Here we go again

[Guest]

I could except MO and MN voting for a redneck, but Colorado is normally more intelligent than to vote for Santorum. I am once again embarrassed to be a Republican. Why can't people see what a redneck Bigot he is. I thought we were beyond idiocy when we ran Freakboy out of the running, now I have to worry about this redneck. I want Romney in the WH, but I like so many American (THAT WALK UPRIGHT OF COURSE) will vote for Obama to protect us all from Neanderthals like Santorum.

I hope I have not been to hard on him, as even with his bigotry, he does seems to be a man of faith, even though it is misguided.

[Guest]

Does not matter who wins on the Repub side, they are all the same, just their mouth works different, but their ideas are all the same.

[Guest]

I could except MO and MN voting for a redneck, but Colorado is normally more intelligent than to vote for Santorum. I am once again embarrassed to be a Republican. Why can't people see what a redneck Bigot he is. I thought we were beyond idiocy when we ran Freakboy out of the running, now I have to worry about this redneck. I want Romney in the WH, but I like so many American (THAT WALK UPRIGHT OF COURSE) will vote for Obama to protect us all from Neanderthals like Santorum.
I hope I have not been to hard on him, as even with his bigotry, he does seems to be a man of faith, even though it is misguided.

Wow...this post is like a pot calling the kettle black (not meant to be racist).

Geeze...why don't you tell us how you really feel?:shocked:

Who is the "bigot" here? :ohdear:

[Guest]

ceejay, I am not a bigot, I hate everyone equally.

[Guest]

ceejay, I am not a bigot, I hate everyone equally.

:boom::):boom:

[Guest]

The only true conservative won these 3 primaries and the phony conservative O.P. is P.O.'d. He would vote for Obama over Santorum and has the cojones to try to portray himself as a "conservative" all this time? Bah!!; I never bought that and now he's come out of his closet.

Americans who would vote for Santorum are not human, but people who don't "walk upright"?

A man who lives by his Christian principles is called a "Neanderthal"?

We now grow "rednecks" in Pennsylvania, I guess.

The words spoken by the OP are the words of a bigot, while calling others bigots.

You hope you have "not been too hard on him"?.........R U Kidding????

[Guest]

I could except MO and MN voting for a redneck, but Colorado is normally more intelligent than to vote for Santorum. I am once again embarrassed to be a Republican. Why can't people see what a redneck Bigot he is. I thought we were beyond idiocy when we ran Freakboy out of the running, now I have to worry about this redneck. I want Romney in the WH, but I like so many American (THAT WALK UPRIGHT OF COURSE) will vote for Obama to protect us all from Neanderthals like Santorum.

I hope I have not been to hard on him, as even with his bigotry, he does seems to be a man of faith, even though it is misguided.

I am not a supporter of Santorum, but your post is vile, objectionable and I assume reflects the hate you carry with you on a daily basis.

I am also a Romney supporter but seeing you also do gives me pause...I do not want to be affiliated with anyone that can so easily spew hatred like this.

[Guest]

"We now grow "rednecks" in Pennsylvania, I guess."

You could be a redneck if.......you were born in Virginia and raised in West Virginia.

[Guest]

i have heard Sen Santorum speak live twice and i wish everyone could here him in person and see his sincerity and love for this country....with Trump threatening a third party run if we don't choose Romney, essentially blackmailing all Republicans, it is doubtful that Santorum will get the nomination, but he is definitely the best man!

[Guest]

i have heard Sen Santorum speak live twice and i wish everyone could here him in person and see his sincerity and love for this country....with Trump threatening a third party run if we don't choose Romney, essentially blackmailing all Republicans, it is doubtful that Santorum will get the nomination, but he is definitely the best man!

I agree completely. Rick Santorum is without a doubt in my mind the finest candidate running for the office. He doesn't have the support of the Republican Establishment, or any of the massive free political advertising and name recognition that the major newspapers are giving Romney.

But Santorum has the message that all of middle America will gravitate to if they are given and take the opportunity to hear this solid American speak.

[Guest]

I agree completely. Rick Santorum is without a doubt in my mind the finest candidate running for the office. He doesn't have the support of the Republican Establishment, or any of the massive free political advertising and name recognition that the major newspapers are giving Romney.

But Santorum has the message that all of middle America will gravitate to if they are given and take the opportunity to hear this solid American speak.

That I sincerely doubt. :ohdear:

[Guest]

If Santorum gets the GOP nomination, that is spectacular news for the Democrats. The Democrat victory would be by over 15% compared to 3% if Romney would be the candidate.

How many Hispanics and Black voters would vote for Santorum? Hardly any is the answer. He is basically bigoted as shown in this link where he targets blacks as recepients of aid and no one else. Santorum targets blacks in entitlement reform - Political Hotsheet - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57350990-503544/santorum-targets-blacks-in-entitlement-reform/)

I say Santorum should be the candidate. It would provide an even easier victory for President Obama.

[Guest]

Gov Romney did not carry one county in MN, in spite of having former Gov Pawlenty and former Sen Coleman as his surrogates.

[Guest]

The only true conservative won these 3 primaries and the phony conservative O.P. is P.O.'d. He would vote for Obama over Santorum and has the cojones to try to portray himself as a "conservative" all this time? Bah!!; I never bought that and now he's come out of his closet.

Americans who would vote for Santorum are not human, but people who don't "walk upright"?

A man who lives by his Christian principles is called a "Neanderthal"?

We now grow "rednecks" in Pennsylvania, I guess.

The words spoken by the OP are the words of a bigot, while calling others bigots.

You hope you have "not been too hard on him"?.........R U Kidding????

You can be a christain and not have hatred for Gay folks.
I have met more rednecks from Pennsylvania and New York than I have from Alabama.
I am a Bigot when it comes to Bigots like Santorum.
I would ask your view of Gay people. Do you consider them animals like Sartorum does? Just asking for clarification.

[Guest]

I am not a supporter of Santorum, but your post is vile, objectionable and I assume reflects the hate you carry with you on a daily basis.

I am also a Romney supporter but seeing you also do gives me pause...I do not want to be affiliated with anyone that can so easily spew hatred like this.

I only do this because of the hatred spewed by Santorum openly and on a national stage. He is a despicable bigot.

[Guest]

If Santorum gets the GOP nomination, that is spectacular news for the Democrats. The Democrat victory would be by over 15% compared to 3% if Romney would be the candidate.

How many Hispanics and Black voters would vote for Santorum? Hardly any is the answer. He is basically bigoted as shown in this link where he targets blacks as recepients of aid and no one else. Santorum targets blacks in entitlement reform - Political Hotsheet - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57350990-503544/santorum-targets-blacks-in-entitlement-reform/)

I say Santorum should be the candidate. It would provide an even easier victory for President Obama.

