Election of 2012....Who ya got?

[AE14]

Did you hear the rumors about the Romney/Paul ticket?

 

[AE14]

I love Rick Santorum. He has been my guy since this all started.

Go ahead and judge me. haha!

Consider yourself judged.

He is scary

 

[ax1]

Did you hear the rumors about the Romney/Paul ticket?

I heard it somewhere, if that was true Paul is done in my books forever. Unless Paul plans to pull a Lyndon Johnson to gain power, hmmm?

 

[AE14]

I heard it somewhere, if that was true Paul is done in my books forever. Unless Paul plans to pull a Lyndon Johnson to gain power, hmmm?

Prediction?

 

[EasyEJL]

Prediction?

We're ****ed? That's my only prediction, and it basically doesn't matter who gets elected.

The only way a Paul Romney ticket would work is with Paul as president. Because the veto power needs to be in the hands of someone who would use out to curb excesses

 

[ax1]

Prediction?

Not at all, I just dont see that happening or Ron even considering it (Romney either or VP.) Id like to hear it out of his mouth or his own website.

 

[Clickster]

Consider yourself judged.

He is scary

I feel the same about Ron Paul's foreign policy.....

 

[AE14]

We're ****ed? That's my only prediction, and it basically doesn't matter who gets elected.

The only way a Paul Romney ticket would work is with Paul as president. Because the veto power needs to be in the hands of someone who would use out to curb excesses

I dont actually believe he would. I see him as no different as than anyone else tbh. He was supposedly above the fray, yet he takes out some of the worst attack ads out there. He is just another politician, or "insider".

Not at all, I just dont see that happening or Ron even considering it (Romney either or VP.) Id like to hear it out of his mouth or his own website.

I wonder how many Paul supporters would go bananas over it?

I feel the same about Ron Paul's foreign policy.....

I agree here, but Santorum with his "Socially conservative" agenda is completely unelectable. There are no moderates out there who would even consider something so extreme. His decision making process is based primarily on "god", which is downright frightening when you look at the history of his religion.

I live in Pa, there is a reason he got destroyed in his senate reelection bid

 

[EasyEJL]

I dont actually believe he would. I see him as no different as than anyone else tbh. He was supposedly above the fray, yet he takes out some of the worst attack ads out there. He is just another politician, or "insider".

whats wrong with attack ads that are accurate? I fail to see the issue. Letting the public know the hypocrisy of "I want no child left behind, but I voted for it" and "I believe abortion shouldn't be legal but I voted to fund planned parenthood" work fine for me.

 

[AE14]

whats wrong with attack ads that are accurate? I fail to see the issue. Letting the public know the hypocrisy of "I want no child left behind, but I voted for it" and "I believe abortion shouldn't be legal but I voted to fund planned parenthood" work fine for me.

You know the planned parenthood thing is a crock. It was attached to another bill, which was he primary reason he voted for it. Don't start becoming a Paulite E, that's a scary group. Almost as scary as Santorum.

 

[Rahl]

I dont actually believe he would. I see him as no different as than anyone else tbh. He was supposedly above the fray, yet he takes out some of the worst attack ads out there. He is just another politician, or "insider".

I wonder how many Paul supporters would go bananas over it?

I agree here, but Santorum with his "Socially conservative" agenda is completely unelectable. There are no moderates out there who would even consider something so extreme. His decision making process is based primarily on "god", which is downright frightening when you look at the history of his religion.

I live in Pa, there is a reason he got destroyed in his senate reelection bid

^^ Amen. I never voted for him here and I sure won't on a national ticket. He would base every decision on "his" religious beliefs alone. We can't call everyone in the middle east religious extremist if we form our government based in the same concept. That dude scares me except that he's totally unelectable.

 

[ax1]

You know the planned parenthood thing is a crock. It was attached to another bill, which was he primary reason he voted for it. Don't start becoming a Paulite E, that's a scary group. Almost as scary as Santorum.

Cant comment of this specific story, but as with most bills, there always underlying laws that have nothing to do with the bill (such as college loans in the health care bill), and these days bill's are so long most (if not all) that vote yes didint even read it so I see how things like that can happen.

