious (or not, but most were), and to be free of excess tyrannical control/taxation/oppression. Santorum defends the eminently defensible, good and proven and constructive human values. The kind of values that make society thrive. Freedom cannot be merely pretending that all choices are equally available, thus implying equally moral and viable. Some choices are simply BETTER than others, and some much worse. Traditional American values, as the founding fathers saw them, are what Santorum defends. Truths are self-evident about what human beings are ONLY because the founding fathers saw the truths as rooted in Biblical Judeo Christianity. Without that, the self-evident truths are simply not evident at all.
Praise to Santorum for being the last man standing who will defend these things, and articulately enough too. These are important things; society always decays and falls apart when it forgets what bound it together in the first place.
Unlike what whacko neolibertarians and now Glenn Beack believe , legal marriage between a man and woman is necessary for the state to record. . All future children born to a couple during a legal marriage are LEGALLY and AUTMATICALLY the RESPONSIBLITY of the man
Unlike with woman, who cant fake not being the mother, a certian percentage of men ARE dead beat dads This has been a problem throughtout history. Men have allways fallen short in their responsibilities as fathers.
The fact is the only "rights" in a legal marriage are the right of the children to be financially supported by the man who brings them into this world. You'd think libertarians would jump on this "taking responsiblity" as is something reasonable and correct Instead they go on about "equal rights" for the couples when marriage itself is not a right at all. for anyone
In the backwards logic of neoliberts, childern have no rights to be supported by their biological father that brought them into this world and the government has not role in making sure they do , but gays (and even straights) garner rights from their sexual desires.
“Why wouldn’t leaders in this country stand up and promote marriage?” asked Santorum. “Stop, in any way they could, the sexual promiscuity that goes on that leads to out-of-wedlock births.”
Because Marxists want to destroy the rest of America like they did with the black community. First, attack the faith, then attack the family.
Rick Santorum On Small Government (spread far and wide)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU
Santorum defends his use of earmarks By Naureen Khan
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57354185-5...
"The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
George Washington
The role of enforcing paternal responsibility falls to the court system, local, and is not the purview of the federal government at all.
Say no to Romanism!!! Send the mackerel snappers back to Old Europe!!!
Seriously, Santorum has a previously underexplored message. Large swaths of America are disfunctional largely due to bad values.
Their families in many cases let them down. Government lets them down — poor schools. The culture lets them down — gangster rap and Kim Khardashian.
Maybe if the government can remind them of the values that built Western Civiliztion — God — it would not be such a bad thing.
Only 50% of Americans are married. If the voters were so pro-marriage why aren't more married? How will you get the votes of the 50% who are unmarried now that you have dissed them?
Yes Santorum. If you were running to be a minister in Iowa, marriage and religion would allow you to get hired. In a general election of unmarried, singles, gays, democrats, independents, and the non-religious, you can't win. Step down and allow a candidate who can win the majority campaign.
For you, what has more authority, God or Government? Would you put your God first or government? If Santorum is an authentic man of his faith, then you know how he will rule others…..
If the very first value you hold is the devaluation of "innocent" human life, you value nothing.
If your second value is the unnatural limitation on the creation of life, you limit the potential of humanity itself.
Its not about "imposing values" on anyone, its about a clear delineation between right and wrong.
Anything goes will eventually lead to everything's gone.
Deal with it.
So, being a husband automatically makes you a great dad? Explain that to the kids whos married father beat them, neglected to feed them, or cheated on their mother. And I guess divorced fathers suddenly treat their kids like garbage?
Being a good father doesn't come from some legal paper. It comes from having a conscience and personal responsibility(values that existed before government and God).
Great. Neocons are trying to push social issues to front and center in yet ANOTHER election. Say hello to four more years of Obama.
This is absolutely true. Marxist writings and teachings targeted the institution of marriage and family. They say they believed that marriage was against the freedoms of women, but, in reality, they knew that marriage and the family was THE building block of a stable society and they could not force the revolution they wanted without destabilizing society.
That's why I'm for gay marriage. Family is family and family is good for society.
Obviously Santorum knows something you don't.
When the country was young you could go west and find freedom and rid yourself of those who wanted to tell you how to live.
It's Jan 2012, what are you gonna do vote Romney?
Are you sure it's neocons? Traditionalists (as opposed to paleo-liberals) seem to be the ones most interested in imposing their idea of the good life on others.
But you're spot on…if Santorum is the nominee, game over. We will have to survive the best we can.