Thanks for the post and the link. People need to take a close look at this bigot and see him for what he is. Being a devout Christian does not give you the right to be a bigot and spew the hatred that this one man redneck bigot machine has been doing for years. As said by Bourbon breath, I am out of the closet now. Call it what you wish, but I will not condemn a man or women because they are GAY. They have rights just like the rest of American and should not be cast out like Santorum Does to them. The calling of Gay people animals is the only real issue I have with Santorm, but it is a big enough issue for me to vote out of my party to help stop someone like him from getting into the WH. I agree with Bourbon Breath on many many issue on this forum, but the condemnation of Gay American is too much for me to tolerate.

[Guest]

While Santorum is solid in the values that have made America great, like working for a living instead of voting for a living, refusing to spend money you don't have, and revering God instead of an alluring politician (those same values that have now been flushed down the toilet by Obama-Pelosi-Reid et al), Santorum does not have the requisite superficiality (of charm, good looks and promising free stuff) to defeat

Slick Barry

in the debates.

(Slick Willy is a mere novice compared to Slick Barry.)

[Guest]

While Santorum is solid in the values that have made America great (and those values that have now been flushed down the toilet by Obama-Pelosi-Reid et al), Santorum does not have the requisite superficiality (of charm, good looks and promising free stuff) to defeat

Slick Barry

in the debates.

(Slick Willy is a mere novice compared to Slick Barry.)

I agree that Santorum is solid in the values that have made America Great, but ya just can't sanction his bigotry.

[Guest]

I agree that Santorum is solid in the values that have made America Great, but ya just can't sanction his bigotry.

With all due respect, you are confused.

[Guest]

Sorry, Richie. I will never vote for someone who makes the claim that my gay relatives engage in the equivalent of bestiality.

Those are not the values that I want in *my* version of America.

Here's some Santorum quotes that turn my stomach:


“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.” –Rick Santorum, AP interview


Privacy?

It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution.


So I'll reference the Constitution in that privacy is mentioned in Ammendments 1 (Privacy of Belief), 3 (of Home) and 4 (one's Person and Possessions) - and let's not forget the 9th that says more rights may exist.

Marriage? Hey, Rick - I had a vasectomy after my second daughter was born. I was divorced a few years back but I just got married a year and a half ago. What say you?

“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.” –Rick Santorum on Fox News Sunday.


(I guess infertile couples who don't adopt shouldn't be married)

What about The Pursuit of Happiness?

“Suffering, if you’re a Christian, suffering is a part of life. And it’s not a bad thing, it is an essential thing in life … There are all different ways to suffer. One way to suffer is through lack of food and shelter and there’s another way to suffer which is lack of dignity and hope and there’s all sorts of ways that people suffer and it’s not just tangible, it’s also intangible and we have to consider both.”
~Rick Santorum, saying that Americans should suffer because suffering is good.

[Guest]

Yes, Santorum does have a holier than thou attitude and wants to force his belief on everyone else. That is one thing about these uberconservatives that I cannot stand.

Well, we do not have to worry that Santorum or his ilk will get control of the White House. The voters in America are too wise for that smug bigot to be voted in.

[Guest]

Yes, Santorum does have a holier than thou attitude and wants to force his belief on everyone else. That is one thing about these uberconservatives that I cannot stand.

Well, we do not have to worry that Santorum or his ilk will get control of the White House. The voters in America are too wise for that smug bigot to be voted in.

That is crap !! TOTAL !!!

He gives his opinion on things personal.....as does the President...well, that is not true...he doesnt actually..he changes with the audience, HOWEVER...

A man gives his opinion...he never, to my knowledge did anything more. I will agree he will not be the candidate but now he is the one you must villify personally as he is getting more attention.

Your personal attacks just keep an eye on whatever the target of the day is.

[Guest]

Wow, Bucco, I did not mean to cause you such anguish. Sounds as though you were about ready to have a stroke and we sure do not want that to happen.

You should come over to the watering hole some time and get to know a few of the posters personally. You might be very surprised.

[Guest]

Wow, Bucco, I did not mean to cause you such anguish. Sounds as though you were about ready to have a stroke and we sure do not want that to happen.

You should come over to the watering hole some time and get to know a few of the posters personally. You might be very surprised.

I can only imagine your personal attacks in person and under some influence...so will pass, and I have been here quite sometime and know a few posters quite well.

[Guest]

That is crap !! TOTAL !!!

He gives his opinion on things personal.....as does the President...well, that is not true...he doesnt actually..he changes with the audience, HOWEVER...

A man gives his opinion...he never, to my knowledge did anything more. I will agree he will not be the candidate but now he is the one you must villify personally as he is getting more attention.

Your personal attacks just keep an eye on whatever the target of the day is.

BUT BUT BUT BUT his personal opinions are give in public stating that Gay Americans are no different than animals. Do you agree with that bigotry? Do you want a public official selecting what segments of our society are acceptable and which ones are not? He is a christian version of Osama Bin Laden.

[Guest]

I haven't heard it mentioned that Sen Santorum got his local school district in PA to give him $30,000.00 so he could home school his kids. And why is Gov Romney getting secret service protection when he has only won three contests? Santorum has won four. Both items seem like a waste of taxpayer's money.

And why have far fewer people voted or caucused this year than 2008? Voting was down 16% in Florida.

[Guest]

does it matter that there was a LOW voter turn out? Which is a shame because that is how we wound up with Obama.

Frankly I smell a bit of chum on the water in the presentation of the thread.

btk

[Guest]

I haven't heard it mentioned that Sen Santorum got his local school district in PA to give him $30,000.00 so he could home school his kids. And why is Gov Romney getting secret service protection when he has only won three contests? Santorum has won four. Both items seem like a waste of taxpayer's money.

And why have far fewer people voted or caucused this year than 2008? Voting was down 16% in Florida.

Because we are talking about Santorum being a bigot not a thief. Most politicians are crocked, but rarely is one such an obvious Bigot.

[Guest]

does it matter that there was a LOW voter turn out? Which is a shame because that is how we wound up with Obama.

Frankly I smell a bit of chum on the water in the presentation of the thread.

btk

Just because I am a conservative Republican, does not cause me to close my eyes to a terrible wrong. The man is a bigot and should not be allowed to serve as a public figure.

[Guest]

Sorry, Richie. I will never vote for someone who makes the claim that my gay relatives engage in the equivalent of bestiality.

Those are not the values that I want in *my* version of America.

Here's some Santorum quotes that turn my stomach:



Privacy?


So I'll reference the Constitution in that privacy is mentioned in Ammendments 1 (Privacy of Belief), 3 (of Home) and 4 (one's Person and Possessions) - and let's not forget the 9th that says more rights may exist.

Marriage? Hey, Rick - I had a vasectomy after my second daughter was born. I was divorced a few years back but I just got married a year and a half ago. What say you?


(I guess infertile couples who don't adopt shouldn't be married)

What about The Pursuit of Happiness?

Let me add mine: I heard him talking about Obama's attack on religion. He said Obama's support of freedom of choice was an assault on the church because the church does not believe in freedom of choice.

Ok...Obama eats pork...do I think he is assaulting the Jewish religion? Well, duh, of course not. Rickie plays fast and loose with his analogies...This kind of circular thinking is very silly.