 

[EasyEJL]

You know the planned parenthood thing is a crock. It was attached to another bill, which was he primary reason he voted for it. Don't start becoming a Paulite E, that's a scary group. Almost as scary as Santorum.

its not a crock. How can you say you are against the death penalty and then vote yes on a bill that includes the death penalty in it? Sure it was attached to another bill, and it was another bill that was totally unrelated and had nothing to do with planned parenthood. It was attached to buy the votes of liberals to guarantee passage of the main bill. That is an enormous part of the problem with how congress operates. The cornhusker kickback for the vote for Obamacare, etc. They should vote no whenever a bill contains parts they disagree with.

And those 3,000 page bills that have 150 amendments that are unrelated to the main point of the bill have to stop. Its a part of what makes our political system so non-transparent. Guessing that from your perspective, it is totally acceptable to pass a bill that disbands all teachers unions if its part of a bill to fund social security then? The bills should go through as separate entities, not trying to make them into a huge conglomeration that effectively is bribery, plus giving them the excuse for having voted for things they don't agree with "well, I had to, it was attached to the defense appropriations bill". Thats the part that is a crock, using expediency as an excuse for doing something you don't believe in.

 

[AE14]

its not a crock. How can you say you are against the death penalty and then vote yes on a bill that includes the death penalty in it? Sure it was attached to another bill, and it was another bill that was totally unrelated and had nothing to do with planned parenthood. It was attached to buy the votes of liberals to guarantee passage of the main bill. That is an enormous part of the problem with how congress operates. The cornhusker kickback for the vote for Obamacare, etc. They should vote no whenever a bill contains parts they disagree with.

And those 3,000 page bills that have 150 amendments that are unrelated to the main point of the bill have to stop. Its a part of what makes our political system so non-transparent. Guessing that from your perspective, it is totally acceptable to pass a bill that disbands all teachers unions if its part of a bill to fund social security then? The bills should go through as separate entities, not trying to make them into a huge conglomeration that effectively is bribery, plus giving them the excuse for having voted for things they don't agree with "well, I had to, it was attached to the defense appropriations bill". Thats the part that is a crock, using expediency as an excuse for doing something you don't believe in.

Not if they agree with the majority of the bill. Then you hold your nose and vote yes (old Ed Koch quote)

Your thoughts on a teacher union bill is silly. (I am no longer in the teachers union btw). Of course they should be separate, but that was not the issue we are addressing. You gave a Paulite talking point about Santorum, which is a nonsensical statement, which you know.

The fact is as much as Paul claims to be an outsider, he is not. 30+ years in Washington and a campaign like he has run is all the proof needed to show that.

 

[EasyEJL]

Not if they agree with the majority of the bill. Then you hold your nose and vote yes (old Ed Koch quote)

Your thoughts on a teacher union bill is silly. (I am no longer in the teachers union btw). Of course they should be separate, but that was not the issue we are addressing. You gave a Paulite talking point about Santorum, which is a nonsensical statement, which you know.

The fact is as much as Paul claims to be an outsider, he is not. 30+ years in Washington and a campaign like he has run is all the proof needed to show that.

Is there anything in any of his ads that isn't true? Is there any evidence that Paul has done the "hold your nose and vote for it anyhow"? No, there isn't. In 30 years he has voted no every time any part of a bill was against his beliefs. So you can go ahead and believe that your own morality is negotiable and that you'll accept some evil for a greater good, but there is no reason the 2 have to be together other than political expediency.

Sure the example of the teacher's union was extreme, but the practice of attaching bribes to other bills, and then everyone being expected to vote yes on it is extreme. Thats all those parts are, bribes to get an individual politician to vote yes for the overall package. If more politicians voted like Ron Paul did, the practice of post it noting a pile of unrelated amendments onto a bill just to buy passage would stop. Then each bill would be passed or fail to pass on its own merit. But instead, as with Santorum (and Gingrich in congress, and Romeny as governor) most politicians sign off on something they are against to get something they are for. Thats not compromise, thats hypocrisy.

 

[AE14]

Is there anything in any of his ads that isn't true? Is there any evidence that Paul has done the "hold your nose and vote for it anyhow"? No, there isn't. In 30 years he has voted no every time any part of a bill was against his beliefs. So you can go ahead and believe that your own morality is negotiable and that you'll accept some evil for a greater good, but there is no reason the 2 have to be together other than political expediency.