The Truth About Rick Santorum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Aohgrn1peA
Paul is honest but nuts.
Bachmann is conservative but shrill and one note.
Perry is the most conservative of the electable ones but shot himself in BOTH feet.
Newt never ran anything; he's a conservative gadfly who can take both sides of EVERY issue.
Huntsman has a terrific record as governor but just LISTEN to the guy.
Missed anything?
no doubt.
East coast conservatives are not like their brethren east of the Ohio river; they just aren't…
"nazi like libertarians"
Don't use words you don't understand. It makes you look silly.
Thou Shalt not Kill is a value that many share, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Marriage is also a value that crosses all boundaries of creed and culture, because it is a natural inclination of humans that develops unconsciously. It is not a 'construct' as the left, or perhaps the libertarians, would define it. Alternative marriage is, however, indeed a social construct that feminists and other arbitrary opponents of tradition and human nature wish to make a co-ideal. The goal is not merely to make legal alternative marriages, but to force universal moral acceptance. Marriage between a man and a women is natural, universal and timeless, with or without Christianity. Alternative marriages have always been a forced construction. Who then is forcing whose values on whom? Religion isn't taught in schools – but leftist values are. The religion of the Left has been soiling our culture and diluting our morality for decades as evidence by the pandemic of fatherless homes, welfare dependence and crime rates among those who come from broken and incomplete homes. If Libertarians are truly against the welfare state, they would be wise to support and value traditional marriage above alternative and mixed family homes. Even the debauched ancient Rome knew that not promoting marriage would be the undoing of their society. As a result, citizens of all orientations entered into traditional marriages for the sake of their own health and society's, along with incentives from the State. In the end, their promiscuity and deviation from fidelity and tradition was a major factor in their decline. The fall of the family is the fall of any society. Leftists know this – all communist and leftist philosophers and writers, like Marx and Alinsky, make the destruction of the family their number one priority. Why don't Libertarians know this too?
At what percentage of people NOT married,……
will you begin to realize that our society has a problem….???????
If we must agree that government should not be promoting marriage,…….
let us than also eliminate all of government's incentives,….
that are anti marriage.
Sure wish my pastor spoke like that,……
I am honored to be associated with you.
I am honored to count you as a friend and fellow traveler.
Not everyone like me is nuts, many of those like me are so selfish in their desire to be right that they'll cut off their own ear to prove their unwillingness to listen.
Quite a few of us actually do think for ourselves and forcefully reject the liberal propaganda even though the media continually denies any knowledge of our existence.
Reason requires more than cold math and simple minded devotion to a belief or philosophy, it also requires faith in your convictions.
The thing that confuses me about modern "A"theists is that they deny the Latin meaning and proper use of the letter "A" in the modern English language.
If you look at how the letter "A" is historically and phonetically used in Latin it literally means "absence of" but hardcore "A"theists have perverted its proper use to mean "A"nti in their redefined lexicon.
So in reality what modern "A"theists are is ANTI-theists not what the classical definition and application of the letter "A" actually means in Latin.
They're hypocrites using a perversion of language as an excuse to abuse its proper meaning and impose "their faith" on others.
If someone wishes to be "absent" of or, deny faith that's fine but to be anti-faith is to be anti intellectual in and of itself and it actually imposes a particular "faith" against those whose faith "offends" their particular philosophical sensibilities.
"IL"logical but then, that one also has a very specific meaning in Latin…
Michio Kaku, a scientist whom I very greatly respect said it best; "when trying to figure out how the universe actually works it is completely "anti" (there's that Latin "A" again) logical to deny the possibility that there is in fact a God. To deny the possibility of ANY variable in math or science or even the possibility of an intelligent creator is to deny the very foundation of science and mathematics themselves."
Reason.tv and Reason.com. . .
Aren’t these sites a Libertarian organ? Don’t get me wrong, I tend to agree with much of the Libertarian ideology, just not all of it. But, wouldn’t it be better to find a site with information that does not have such close, philosophical ties to a particular candidate? This editorial choice would be most wise when choosing an article that was about an opposing candidate.
Even the word choice of the headline is suspect, namely “Impose”.
From Merriam Webster. . .
Impose:
1a : to establish or apply by authority
1b : to establish or bring about as if by force
I’m sure that Reason or Big didn’t intend to cast Santorum in a negative light. Surely not? [sarc]
Tell yourself anything you want. I was raised with a twice-a-month Dad, and I just didn't know the man. He was invested in his new life. It really does matter wether or not you stay married.