And again, I feel like I have to say that I am not and have never been an Obama supporter and I am considering voting for a repub for president for the second time in my life. First was McCain, until he picked the Palin. Right now, I would vote for Romney, provided he does not pull a Palin like move.

[Guest]

BUT BUT BUT BUT his personal opinions are give in public stating that Gay Americans are no different than animals. Do you agree with that bigotry? Do you want a public official selecting what segments of our society are acceptable and which ones are not? He is a christian version of Osama Bin Laden.

Villiager II You cannot compare Santorum to bin Laden because in the Muslim world they do not have gays because when they find them they mysteriously disappear.

Santorum is offering a moral vision that once was common place in America. Somewhere along the way we lost our moral footing and good became bad and bad became good. Character was replaced with personality (Kardashians ,et al come to mind) and thus hero worship goes to drug oriented rock and roll stars, actors whose exploits are intentional in order to get publicity. Family and family values are gone leaving young people with no real role models....you get the picture.
Marriage as defined between a man and woman is critical for society to remain in tact. to change it is to open a pandora's box. I have always admitted that I am a nominal Catholic but the fact is that I believe we need to move back to more prayer. finally suffering is an important aspect of humanity. Ask anyone who has gone through a serious illness and they will tell you it made them a better person.

Our society is upside down and we need more people like Santorum to speak up
or we will follow Rome into history

[Guest]

You can be a christain and not have hatred for Gay folks.
I have met more rednecks from Pennsylvania and New York than I have from Alabama.
I am a Bigot when it comes to Bigots like Santorum.
I would ask your view of Gay people. Do you consider them animals like Sartorum does? Just asking for clarification.

You are misrepresenting and blatantly lying about Santorum. When did he ever say gays are animals.

You are becoming deranged. That's your clarification.

[Guest]

Yes, Santorum does have a holier than thou attitude and wants to force his belief on everyone else. That is one thing about these uberconservatives that I cannot stand.

Well, we do not have to worry that Santorum or his ilk will get control of the White House. The voters in America are too wise for that smug bigot to be voted in.

More blatant lying about Santorum. More derangement from the "uber"-left.

[Guest]

BUT BUT BUT BUT his personal opinions are give in public stating that Gay Americans are no different than animals. Do you agree with that bigotry? Do you want a public official selecting what segments of our society are acceptable and which ones are not? He is a christian version of Osama Bin Laden.

You are crazed in your lying about Santorum.

[Guest]

Villiager II You cannot compare Santorum to bin Laden because in the Muslim world they do not have gays because when they find them they mysteriously disappear.

Santorum is offering a moral vision that once was common place in America. Somewhere along the way we lost our moral footing and good became bad and bad became good. Character was replaced with personality (Kardashians ,et al come to mind) and thus hero worship goes to drug oriented rock and roll stars, actors whose exploits are intentional in order to get publicity. Family and family values are gone leaving young people with no real role models....you get the picture.
Marriage as defined between a man and woman is critical for society to remain in tact. to change it is to open a pandora's box. I have always admitted that I am a nominal Catholic but the fact is that I believe we need to move back to more prayer. finally suffering is an important aspect of humanity. Ask anyone who has gone through a serious illness and they will tell you it made them a better person.

Our society is upsie down and we need more people like Santorum to speak up
or we will follow Rome into history


Great post !!!

I, also was struck, that his theme would be well received a number of years ago, but we are now a society that enables those that want the gratification and are so used to being able to do whatever they want with absolutely no recourse.

[Guest]

Thanks for the post and the link. People need to take a close look at this bigot and see him for what he is. Being a devout Christian does not give you the right to be a bigot and spew the hatred that this one man redneck bigot machine has been doing for years. As said by Bourbon breath, I am out of the closet now. Call it what you wish, but I will not condemn a man or women because they are GAY. They have rights just like the rest of American and should not be cast out like Santorum Does to them. The calling of Gay people animals is the only real issue I have with Santorm, but it is a big enough issue for me to vote out of my party to help stop someone like him from getting into the WH. I agree with Bourbon Breath on many many issue on this forum, but the condemnation of Gay American is too much for me to tolerate.

Are you going to send me another crying PM if I call you out for your childish name calling again. Your pathetic name calling is your imbecilic calling card.

Your post above if so full of crap, and only a moron would infer what you have from my support of Santorum, and nothing else. Karma going to bite you, mark my words.

[Guest]

Please all refrain from directing comments at a user but keep focused on the topic. Enjoy!

[Guest]

I just started reading this thread a short time ago, and as I read further and further I became more and more outraged by what I read and how shamelessly and blatantly those on the left were lying about everything like:

party affiliation - If someone who constantly voices extreme liberal views and behavior then claims they're a Republican or Conservative then I'm a Wig of Cocker Spaniel heritage that's old enough to have been around to help in the formation of the party.
outright and blatant lying about what Santorum stated in the video and the article out of CBS. Santorum never once mentioned blacks in his comments and I listened through it twice. It was falsely injected into the article by the CBS writer and the libbers on here were more than happy to continue the lie and even embellish it to the extreme.
a series of Santorum quotes that were taken out of context so they could be spun into a meaning that does not reflect his views accurately but rather to use the quotes to promote their own agenda and source of bashing.
There is more but this will suffice since I'm up way later than I want to be because of this disgusting, dishonest cruelty and nonsense.

I joined TOTV well over a year ago and I resisted until a few days ago from joining the political forum because I didn't want to get into political discussions. I was also told how nasty the Democrats could get on it, but didn't really think much about it. What triggered me to join was someone's asking how to join the Political Forum along with a comment from Moderator that I felt was not right, personally annoying but at the same time not offensive. So I figured that I've taken enough of left wing subtle political digs that they kept getting away with and it was time to take a look see.

What I found was that there are good people there, but there were enough trouble makers and instigators that want nothing more than to outright lie, deceive, spin and carefully take things to the limit of respectfulness, and sometime beyond, to discredit those who have views that don't align with theirs. I've even been falsely accused of being disrespectful by one of those left-wing people I am talking about. In several years, especially the last four, of following politics on the national level, I've seen many instenses of lying two-faced deceitful politicians that were deceiving the American people to get their agenda moved forward. But what I've found here has outdone them all. Their mitigated gall and imaturity really bakes the cake!

So it's after 2 AM now and I'm going to conclude this message by saying thank you to all the good honest people that have said some really nice things to me. And to the disrespectful troublemakers, you'll have to read my mind because what I'm thinking wouldn't be proper to post here. Finally, I apologize to those that have asked me not to leave, but my health has to take precedence over this forum. Once I post this message I will be unsubscribing for at least a while, and go back to the less annoying stuff that occasionally pops into view in the other forums.

Since I won't be on this thread anymore, you'll have to pm me if you have any comments. If you're one of the left-wingers I'm refering to, you don't need to contact me since and I'll probably just delete it because I'm not interested in anything you have to say, unless it's an apology, but I won't hold my breath waiting. If you get nasty or disrespectful, I will definitely forward your message and a complaint to Admin.