Sure the example of the teacher's union was extreme, but the practice of attaching bribes to other bills, and then everyone being expected to vote yes on it is extreme. Thats all those parts are, bribes to get an individual politician to vote yes for the overall package. If more politicians voted like Ron Paul did, the practice of post it noting a pile of unrelated amendments onto a bill just to buy passage would stop. Then each bill would be passed or fail to pass on its own merit. But instead, as with Santorum (and Gingrich in congress, and Romeny as governor) most politicians sign off on something they are against to get something they are for. Thats not compromise, thats hypocrisy.

your definition of compromise is skewed imo. In politics, as you well know, you many times need to give something to get something.

Additionally, by your statement of truth, Paul is a racist.

Again, lets not be a talking head for a candidate

 

[ax1]

your definition of compromise is skewed imo. In politics, as you well know, you many times need to give something to get something.

Additionally, by your statement of truth, Paul is a racist.

Again, lets not be a talking head for a candidate

Compromise these days is a little extreme though...

Want health care? Here is health care lets force everyone to buy insurance since they dont have "health care" and in return we will build and army of 16,000 IRS agents to enforce it and also fund the Obama Civilian Task force that should be as powerful and funded as the military, there health care for you.

Paul a racist? Dont tell me you read that newsletter from 89.

 

[EasyEJL]

your definition of compromise is skewed imo. In politics, as you well know, you many times need to give something to get something.

Additionally, by your statement of truth, Paul is a racist.

Again, lets not be a talking head for a candidate

"in politics, as you well know" - I know this is the mockery our political system has become. That doesn't mean I have to like it or approve of it. For some douche like Santorum to claim to be Mr Morality but to still vote for things that violate his conscience is a total joke. Sure it is how politics has become, that doesn't mean its how politics should be.

And no, by my definition Paul isn't a racist. A newsletter that has his name on it published some articles not written by him that were racist. He didn't write the articles, or have editiorial control over articles. But nice try.

 

[AE14]

Compromise these days is a little extreme though...

Want health care? Here is health care lets force everyone to buy insurance since they dont have "health care" and in return we will build and army of 16,000 IRS agents to enforce it and also fund the Obama Civilian Task force that should be as powerful and funded as the military, there health care for you.

Paul a racist? Dont tell me you read that newsletter from 89.

"in politics, as you well know" - I know this is the mockery our political system has become. That doesn't mean I have to like it or approve of it. For some douche like Santorum to claim to be Mr Morality but to still vote for things that violate his conscience is a total joke. Sure it is how politics has become, that doesn't mean its how politics should be.

And no, by my definition Paul isn't a racist. A newsletter that has his name on it published some articles not written by him that were racist. He didn't write the articles, or have editiorial control over articles. But nice try.

To both, my post about the newsletters are in relation to E saying Santorum supports Planned Parenthood. Out of anyone of the 4, he is the least likely to support it. He voted for a piece of legislation where the financing was piggybacked on to it. I personally dont care if Paul is a racist or not, tbh. I will never vote for him regardless. I do find it interesting that Paul had no editorial control, when his name is on it

 

[EasyEJL]

To both, my post about the newsletters are in relation to E saying Santorum supports Planned Parenthood. Out of anyone of the 4, he is the least likely to support it. He voted for a piece of legislation where the financing was piggybacked on to it. I personally dont care if Paul is a racist or not, tbh. I will never vote for him regardless. I do find it interesting that Paul had no editorial control, when his name is on it

No, I never said santorum supported it, I said he voted to fund it. Voting to fund something you are morally opposed to and that you feel is a violation of the human rights of an unborn child just because its attached to something else is still hypocritical. Its just part of why nobody trusts politicians. How can you stand in the public and say "even though I voted to fund these things, i'm against all of them" ? Its no wonder people don't trust politicans.

Do you think Susan G Komen has editorial rights over everything published in her name? Of course not, she's dead. Do you think Bill Gates has editorial rights over everything done by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Of course not. He's not a newsletter editor, he has plenty of other things that keep him occupied. Same with many newsletters and other publications.