The Unions are giving 100%, because they must have private pension money to cover the huge pension shortfalls of their own. The compliant media is in the tank for the democrat as usual. Obama is busily buying off everybody and their brother. Ron Paul is too old (sorry, he just is), Libertarians are busily trashing cultural conservatives because libertarians are small government uber-liberals who want free-wheeling , anything-goes culture but then are too cheap to pay for a social net for the shell shocked kiddies, so face it. It's four more years no matter what.
Who has the power to redefine marriage? Only a generation steeped in arrogance unto complete silliness believes they have the power to alter what evolution or God worked out long ago as the best construct for human happiness, the raising of children and the transmitting of culture. More ever, if you could redefine it once you could redefine it endlessly. Three guys and a goat? No problem, says the Ninth circuit.
Gentle Readers,
There is a clear-cut relationship between marriage, single-motherhood, fatherless children and poverty.
Progressives propose ' redefining ' marriage and essentially making child care and rearing the purview of a
massive socialized government enterprise, paid with tax dollars, without considering the
economic and social pathologies associated with that enterprise.
Libertarians propose ending welfare without regard to the harm that would do to innocent children. It may
be ' reason '-able to propose letting adults suffer the consequences of their poor lifestyle choices,
but no rational and humane person would apply this ' reason '-ing to a 6 month old baby.
Like it or not, Mr. Santorum is speaking the truth. The rational and humane approach to
reducing welfare and government dependency is to create social conditions and policies
designed to encourage strong families. Democrats such as Amb. Moynihan agree.
Sincerely,
John Lepant Brighton CO
that was perfect.
"The rational and humane approach to reducing welfare and government dependency is to create social conditions and policies designed to encourage strong families."
Absolutely! The only problem, from a Progressive stand-point, would be the ceding of power from the State back to the individual. This is simply will not be allowed under a Progressive administration.
That the chain of governmental dependency must be broken for the sake of our national well-being is obvious. Finding the weakest link and willingness to make the break in order to release us from bondage has been the illusive part. Many people will hold the chisel, but no officials are queuing up to strike the blow!
Toss him out he is obviously talking about fining and putting people in jail for being something other then straight white and religious! No way is he merely saying that Leaders should be roll models and take an active roll in promoting morals and family values!
/sarcasm off
Dear Mr. Shepherd,
Thank you, Sir!
Sincerely,
John
http://santorumexposed.com/
"It takes a village to raise a child." – Hillary Clinton
"It takes a village idiot to believe that." – Thomas Sowell
"That the chain of governmental dependency must be broken for the sake of our national well-being is obvious. Finding the weakest link and willingness to make the break in order to release us from bondage has been the illusive part. Many people will hold the chisel, but no officials are queuing up to strike the blow! "
I am pretty sure Santorum voted to increase the dependency on government. He voted to double the size of Dept Of Ed, and voted for the medicare part d drug bill.
I dont know what planet anyone else is living on, but the U.S. debt is a real and present danger, any candidate that has helped contribute to the demise of our currency, and economy is an enemy pure and simple. We either think the country is on a fiscal course for disaster, or we think we need just a little more spending, because the spending we have been doing isn't the right kind. I can only liken this thinking to that of a crack head.
http://santorumexposed.com
Is he really better than Obama if his aim is essentially the same place? With a few different details? Seems a little tyrannical to me. JMO
I hope that your statement "I can only liken this thinking to that of a crack head. . ." is referring to governmental spending and not upon any statement that I have made on that, or any subject. Nothing that I have said on this post, or in any post links me to big government in any form.
As for the Department of Education, I was voted off of a Board of Education office for my views on Federal spending and control over Education. My credentials on THAT subject are well known to the citizens of my area. My problem was one of trying to 'educate' folks about the situation of taking Federal Funds to run the school system. Sure, the money is great, but the strings attached to the acceptance are designed to ensnare all who are involved in the process. "School to Work", "Outcome-based Education", "Goals 2000", "Global 2000" and "No Child Left Behind" were designed to control education in the States by controlling them through money. If a school district takes the funds, they MUST do what the Federal Government says to do with the money. Therein lays the great trap of control.
Just like Education, the Welfare State works the same way by controlling the outcomes of the folks receiving the funding. I would much rather live the life of a free pauper, than to exist under the chains of the Federal teat.