So long and see you good people on the other side.

[Guest]

Santorum is a bigot and anyone that would support him is a supporter of bigotry.

I don't agree with Obama on so many issues pertaining to spending, but you have to give him a thumbs up on being a good Christian man when compared to Santorum the bigot.

I desperately want to vote for Romney and if exposing Santorum's bigotry helps that action, then so be it. My fellow Christian conservatives wish to condemn me because I have an opinion. You ask me to prove Santorum is a bigot, REALLY. Pull you head out of the FOX News channel and into the rest of the media and see the light. Maybe your right and I am a man without a party to match my personality. The True conservative box is a small area. Their vision of a perfect world is:

NO GAY PEOPLE
NO NON-CHRISTIANS
NO ONE WITH AN OPEN MIND

5 OF THE SIX PAC ARE BACK WITH A VENGEANCE.

[Guest]

You are misrepresenting and blatantly lying about Santorum. When did he ever say gays are animals.

You are becoming deranged. That's your clarification.

To be precise, he compares gay sex to bestiality.

A longer quote of his that shows his blind spot when it comes to sex:


“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue, yes, it does,” he said, referring to a Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, that struck down a sodomy law in the Lone Star state. “This right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution.”


Consensual sex outside of marriage is not bigamy. Marrying more than one person is.

Consensual sex is not polygamy. It could be polyamory depending on how you really feel about them.

Incest is another matter entirely and usually only prosecuted when one of the 'partners' is underage.

Oh, but if the CHURCH is doing it, he takes a completely different attitude:

On the Catholic Church’s international pedophile priests scandal, in which, for decades, priests have sexually assaulted, molested, and raped young boys and girls: “In this case, what we’re talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship.”


He participates in what my semantics teacher taught as as one of the seven tactics that loses debates - in this case "reducto ad absurdum" - reducing to the absurd:

“So anyone can marry anybody else? So if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people … so you can be married to five people. Is that O.K.?” Santorum questioned a student in Concord, N.H.


Having that kind of relationship with five people could actually probably be handled by the legal entity known as a "corporation".

But back to the point. In NH, Santorum denied comparing homosexuality to bestiality. Well, boys and girls, here it is - from a 2003 USA Today interview:


"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."


The "it's not" referred to "marriage". Later on, when pressed, Santorum has tried to say the "it's not" referred to homosexuality. But when you look at his other quotes, the pattern is clear.

[Guest]

[quote=djplong;450793]To be precise, he compares gay sex to bestiality.

Thanks for this post. I let it become personal and can't get my point accross. I only have dislike for Santorum for his bigatry.

[Guest]

To be precise, he compares gay sex to bestiality.

A longer quote of his that shows his blind spot when it comes to sex:



Consensual sex outside of marriage is not bigamy. Marrying more than one person is.

Consensual sex is not polygamy. It could be polyamory depending on how you really feel about them.

Incest is another matter entirely and usually only prosecuted when one of the 'partners' is underage.

Oh, but if the CHURCH is doing it, he takes a completely different attitude:


He participates in what my semantics teacher taught as as one of the seven tactics that loses debates - in this case "reducto ad absurdum" - reducing to the absurd:


Having that kind of relationship with five people could actually probably be handled by the legal entity known as a "corporation".

But back to the point. In NH, Santorum denied comparing homosexuality to bestiality. Well, boys and girls, here it is - from a 2003 USA Today interview:



The "it's not" referred to "marriage". Later on, when pressed, Santorum has tried to say the "it's not" referred to homosexuality. But when you look at his other quotes, the pattern is clear.


You write this long, and you think scholarly post and you are misguided. You are wrong in you thinking and you are perpetrating a falsehood and you should be ashamed of yourself, or at least troubled by your cognitive thinking.

SANTORUM HAS NEVER, AND IS NOT NOW TALKING ABOUT GAY SEX!!!!

He is talking about marriage!!!!; traditional marriage as handed down from our ancestors for thousands of years.

Go back and read his quote and try to keep it in context. He's talking about marriage.

Your twisting of his intent is maybe more hateful than what you accuse him of.

[Guest]

[quote=djplong;450793]To be precise, he compares gay sex to bestiality.

Thanks for this post. I let it become personal and can't get my point accross. I only have dislike for Santorum for his bigatry.

Another post lying about what Santorum is saying and showing more hate than i thought you capable of, and I thought you capable of a lot.

[Guest]

Is Senator Santorum running for President of the US or priest or pope? What does any of this have to do with solving the problems this country faces? Can anyone post what his plan is for creating jobs, solving the housing crisis, or his foreign policy?

I personally don't care what his religious philosopy is, and I hope he doesn't care about mine. BTW, Sen Santorum lost his reelection bid for senator in 2006 by 18 points in PA, the largest loss suffered by an incumbant since 1980.

[Guest]

Is Senator Santorum running for President of the US or priest or pope? What does any of this have to do with solving the problems this country faces? Can anyone post what his plan is for creating jobs, solving the housing crisis, or his foreign policy?

I personally don't care what his religious philosopy is, and I hope he doesn't care about mine. BTW, Sen Santorum lost his reelection bid for senator in 2006 by 18 points in PA, the largest loss suffered by an incumbant since 1980.

I admire the fact that you dont care about his religious philosophy and simply how he would act as our President !!!

Now, if you could just influence the liberal media to stop harping on that issue alone, and also those "elite" on this board that are bound and determined to make that the singular issue.

Not sure I understand what your last sentence has to do with ANYTHING !!!

[Guest]

Let it be clear, Santorum is a bigot. It is so easy for republicans to overlook little things like bigotry and prejudice as long as it is not directed at rich white heterosexual men.

[Guest]

I agree completely. Rick Santorum is without a doubt in my mind the finest candidate running for the office. He doesn't have the support of the Republican Establishment, or any of the massive free political advertising and name recognition that the major newspapers are giving Romney.

But Santorum has the message that all of middle America will gravitate to if they are given and take the opportunity to hear this solid American speak.

Just this morning, a conservative talk show host, by the name of Bud Hedinger, described Santorum as "milk-toast". He may be the best candidate as far as being consistently conservative, but can he win against Obama when he is seen as milk-toast?

[Guest]

BUT BUT BUT BUT his personal opinions are give in public stating that Gay Americans are no different than animals.

In a quote given by djplong, it seems Santorum was saying the opposite of what you just said. Here it is again: "That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's NOT, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

It sounds to me like he just doesn't support gay marriage. Does that make him a bigot?

[Guest]

In a quote given by djplong, it seems Santorum was saying the opposite of what you just said. Here it is again: "That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's NOT, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

It sounds to me like he just doesn't support gay marriage. Does that make him a bigot?

I will do some more research, but I understand that he does not believe in equal rights for gay Americans.

[Guest]

In a quote given by djplong, it seems Santorum was saying the opposite of what you just said. Here it is again: "That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's NOT, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

It sounds to me like he just doesn't support gay marriage. Does that make him a bigot?