 

[Conagher]

Santorum

 

[AE14]

Do you think Susan G Komen has editorial rights over everything published in her name? Of course not, she's dead. Do you think Bill Gates has editorial rights over everything done by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Of course not. He's not a newsletter editor, he has plenty of other things that keep him occupied. Same with many newsletters and other publications.

lets not compare the Paul "organization" to microsoft. Tad bit of a difference in terms of size.

Also, I never understood all the hub bub about Paul. People calling him the modern day Jefferson, which is more of a negative imo. Jefferson did not truly follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution. So silly

 

[EasyEJL]

lets not compare the Paul "organization" to microsoft. Tad bit of a difference in terms of size.

Also, I never understood all the hub bub about Paul. People calling him the modern day Jefferson, which is more of a negative imo. Jefferson did not truly follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution. So silly

Its not about the size of the organization either. How much else does a political figure or obstetrician have going on in their lives that they can devote an additional x amount of time to being a newsletter editor on top?

The main hubub about Paul is that he is actually a voice of "hope and change", unlike the rubber stamp politicians we have. We've tried it the way that Reagan, Clinton, both Bushes, and Obama wanted (and can go back further really for the last almost 100 years) and all we do is mire ourselves deeper.

And in what way did Jefferson not follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution? btw this isn't argumentative, I'm interested as I've read a bit of what Jefferson wrote later on. He was one of the authors of the constitution, so i'd think he'd be one who had a fairly good understanding of how they got to the wording they did. Although I probably could stand to read more of Madison's writings. Certainly any diversions he took from a literal reading are far closer than a president who would craft Social Security, Medicare part D, the Patriot Act, the CRA or mandated health care.

 

[AE14]

I am on my phone so I apologize I have to be brief.

Paul's maintainence it less than say Gates. Easier for him to control.

Jefferson applied the constitution when it suited him. Louisiana Purchase is the first that comes to mind. That is the epitome of a loose interpretation.

The issues that precluded 1812 were all Jeffersons doing. Madison was stuck dealing with it. Madison is a great read E. one of my personal favorites.

 

[EasyEJL]

well, from what I remember, he was torn over whether or not to buy Louisiana. At the start he only wanted to buy New Orleans, to guarantee usage of the port for US trade + defensive needs.

But I do need to read some of Madison's writings too. I'm going to poke around for ebooks.

 

[AE14]

well, from what I remember, he was torn over whether or not to buy Louisiana. At the start he only wanted to buy New Orleans, to guarantee usage of the port for US trade + defensive needs.

But I do need to read some of Madison's writings too. I'm going to poke around for ebooks.

Agreed....however, the constitution has no provision for that sort of action. Many of his detractors at the time were killing him as a result.

Madison always seems very pragmatic to me. Also, is the last sitting president to lead me into battle. He got crushed for 1812 (Jefferson's policies) and Monroe reaps the benefits in the era of good feeling as a result of Madison's leadership. He never gets the credit he deserves IMO

 

[EasyEJL]

Actually quite a lot of free ebooks on google books from Madison's writings. something nice to read on my flight to the Arnold Friday

 

[Clickster]

I agree here, but Santorum with his "Socially conservative" agenda is completely unelectable. There are no moderates out there who would even consider something so extreme. His decision making process is based primarily on "god", which is downright frightening when you look at the history of his religion.

I live in Pa, there is a reason he got destroyed in his senate reelection bid

I am a Christian and I try to make 100% of my decisions based primarily on God. So, this obviously is playing part in my liking of Rick Santorum. I realize that my faith and my politics isn't usually of the popular opinion. It is just where I stand.

I do like others in this race also and will support whoever gets the nod. As of now, Rick Santorum is my choice.

 

[ax1]

I am a Christian and I try to make 100% of my decisions based primarily on God. So, this obviously is playing part in my liking of Rick Santorum. I realize that my faith and my politics isn't usually of the popular opinion. It is just where I stand.

I do like others in this race also and will support whoever gets the nod. As of now, Rick Santorum is my choice.

Im not trying to come across as someone trying to pick apart religion, but I just want to ask you this...

I can see how someone bases his decisions on his ethics and values that his god has taught him through teachings of the bible, but how does one actually talk to god and make a decision to going to war with another country or not?

 

[Clickster]

Im not trying to come across as someone trying to pick apart religion, but I just want to ask you this...