My earlier post only points out the problem of allowing a point of view that is biased either way towards a candidate. I expressed no view that supported anyone. I merely pointed out a concern for professional objectivity. I am not particularly pleased with any other current crop, but will have to make a decision at some point.
Santorum would like to ban gay sexual acts in people's homes "because there's no right to privacy in the Constitution." He'd also like to ban pornography. Good luck with that at the polls.
Thomas Sowell. . .'Gotta love that man! Great mind!
America…we need to make corrections in so many areas of our government…values…integrity…transparency…honesty…in economic issues and social issues!
We have been left wanting for so many years…by 'real' conservatives (the majority in America) who stood by and did nothing and let the 'loons'…'fence sitters' and 'pretenders' run the show…and run the show they did…right into the hole!
We need a change to bring hope back to our Republic…and we need to give a 'real' conservative the opportunity to make things RIGHT…and that would be Rick Santorum!
He is a family man…he is a man of integrity and character and commitment to our Constitution and the future of our children!
He is going to get my vote…I have vetted all the others…and all of them come up short…only Rick Santorum will get my vote…and my financial support…and I encourage you to do the same!
HE CAN WIN!
HE WILL WIN!
HE WILL DO IT WITH OUR VOTE…AND OUR SUPPORT!
This bandwagon is going all the way to the White House…guaranteed!!!
https://transaxt.com/Donate/PTWALC/RickSantorumfo...
Populist support? That would be Ron Paul – not this Zio-goober.
It's a shame – Sanitarium's support of that foreign welfare state betrays all his rhetoric . Otherwise I might consider him because I agree with social conservatism in general.
Is that better than our nascent fascist oligarch in chief? You bet.
NO! It is far worse because he pushed big government under the banner of the GOP! Obama is far less damaging.
I love it when liberaltarians claim they don't believe in legislating morality. Since liberty is itself a moral construct, not some product of nature, they are the kings of cognitive dissonance. What they really mean is the same as progressives mean when they take the exact same position. They don't believe in legislating anyone else's morality.
My comment was precisely related to government spending, and was not in relation to your comment. I agree with the first as well as the second. What I see is a total desperation with conservatives\libertarians and getting Obama out, we are rapidly losing sight of why we are in this mess. I GET IT. I can easily the correlation between government spending and slow enslavement. Which is why I am baffled when people get behind a candidate that has a record of SPENDING. We are 15 trillion in debt, or we aren't. More spending by government will and has compound(ed) the problem
No problem!
Unfortunately, most folks are disconnected from the theoretical political process and are only interested in winning. Folks are attracted to 'winners' because they win and not necessarily the reason why. I know that's cynical, but that's the way that I see it and so do the political operatives on all sides. Use the citizens biases to gain their vote for the Party while trampling over our American Rights in the process.
Our problem as a Constitutional Republic didn't just start three years ago, but it sure is compounding faster than the interest on our National Debt!
Link please.
Looks like Jesus is on the ballot again this time.
I think we should do drive-bys on the people who refuse to go to church, like any good American should.
What is the national faith that the Marxists wish to attack?
Those damnable libertarians. You know, they wouldn't vote for Jesus if He were running. And now, they're not gonna vote for Jesus's candidate, Rick Santorum.
PRAISE GOD!!!!!
I sure wish you were a blue collar stiff like me,….
i sure would enjoy a nice long conversation,….
at some nice quite bar.
Bartender, give my friend and me another one.
Take a listen: http://video.foxnews.com/v/1370680897001/santorum...
I think you are confusing faith with religion.
The anti-theists seem to be anti-religion not anti-faith.
In regards to what the bible says about marriage. Why do Christians spend so much effort attacking homosexuals- they are such a small percentage of Americans who are sinning? It is also written in the bible that any woman who is found not be a virgin when wed shall be stoned to death. Statistically less than 20% of women in America are virgins when they wed, so you Christians have a lot of stoning to do. The homosexual population pales in comparison to the 80% of American women that need to be put to death immediately. Better get busy my fine, morally upstanding friends…you have your imaginary God's laws to uphold.
I feel the same way about women voting. Every society throughout history has been patriarchal with power resting comfortably in the hands of men. With great arrogance we gave women power and now look!
You're attempt to paint Libertarians as libertines is the old simple-minded tactic the statist conservatives have always used. It fails because no libertarian who thoughfully adopts the position would advocate an "anything-goes culture"; but that's just it, we make a distinction between culture (or society more broadly) and the state, unlike knee jerk prudes who want to force the personal preferences on others.