Villages Pl spot on. The left has a bad habit of name calling if you don't agree with their point of view. don't agree with Obama then your a racist. Demand marriage remain defined as between a man and a woman bigot.

Let's assume that a person is a racist and/or a bigot does what they believe make them wrong? No not necessarily so calling someone a name doesn't make them wrong

[Guest]

I would like to see Santorum come out publicly in support of Gay rights to clear his name. Right now, he is truly believed to be a bigot. If he is not, then he will have my support, but not until he makes a statement to the contrary.

[Guest]

I would like to see Santorum come out publicly in support of Gay rights to clear his name. Right now, he is truly believed to be a bigot. If he is not, then he will have my support, but not until he makes a statement to the contrary.

Don't hold your breath. He is the epitome of the social conservative. Unmoveable. :ohdear:

[Guest]

The day President Santorum is sworn in he will be president of all the people. He'll have to accept that a woman's right to choose is the law of the land, and some states allow gay marriage, and gays are allowed to serve openly in the military. Wonder if he's up to the task?

[Guest]

The day President Santorum is sworn in he will be president of all the people. He'll have to accept that a woman's right to choose is the law of the land, and some states allow gay marriage, and gays are allowed to serve openly in the military. Wonder if he's up to the task?

Just like Obama accepted the ban against Federal money going toward abortion?...then circumvented that by mandating abortion services be provided for by all health care plans!

[Guest]

going all the way back to lady doc's post about obama eating pork, which does not offend her as a jewish person....what he is doing to catholics is the equivalent of forcing YOU to eat pork! no one wants to be forced by the govt to do what they feel is immoral or undesirable. that is the whole point of the discussion!! we have amendments to the constitution to protect us from these governmental power grabs!

[Guest]

It is ironic that 95% of Catholic women use contraceptives. I don't think you will find these women opposing the requirement that health plans pay. It's the social conservative men and the Catholic hierarch (men) that provide the opposition. Some things never change. :ohdear:

[Guest]

a quote from NBC evening news.
I wondered then and now again. Just how do you suppose they came up with the data/information to make a statement of 95%??

The quote is from a democratic woman on the news tonight in her lash back at those who would oppose something Obama is pushing. But just how credible is the 95%. And what does it have to do with the government sticking their nose in where it has no business? Typical political puffing and red herring and avoiding the real issue......again.

btk

[Guest]

It's also ironic that feminists and pro-abortion-rights activists have yelled for years at anti-abortion politicians, "STAY OUT of my bedroom! STAY OUT of my uterus!!" and......

"Only a woman and her doctor should be involved in a woman's reproductive decisions (abortion)....NOT a bunch of old white men in Washington".

And now, the same people are saying, "Get IN here and PAY for control of my uterine lining and other tissue growth.....Get IN here and PAY to alter my ovarian function.....Get IN here and pay for ligation of my fallopian tubes to sterilize me!"

So, Enter the politicians, employers' benefits managers, insurance company claims processors, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Personally, if I wanted all these politicians and employers to "stay out of my bedroom and uterus", I would pay for contraceptives MYSELF, for the price of $15 to $40 per month. And if a person can't afford the pills, then go to an agency like Planned Parenthood to get them!! That's what millions of privately donated dollars are given to them for!

So in the end, it's ALL about getting "FREE" government-paid healthcare and prescriptions.......Getting them with OPM--Other People's Money.

So somehow, the right to PRIVACY, that is so essential to the Roe v. Wade decision, should now be thrown out the window for the sake of getting a $20 prescription for "Free" from the government using "other people's money", with all kinds of "old white men in Washington" getting involved and even using it in their re-election campaign speeches and soundbites.

What a bunch of phonies these women's "health advocates" are.

[Guest]

A guy at work was complaining today about the Catholic church. His daughter teaches at a parochial school, and her employer (Catholic church) is dropping her insurance because of this whole contraceptive mandate. I asked him if her insurance had covered it? Answer was no. Was she happy with the insurance she had? Answer was yes. I then asked him why he was mad at the Catholic church? Seems to me that everything was working out just fine for her until the government starting changing up the rules...Ain't it just like the liberal politicians-Create a problem, blame someone thereby creating a villian, and then come in an save the day!

[Guest]

It's also ironic that feminists and pro-abortion-rights activists have yelled for years at anti-abortion politicians, "STAY OUT of my bedroom! STAY OUT of my uterus!!" and......

"Only a woman and her doctor should be involved in a woman's reproductive decisions (abortion)....NOT a bunch of old white men in Washington".

And now, the same people are saying, "Get IN here and PAY for control of my uterine lining and other tissue growth.....Get IN here and PAY to alter my ovarian function.....Get IN here and pay for ligation of my fallopian tubes to sterilize me!"

So, Enter the politicians, employers' benefits managers, insurance company claims processors, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Personally, if I wanted all these politicians and employers to "stay out of my bedroom and uterus", I would pay for contraceptives MYSELF, for the price of $15 to $40 per month. And if a person can't afford the pills, then go to an agency like Planned Parenthood to get them!! That's what millions of privately donated dollars are given to them for!

So in the end, it's ALL about getting "FREE" government-paid healthcare and prescriptions.......Getting them with OPM--Other People's Money.

So somehow, the right to PRIVACY, that is so essential to the Roe v. Wade decision, should now be thrown out the window for the sake of getting a $20 prescription for "Free" from the government using "other people's money", with all kinds of "old white men in Washington" getting involved and even using it in their re-election campaign speeches and soundbites.

What a bunch of phonies these women's "health advocates" are.


Bravo... amen.....right on.


This is about people wanting something but wanting someone else to pay for it!
Any women, anywhere, at anytime can get birth control now. This is not about can they have it, it is about can they have it free. It is the law, you can have it. You may have to pay for it and if you can't go to Planned Parenthood and you can get it free!
This whole thing is the most dishonest argument that the left has ever had. It is always "womens health" or "childrens rights" or whatever gets the headlines.

I wonder where the polls came up with 10% of the people that think these people are doing a good job!

[Guest]

A guy at work was complaining today about the Catholic church. His daughter teaches at a parochial school, and her employer (Catholic church) is dropping her insurance because of this whole contraceptive mandate. I asked him if her insurance had covered it? Answer was no. Was she happy with the insurance she had? Answer was yes. I then asked him why he was mad at the Catholic church? Seems to me that everything was working out just fine for her until the government starting changing up the rules...Ain't it just like the liberal politicians-Create a problem, blame someone thereby creating a villian, and then come in an save the day!

I worked for a Catholic School for 13 years. It was just a given that birth control was not offered through my insurance...I totally understood and was fine with it.

I bought my own birth control pills and never had a problem with it.

The government has absolutely no right to interfere and no right to be "in a woman's uterus".

[Guest]

I worked for a Catholic School for 13 years. It was just a given that birth control was not offered through my insurance...I totally understood and was fine with it.

I bought my own birth control pills and never had a problem with it.

The government has absolutely no right to interfere and no right to be "in a woman's uterus".