I can see how someone bases his decisions on his ethics and values that his god has taught him through teachings of the bible, but how does one actually talk to god and make a decision to going to war with another country or not?

I am a Christian. However, I am not so sure where I am with the "having a conversation and getting a direct answer from God about whether we should go to war with another country". Do I believe in praying for guidance? Sure. But do I believe God tells any of these politicians EXACTLY what to do? I am not one to say as I don't know.

 

[steppinRazor]

I am a Christian and I try to make 100% of my decisions based primarily on God. So, this obviously is playing part in my liking of Rick Santorum. I realize that my faith and my politics isn't usually of the popular opinion. It is just where I stand.

I do like others in this race also and will support whoever gets the nod. As of now, Rick Santorum is my choice.

Scary stuff

 

[Clickster]

Scary stuff

That is very disrespectful. I thought we could be adults and respectful of others' opinions/beliefs in this thread. I was wrong.

My apologies for overrating the maturity of this forum.

 

[ax1]

That is very disrespectful. I thought we could be adults and respectful of others' opinions/beliefs in this thread. I was wrong.

My apologies for overrating the maturity of this forum.

Please dont leave, your opinions is welcome here

 

[Conagher]

I am a Christian and I try to make 100% of my decisions based primarily on God. So, this obviously is playing part in my liking of Rick Santorum. I realize that my faith and my politics isn't usually of the popular opinion. It is just where I stand.

I do like others in this race also and will support whoever gets the nod. As of now, Rick Santorum is my choice.

As a Christian,Clickster,what is your stance on separation of church and state?

 

[Rahl]

I am a Christian and I try to make 100% of my decisions based primarily on God. So, this obviously is playing part in my liking of Rick Santorum. I realize that my faith and my politics isn't usually of the popular opinion. It is just where I stand.

I do like others in this race also and will support whoever gets the nod. As of now, Rick Santorum is my choice.

As am I. I am not in the camp that believes that the United States is a "Christian" nation however Demographics have a way of shifting, especially in a country with heavy immigration. I'm more of a realist. Once you establish religion as a basis for governance you can't take it back. If the demographic shifts and you "the Christian" find yourself in the minority but the establishment of religion in governance exist for the new
Majority I'm guessing you would
Be less supportive.

 

[AE14]

Actually quite a lot of free ebooks on google books from Madison's writings. something nice to read on my flight to the Arnold Friday

I think you will enjoy him. Might have been one of the only presidents who truly wanted power with the people. Specifically evidence at the convention.

 

[Clickster]

As a Christian,Clickster,what is your stance on separation of church and state?

I do not believe the federal government should have any say whatsoever about the religion of any US citizen. I am all for the seperation of church and state. However, I don't find it too hard to believe that a person be inclined to elect someone who has a faith not too far from his own.

I don't think any religion should be against the seperation of church and state. Eventually, your religion or faith will become the minority and this will work against you. I am a Christian. But this doesn't mean that I am not for freedom. I don't force my faith on anyone and I would hate to see the government force any faith including my own down anyone's throats.

I consider social issues in politics to be decisions of moral character rather than religion.

I really like the idea of the power going back to each individual state like it was supposed to be.
If you didn't like the laws of your state...it was easy...move to another state who has rules/laws that suit you better.

 

[DerickVonD]

Santorum stated he thinks freedom is dangerous, he stated that he wanted to ban sex, porn and heavy metal. I don't care what Santorum's beliefs are. I'm not Christian, I'm pagan, but even if Santorum was a full blown Odinist, I'd still think he was a piece of ****, although if he was pagan he probably wouldn't want to ban these things to begin with anyway. I never thought a worse person could ever be president than Obama, until I discovered Rick Santorum. I rather have a reanimated Nixon as president. Also, I'd liek to state I have no problem with Christians, but I can't stand fanatics like Santorum, after all aren't Christians not suppose to judge?

 

[carpee]

Santorum stated he thinks freedom is dangerous, he stated that he wanted to ban sex, porn and heavy metal. I don't care what Santorum's beliefs are. I'm not Christian, I'm pagan, but even if Santorum was a full blown Odinist, I'd still think he was a piece of ****, although if he was pagan he probably wouldn't want to ban these things to begin with anyway. I never thought a worse person could ever be president than Obama, until I discovered Rick Santorum. I rather have a reanimated Nixon as president. Also, I'd liek to state I have no problem with Christians, but I can't stand fanatics like Santorum, after all aren't Christians not suppose to judge?

wow.