There would be MANY rules in a libertarian society, but there would be far fewer laws. You follow cultural rules every day, but no government tells you to. Why? Because of social pressure or conscience. In fact, the implicit conventional rules would be more pervasive and more regularly adhered to, because third-party monitoring would be replaced by first-party monitoring.
Reason mag and Reason.org are libertarian-leaning, but they are in no "organ" of the Libertarian party, if that's what you're implying.
What word would you have chosen rather than "impose" when Santorum himself is quoted using that word to convey an opinion in opposition to libertarianism?
And I did what Santorum wanted from the ignorant college students — state a reason or purpose why allowing gays to marry would be good for society.
There are always going to be those folks who don't want to marry and just want to shack up or live their lives going from bed to bed. There are others — the kind we want on our side – who value stability and family that comes from a committed and faithful marriage. Having that stability and family will necessarily promote values that Santorum is talking about and that I talked about in my first post.
I do not believe poly marriages would do the same thing for society or that marriage is whatever you want it to be. However, I also don't beileve that it has been shown that children raised by two loving parents do any better or worse depending upon the gender of those two parents.
Santorum gave a well reasoned and well thought out response to the college students. Schooled them actually. But they did not provide him a legitimate purpose or reason for why gay marriage would benefit our society.
We do not have a national faith. We have freedom of religion.
Marxists are attacking all faith, any faith. People's faith gives them comfort and hope. People who have comfort and hope cannot be agitated enough to start a revolution. So, Marxists do whatever they can to undermine faith.
Awe cant give me link but you can thumb me down?
Again give me a link
Yes indeed! Let's get government out of our lives. I for one am tired of their "fixing" their mistakes on my dime.
I wouldn't be one to so quickly use Washington as some sort of icon of truth and liberty. He didn't have a problem turning guns on anyone who wouldn't kowtow to a central government. Whiskey "rebellion" and all that. But, then again, that would explain your support of big government Sanitarium Santorum.
They're both dangerous and evil.
Marxists want to make Atheism the official state religion. They will attack ANY faith (except Islam) for that.
But what will happen under Marxism is that Islam will prosper and they will force the atheist Marxists to convert to Islam at the point of a sword. Then Marxism is dead, replaced by Islamic dictatorship.
You apparently did not view the videos by your comment. These videos are not in support of him. They are showing everybody who he really is!
Gay marriage is a cornerstone of cultural Marxism.
That's one reason I'm against it.
Santorum in no way represents what Christ would do. Would HE tell you do die in some god forsaken place or kill or threaten to obliterate someone who you don't even know JUST BECAUSE? That's absurd! Put the fascist crack pipe down and come down off of your public school indoctrination for once.
Thanks for the correction. But I won't be so quick to slice your throat so I'll give you a thumbs up for pointing that out.
How refreshing. Seriously! It's the Golden Rule. I only wish more people would snap out of their statist induced hypnosis and realize as much.
I appreciate that. I do get hungry, and have to eat!
Be sure and send as much money as you can. He is going to need it! I mean as much as you CAN!
http://www.google.com
In regards to what the bible says about marriage. Why do Christians spend so much effort attacking homosexuals- they are such a small percentage of Americans who are sinning? It is also written in the bible that any woman who is found not be a virgin when wed shall be stoned to death. Statistically less than 20% of women in America are virgins when they wed, so you Christians have a lot of stoning to do. The homosexual population pales in comparison to the 80% of American women that need to be put to death immediately. Better get busy my fine, morally upstanding friends…you have your imaginary God's laws to uphold.
Citing Leviticus will earn you tons of cred with your Atheist friends and MAYBE help you argue against some fundies, but is theologically meaningless in regards to Catholic theology.
Why are Libertarians pro-gay marriage? Why are they pro-government-involved-in-marriage at all? Maybe get it out of the business and then gays could go around saying they are married without the government declaring that what they are doing is officially marriage or not.
It's really sad when you use Liberal thinking, even on social issues. I thought you folks were better than that.
That's right 'not george'…lots because the opposition is getting of big money from big sources…and he is going to need it…and we will provide it!
Get it…Bubba George?
Rick Santorum cannot win the election if he tries to use the government to impose his religious views upon everyone else. The majority of people in this country don't support the mix of politics and religion, simple as that.
I mean as much as you CAN! Get it Eileen the bubette?
What….Chicken George…you think 'real' conservatives won't stand behind their candidate?
Are you challenging us…Chicken George?
You must be logged in to post a comment.