Exactly!

[Guest]

The Catholic church considers birth control pills as well as ANY kind of birth control a sin. Do the Catholic women who use any birth control methods condemn themselves? I know it would be covered in confession but the priest would absolve them and then tell them not to sin anymore. Is it an ongoing process of the same sin over and over again each week? I don't know if 95% of Catholic women use birth control but I am sure it is a good percentage. Maybe someone can set me straight as to how this would be handled about using birth control and confessing over and over and over.

Birth Control | Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control)

Basically, I am saying that if so many Catholic women use birth control, why get upset if the law might say birth control measures are included in their health insurance? If it was forcing birth control on them and they did not want it, that is one thing but that is not the case.

[Guest]

Basically, I am saying that if so many Catholic women use birth control, why get upset if the law might say birth control measures are included in their health insurance? If it was forcing birth control on them and they did not want it, that is one thing but that is not the case.

I think you are missing the point. It is not the 95% of Catholic women being forced into something they don't believe in, it is the church or religion. This is a very slippery slope and is just the tip of the ice burg when it comes to what the government will demand you do to get this wonderful benefit, Obamacare.
Just a really bad idea to begin with to begin with and only the beginning.

PS I went to Catholic school and am lucky to have survived to be able to make this post.

Government has no business in this area of a womens life and I can't believe that so many want them there.

[Guest]

The Catholic church considers birth control pills as well as ANY kind of birth control a sin. Do the Catholic women who use any birth control methods condemn themselves? I know it would be covered in confession but the priest would absolve them and then tell them not to sin anymore. Is it an ongoing process of the same sin over and over again each week? I don't know if 95% of Catholic women use birth control but I am sure it is a good percentage. Maybe someone can set me straight as to how this would be handled about using birth control and confessing over and over and over.

Birth Control | Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control)

Basically, I am saying that if so many Catholic women use birth control, why get upset if the law might say birth control measures are included in their health insurance? If it was forcing birth control on them and they did not want it, that is one thing but that is not the case.

Yep...I was a sinner :shocked:

And the five Catholic priests with whom I worked knew all about it. We had many discussions about it, as a matter of fact.

They told me that that was between me and my God and it was nobody else's business.

As I said, I had no problem with my insurance not covering my birth control pills. It was an accepted fact and had been for years.

So...the point is...they stayed out of my uterus...and so should the government. Can I get an amen?!?

[Guest]

The Catholic church considers birth control pills as well as ANY kind of birth control a sin. Do the Catholic women who use any birth control methods condemn themselves? I know it would be covered in confession but the priest would absolve them and then tell them not to sin anymore. Is it an ongoing process of the same sin over and over again each week? I don't know if 95% of Catholic women use birth control but I am sure it is a good percentage. Maybe someone can set me straight as to how this would be handled about using birth control and confessing over and over and over.

Birth Control | Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control)

Basically, I am saying that if so many Catholic women use birth control, why get upset if the law might say birth control measures are included in their health insurance? If it was forcing birth control on them and they did not want it, that is one thing but that is not the case.

I dont believe the percentage of women who use control is in any way relevant (if you read the other posts on this thread you would learn where that number supposedly came from).

The point to me, whether you love or hate the Catholic church, is that the Federal Government is mandating that a church sponsored institution must make available something that violates basic tenants of that church, no matter the religion and no matter how well the members of such church comply.

I must tell you that many have warned that over the years the little tentacles of this health bill will envade every part of society, and as a reminder....the basic reason, according to authors was to cut costs and this bill does NOTHING...NOTHING..NOTHING to cut health care costs. This, in my opinion, is just one of the many things we are going to have to grapple with !

[Guest]

The Catholic church considers birth control pills as well as ANY kind of birth control a sin. Do the Catholic women who use any birth control methods condemn themselves? I know it would be covered in confession but the priest would absolve them and then tell them not to sin anymore. Is it an ongoing process of the same sin over and over again each week? I don't know if 95% of Catholic women use birth control but I am sure it is a good percentage. Maybe someone can set me straight as to how this would be handled about using birth control and confessing over and over and over.

Birth Control | Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control)

Basically, I am saying that if so many Catholic women use birth control, why get upset if the law might say birth control measures are included in their health insurance? If it was forcing birth control on them and they did not want it, that is one thing but that is not the case.

Again, you purposely miss the point. All this is REALLY about is getting a $20 prescription "for FREE".....by way of OPM...Other People's Money.

Not only would Planned Parenthood provide the pills to people who can't afford them, but also many county and city health departments provide all these services for little or no cost based on income etc.

Family Planning Services - Sumter County Health Department (http://www.doh.state.fl.us/chdSumter/family_planning_services.htm) and:

CLINIC SERVICES
(352) 569-3102 option 2 - Bushnell Clinic (352) 330-1313 - Wildwood Clinic

*Click on the links below to find out more information.*

AIDS/HIV Services

CANCER SCREENING PROGRAM

CARDIOVASCULAR SCREENING PROGRAM - Available to county residents.

CAR SEAT PROGRAM - Available to county residents.

CHILDBIRTH PREPARATION EDUCATION

DISEASE CONTROL - Education, investigation, prevention and control of diseases transmitted person to person..

FAMILY PLANNING/BIRTH CONTROL - Includes education, counseling, physical examination and follow-up for clients desiring a method of contraception. Available to county residents on a sliding fee scale.

IMMUNIZATIONS - Includes immunization and education to prevent childhood diseases and adult immunizations to control communicable disease outbreaks. Available to all clients. No charge children 18 years of age and younger.

MATERNITY/PREGNANCY CARE - Maternity care for county residents who are at or below 185% of OMB poverty level. Clients are required to go through Medicaid eligibility.

PHARMACY - Provide insulin and HIV/AIDS medications for county residents who are currently under a physician’s care and qualify financially; health education provided.

PRIMARY CARE SERVICES -Health screenings, well & sick care, and nutritional counseling are available to county residents under age 18 who qualify at or below 100% of OMB poverty levels.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING - Provides blood pressure checkup, screenings for blood sugar, immunizations, AIDS screenings, lice checks, medication and pill pickups, WIC checkups, and pregnancy testing.

SCHOOL HEALTH - Sumter County Health Department works with local school board to provide health screening, nursing, education, counseling services and medical record review for student physical exam and proper documentation of immunizations.

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES - Diagnosis, treatment, education, counseling and follow-up of contacts. Available to all clients on a sliding fee scale.

SMOKING CESSATION - Classes are offered to county residents. Call for class schedule.

STERILIZATION - Limited number of tubal ligations and vasectomies are available to medically and financially eligible county residents.

TUBERCULOSIS - Available to county residents on sliding fee scale. Screening, x-ray, preventive medication and active TB care available.

WIC Services are provided in Both Clinics.