 

[carpee]

I do not believe the federal government should have any say whatsoever about the religion of any US citizen. I am all for the seperation of church and state. However, I don't find it too hard to believe that a person be inclined to elect someone who has a faith not too far from his own.

I don't think any religion should be against the seperation of church and state. Eventually, your religion or faith will become the minority and this will work against you. I am a Christian. But this doesn't mean that I am not for freedom. I don't force my faith on anyone and I would hate to see the government force any faith including my own down anyone's throats.

I consider social issues in politics to be decisions of moral character rather than religion.

I really like the idea of the power going back to each individual state like it was supposed to be.
If you didn't like the laws of your state...it was easy...move to another state who has rules/laws that suit you better.

good post.

the federal govt was not designed to dictate on social issues.

 

[AE14]

good post.

the federal govt was not designed to dictate on social issues.

agreed, and it is always funny to me, how the religious right shouts from the mountain top that they want less government intervention, yet want to dictate social issues....makes no sense

Santorum stated he thinks freedom is dangerous, he stated that he wanted to ban sex, porn and heavy metal. I don't care what Santorum's beliefs are. I'm not Christian, I'm pagan, but even if Santorum was a full blown Odinist, I'd still think he was a piece of ****, although if he was pagan he probably wouldn't want to ban these things to begin with anyway. I never thought a worse person could ever be president than Obama, until I discovered Rick Santorum. I rather have a reanimated Nixon as president. Also, I'd liek to state I have no problem with Christians, but I can't stand fanatics like Santorum, after all aren't Christians not suppose to judge?

As a Pa resident, the democrats could run Satan (no antichrist jokes) and I would not vote Santorum

He is a scary guy

 

[djdarklyceum]

I consider myself a christian and let me just say: rick santorum would be the worst vote on the planet.

 

[Clickster]

agreed, and it is always funny to me, how the religious right shouts from the mountain top that they want less government intervention, yet want to dictate social issues....makes no sense

I think it is only human nature to not be AS upset with government interference; when government interference is in full agreement with your faith and moral standards. I believe both parties fall under this...

 

[Clickster]

I consider myself a christian and let me just say: rick santorum would be the worst vote on the planet.

President Obama considers himself a Christian too.

Many people consider themselves Christians and will not vote for Rick Santorum. I am just unsure how you considering yourself a Christian is relevant to not liking Rick Santorum.

Yes, he shares a faith where his moral standards are very close to mine and it is playing a large role in my support for him. However, I wouldn't dare say that every US citizen who considers themselves a Christian is also a supporter of Rick Santorum.

Welcome to AnabolicMinds!

 

[ax1]

President Obama considers himself a Christian too.

Many people consider themselves Christians and will not vote for Rick Santorum. I am just unsure how you considering yourself a Christian is relevant to not liking Rick Santorum.

Yes, he shares a faith where his moral standards are very close to mine and it is playing a large role in my support for him. However, I wouldn't dare say that every US citizen who considers themselves a Christian is also a supporter of Rick Santorum.

Welcome to AnabolicMinds!

How do you feel about Santorum's proclamation that Satan is at war with America?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57382008-503544/santorum-in-08-satan-is-attacking-america/

By the way, I certainly dont expect you to agree with everything he says just wondering your thoughts on this one.

 

[DerickVonD]

Um last time I checked all the candidates were Christians.

 

[Clickster]

How do you feel about Santorum's proclamation that Satan is at war with America?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57382008-503544/santorum-in-08-satan-is-attacking-america/

By the way, I certainly dont expect you to agree with everything he says just wondering your thoughts on this one.

I believe Satan is at war with every individual.

I will say that I think Rick Santorum's speech was a little over the top. He was talking to a highly religious group and may have been playing to the crowd a little in my opinion.

I am not going to act like Christianity isn't under attack today because I truly believe it is. I think it is attacked by society, universities, media, etc. on a daily basis. Some may give Satan that credit; I am not going to take it that far.