Medical Services - Sumter County Health Department (http://www.doh.state.fl.us/chdSumter/medical_services.htm)

[Guest]

The Catholic church considers birth control pills as well as ANY kind of birth control a sin. Do the Catholic women who use any birth control methods condemn themselves? I know it would be covered in confession but the priest would absolve them and then tell them not to sin anymore. Is it an ongoing process of the same sin over and over again each week? I don't know if 95% of Catholic women use birth control but I am sure it is a good percentage. Maybe someone can set me straight as to how this would be handled about using birth control and confessing over and over and over.

Birth Control | Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control)

Basically, I am saying that if so many Catholic women use birth control, why get upset if the law might say birth control measures are included in their health insurance? If it was forcing birth control on them and they did not want it, that is one thing but that is not the case.

This is just plain silly. The Catholic Church doesn't advocate the use of birth control and it's against it's teaching. They don't provide this drug because of it.

What does the private decision of a Catholic woman have to do with that? I'll tell you what.........NOTHING.

[Guest]

[quote=The Villager II;450798]

Another post lying about what Santorum is saying and showing more hate than i thought you capable of, and I thought you capable of a lot.

Richie, I was VERY careful to quote his words DIRECTLY and not the digest of whomever wrote a particular article.

If I was quting him out of context, then WHY is it that SO many times, when the subject of gay marriage comes up, he goes back to the same kinds of words over and over again?

If that ONE quote was an isolated case, I would be inclined to agree with you that it could have been him misstating his position. But, over and over again the same theme keeps coming up.

I don't hate Santorum. Oh, I have problems with him, but "hate" is something I reserve for far more egregious things. (I'm sure you could name one of them off the top of your head)

I disagree with Santorum. I believe he is flat-out wrong on this and other issues. And I have to be careful how I say this, but I find myself wishing that he had a personal connection to this subject the way he does with his disabled child.

I'll be honest - I never had any thoughts one way or the other about gay marriage or gay sex when I was younger (other than some of the 'yuck' factor concerning some of the specifics that used to get hurled as insults in a locker room). Finding my family brought things into sharp relief for me. I had no idea I had gay relatives. And, to be honest, I'm glad I never really thought about the subject because I was *mostly* free of any pre-conceived notions.

If Santorum had an aunt like mine. If he had to experience, even second-hand, the kind of discrimination she got. If he ever listened to some of the stories I've heard. I honestly believe that the root of his *ignorance* is thinking it's a choice in all cases. Oh, sure, some choose - any bisexual that CAN choose one way or the other might do that. But most of the gays I know were that way from birth. Just as I never decided one day, that I was straight, they didn't decide they were gay any more than my wife "decided" she was left-handed (which used to be considered "wrong" as my adoptive mother can attest - she had teachers who would whack her left hand with a ruler when they caught her writing left-handed)

If Santorum ever had a situation where a gay couple lived together for over a decade - with one being shunned by his family - he might understand. And if that person suddenly died in an accident - he might understand. And if that family suddenly showed up and claimed the "estate" of the decedent so they could sell his assets - because the "husband" had no legal standing because that state didn't allow gay marriage - he might understand.

No, I don't hate Santorum. I'm frustrated by his ignorance and I wonder what it would take for him to see the human side of this issue. It's not about the sex - I understand the problems people can have with the "eeeuuw!" factor. But we used to look at interracial marriage the same way.

[Guest]

[quote=RichieLion;450837]

Richie, I was VERY careful to quote his words DIRECTLY and not the digest of whomever wrote a particular article.

If I was quting him out of context, then WHY is it that SO many times, when the subject of gay marriage comes up, he goes back to the same kinds of words over and over again?

If that ONE quote was an isolated case, I would be inclined to agree with you that it could have been him misstating his position. But, over and over again the same theme keeps coming up.

I don't hate Santorum. Oh, I have problems with him, but "hate" is something I reserve for far more egregious things. (I'm sure you could name one of them off the top of your head)

I disagree with Santorum. I believe he is flat-out wrong on this and other issues. And I have to be careful how I say this, but I find myself wishing that he had a personal connection to this subject the way he does with his disabled child.

I'll be honest - I never had any thoughts one way or the other about gay marriage or gay sex when I was younger (other than some of the 'yuck' factor concerning some of the specifics that used to get hurled as insults in a locker room). Finding my family brought things into sharp relief for me. I had no idea I had gay relatives. And, to be honest, I'm glad I never really thought about the subject because I was *mostly* free of any pre-conceived notions.

If Santorum had an aunt like mine. If he had to experience, even second-hand, the kind of discrimination she got. If he ever listened to some of the stories I've heard. I honestly believe that the root of his *ignorance* is thinking it's a choice in all cases. Oh, sure, some choose - any bisexual that CAN choose one way or the other might do that. But most of the gays I know were that way from birth. Just as I never decided one day, that I was straight, they didn't decide they were gay any more than my wife "decided" she was left-handed (which used to be considered "wrong" as my adoptive mother can attest - she had teachers who would whack her left hand with a ruler when they caught her writing left-handed)

If Santorum ever had a situation where a gay couple lived together for over a decade - with one being shunned by his family - he might understand. And if that person suddenly died in an accident - he might understand. And if that family suddenly showed up and claimed the "estate" of the decedent so they could sell his assets - because the "husband" had no legal standing because that state didn't allow gay marriage - he might understand.

No, I don't hate Santorum. I'm frustrated by his ignorance and I wonder what it would take for him to see the human side of this issue. It's not about the sex - I understand the problems people can have with the "eeeuuw!" factor. But we used to look at interracial marriage the same way.

Wonderful post. It is so refreshing to see someone that can use their head for something other than a Hat Rack. No Slander. I am so in agreement with you on this issue. I tend to take comments that I receive for my opinion very personal and go off the deep end, then only hurt my own intent. I have no dog in this race, but I cannot close my eyes to bigotry. Thanks again for stating the obvious in a civil manner.

[Guest]

no one is suggesting that gay partners should be subject to such discrimination and loss of assets that dpjlong describes. this problem can be resolved legally with civil unions without changing the definition of marriage. but that is never good enough for the "gay rights" agenda, which insists on insinuating gays into every aspect of family life and getting society to accept a deviant behaviour as normal and healthy and desirable. less than 25 years ago while i worked at a mental health center, homosexuality was classified as a sexual perversion. now because of bombardment by the media, comedy shows which almost all contain a gay character, etc, we are supposed to applaud this lifestyle, which is anything but "gay", as your post says, rather a difficult life of discrimination. young people who may be struggling with their gender identity are encouraged to fall right into this lifestyle as normal, rather than trying their best to live within societal norms, which ultimately might have a better outcome for their happiness. i agree that everyone should be able to protect their loved ones from losing their rights as a life partner. but civil unions do this without diminishing the importance of marriage for the rest of society. where is the "compromise" in the gay rights agenda?