 

[Clickster]

After re-reading some from this thread... I want to make something clear.

I am an average American man. I love to workout (most of the time) and I love sports. My favorite music is country music. My favorite movie is Braveheart. I put Tabasco sauce on EVERYTHING. I do like Beer and I drink it. I love my wife more than anything in the world. I usually follow my heart rather than my brain; this is sometimes proven to be a mistake. I am conservative in my political beliefs. I also am a believer/follower of Jesus Christ.

^my reason for going into all of that is because I can tell from some posts in this thread that I am being somewhat judged as some religious-freak. I try to live a balanced life; but God is the most important part of it.

There, now AnabolicMinds knows more about me than most.

 

[djdarklyceum]

President Obama considers himself a Christian too.

Many people consider themselves Christians and will not vote for Rick Santorum. I am just unsure how you considering yourself a Christian is relevant to not liking Rick Santorum.

Yes, he shares a faith where his moral standards are very close to mine and it is playing a large role in my support for him. However, I wouldn't dare say that every US citizen who considers themselves a Christian is also a supporter of Rick Santorum.

Welcome to AnabolicMinds!

Thanks for the warm welcome

Yes Obama 'claims' to be a christian, I'm not 100% sure if he is or not but I personally believe after taking out all the christian pro-biased views, Obama is better for the country than Rick Santorum. He has no accountability for what he says and is a form of extremist in his views with religion and government. He is exactly what you proclaim to be again'st. If anyone had a balance out of Obama and the 4 candidates it would be Obama, sure he panders to wall street and big banks to a degree, but with 3 out of those 4 candidates (Ron Paul being the exception) that degree will increase greatly and the gap between middle class and poor will be blurred. They flip flop on all kinds of views except for the basic right wing conservative view which I think is far more dangerous. I actually think it's sad to say but Obama having another term is a good thing despite being a failure on many levels but also achieving on others (jobs etc/tax rates etc). Until someone who has faith that is exuded through real christian values and not flip flopping through, Obama would get my vote.

Type in youtube "Rick Santorum Pro-Choice?"

 

[Clickster]

Thanks for the warm welcome

Yes Obama 'claims' to be a christian, I'm not 100% sure if he is or not but I personally believe after taking out all the christian pro-biased views, Obama is better for the country than Rick Santorum. He has no accountability for what he says and is a form of extremist in his views with religion and government. He is exactly what you proclaim to be again'st. If anyone had a balance out of Obama and the 4 candidates it would be Obama, sure he panders to wall street and big banks to a degree, but with 3 out of those 4 candidates (Ron Paul being the exception) that degree will increase greatly and the gap between middle class and poor will be blurred. They flip flop on all kinds of views except for the basic right wing conservative view which I think is far more dangerous. I actually think it's sad to say but Obama having another term is a good thing despite being a failure on many levels but also achieving on others (jobs etc/tax rates etc). Until someone who has faith that is exuded through real christian values and not flip flopping through, Obama would get my vote.

Type in youtube "Rick Santorum Pro-Choice?"

That is another part where we differ though. I don't believe Obama has achieved on jobs.

I can understand someone saying they feel Rick Santorum comes off as too extreme...but I don't get at all how Obama is a better fit than all 4. (unless you lean Democrat)

How does Obama have real christian values and has never flipped flopped through? Why does 4 others have to meet this criteria but Obama doesn't?

Religion/Faith set aside 100%..... I could never vote for Obama. I am not for big spending or more power at the federal level. President Obama (and almost all liberals) are for these. I also like my guns.

Let's be honest here...the middle class doesn't exist anymore..it is already "blurred"...which is sad.

My reasons for not supporting Obama stretch way further than his religion.

-If you look in this thread... I have not tried once to convince anyone to vote the way I am voting. I have also not once told anyone they should not vote for who they are supporting. I appreciate and respect the opinion of each and every person in here. In this thread if you aren't for Ron Paul or President Obama you have to answer and defend over and over. Frankly, it's getting boring and tiresome.

I usually stay out of threads like this for good reason. This will most likely be my last post in this thread and I will get back to my old habits of just staying out.

ax1 -- you are a cool cat. Thanks.

----I think we can agree that it is great that we all live in a country where we are allowed to have our own views and agree/disagree with others and government.

God Bless