[Guest]

no one is suggesting that gay partners should be subject to such discrimination and loss of assets that dpjlong describes. this problem can be resolved legally with civil unions without changing the definition of marriage. but that is never good enough for the "gay rights" agenda, which insists on insinuating gays into every aspect of family life and getting society to accept a deviant behaviour as normal and healthy and desirable. less than 25 years ago while i worked at a mental health center, homosexuality was classified as a sexual perversion. now because of bombardment by the media, comedy shows which almost all contain a gay character, etc, we are supposed to applaud this lifestyle, which is anything but "gay", as your post says, rather a difficult life of discrimination. young people who may be struggling with their gender identity are encouraged to fall right into this lifestyle as normal, rather than trying their best to live within societal norms, which ultimately might have a better outcome for their happiness. i agree that everyone should be able to protect their loved ones from losing their rights as a life partner. but civil unions do this without diminishing the importance of marriage for the rest of society. where is the "compromise" in the gay rights agenda?

I can't find any argument with this post. With all the laws that go along with the term Marriage that were set in stone using a man and a women as the basis for many of them, it would sure throw a wrench the the gears of the courts to suddenly change the definition of what a marriage is, i.e Man/Woman, aMan/His Horse etc etc.. So I also am left with why not a legal CIVIL CONTRACT that would then give same sex couples the right to inherit, visit in hospital, etc etc. Great post chachacha

[Guest]

I disagree with Santorum. I believe he is flat-out wrong on this and other issues. And I have to be careful how I say this, but I find myself wishing that he had a personal connection to this subject the way he does with his disabled child.

OK, OK; fine, you disagree with Santorum on his view of traditional marriage. No one would blast you for that.

But, to take the issue out of context and accuse Santorum of being "anti-gay", against "anti-gay sex" is just gross misrepresentation. To take an analogy made by him when he was discussing the subject of traditional marriage on "where would you draw the line" on what constitutes marriage is also wrong.

Is he wrong is bringing up this query now that you've "broken the seal" on what is thousands of years of human wisdom and acceptance of what a marriage is?

Gay marriage activists have got to get off their high horse an stop vilifying this viewpoint. You (the collective you) can make your argument without lying about what is being discussed.

[Guest]

no one is suggesting that gay partners should be subject to such discrimination and loss of assets that dpjlong describes. this problem can be resolved legally with civil unions without changing the definition of marriage. but that is never good enough for the "gay rights" agenda, which insists on insinuating gays into every aspect of family life and getting society to accept a deviant behaviour as normal and healthy and desirable. less than 25 years ago while i worked at a mental health center, homosexuality was classified as a sexual perversion. now because of bombardment by the media, comedy shows which almost all contain a gay character, etc, we are supposed to applaud this lifestyle, which is anything but "gay", as your post says, rather a difficult life of discrimination. young people who may be struggling with their gender identity are encouraged to fall right into this lifestyle as normal, rather than trying their best to live within societal norms, which ultimately might have a better outcome for their happiness. i agree that everyone should be able to protect their loved ones from losing their rights as a life partner. but civil unions do this without diminishing the importance of marriage for the rest of society. where is the "compromise" in the gay rights agenda?

It's more sinister that you think. Who would want to deprive two people who love each other of the happiness they seek? This exploitation of human emotion is being use to weaken and destroy the traditional views of God, marriage, and especially family.

Without "God" where do your rights come from? Why, the state of course. Family becomes subservient to the will of the state. Instead of the state representing the "people", we become subservient to the state.

Our love for our fellow man is being twisted to ultimately elevate the state to the supreme power.

[Guest]

ChaChaCha is correct. Gingrich said clearly in a recent debate, and I think Romney said also, that civil union type rights can be granted under the law without redefining Marriage as it was instituted thousands of years ago.

Just who do contemporary homosexuals think they ARE, pushing to redefine the most fundamental criteria--one man and one woman--of marriage which has been the very bedrock of civilizations, societies, and the regeneration of life itself????

[Guest]

It's more sinister that you think. Who would want to deprive two people who love each other of the happiness they seek? This exploitation of human emotion is being use to weaken and destroy the traditional views of God, marriage, and especially family.

Without "God" where do your rights come from? Why, the state of course. Family becomes subservient to the will of the state. Instead of the state representing the "people", we become subservient to the state.

Our love for our fellow man is being twisted to ultimately elevate the state to the supreme power.

I think you are being a little paranoid on this one. We all just want our fair share of the pie. Like women and minorities, gay Americans just want to feel a part of this great country.

Read this before you condemn them: http://www.thelifefiles.com/2010/03/06/gays-are-the-most-discriminated-against-group/

[Guest]

If "civil unions" were considered the same as marriage, then marriage wouldn't be needed in the gay community. The fact of the matter is, they are NOT. A Congressional study found that there are over 1600 legal "benefits" to marriage - many of them pretty obscure.

But here's the problem. Let's say we make civil unions legal.

Cool. Maybe we've solved the "default inheritance" problem with that.

...but what about health insurance coverage? Hospital visitation rules? Dozens upon dozens of other things and EACH ONE of them now has to be addressed.

If you call it a marriage, then all those things that had to be individually addressed before are now taken care of.

You tell me who more represents the "sanctity" of marriage.. My aunt who spent over 15 years with her partner or Newt Gingrich who was a serial adulterer and *really* looked bad in that infamous interview where he claimed it was be he so loved the country.

[Guest]

I think you are being a little paranoid on this one. We all just want our fair share of the pie. Like women and minorities, gay Americans just want to feel a part of this great country.

Read this before you condemn them: Gays Are The Most Discriminated Against Group? (http://www.thelifefiles.com/2010/03/06/gays-are-the-most-discriminated-against-group/)
It no secret that being outside of mainstream society's norm will get you treated differently. It's human nature to be wary of differences. I don't think a "gay advocacy" website is going to be very balanced though; do you?

If "civil unions" were considered the same as marriage, then marriage wouldn't be needed in the gay community. The fact of the matter is, they are NOT. A Congressional study found that there are over 1600 legal "benefits" to marriage - many of them pretty obscure.

But here's the problem. Let's say we make civil unions legal.

Cool. Maybe we've solved the "default inheritance" problem with that.

...but what about health insurance coverage? Hospital visitation rules? Dozens upon dozens of other things and EACH ONE of them now has to be addressed.

If you call it a marriage, then all those things that had to be individually addressed before are now taken care of.

You tell me who more represents the "sanctity" of marriage.. My aunt who spent over 15 years with her partner or Newt Gingrich who was a serial adulterer and *really* looked bad in that infamous interview where he claimed it was be he so loved the country.

You're entitled to your opinions. I'm gratified that the two of you are sticking to the issue of "gay marriage" without slandering anyone here.

[Guest]

ChaChaCha is correct. Gingrich said clearly in a recent debate, and I think Romney said also, that civil union type rights can be granted under the law without redefining Marriage as it was instituted thousands of years ago.

Just who do contemporary homosexuals think they ARE, pushing to redefine the most fundamental criteria--one man and one woman--of marriage which has been the very bedrock of civilizations, societies, and the regeneration of life itself????

Marriage came into being as a way to formalize land ownership and inheritance laws. Go learn about the history of the church. Remembers priests could be married until the 12th century....the church wanted to land that the priests family held. They did not want it going to wives and children. Love had little, if anything, to do with marriage. . And homosexuals think they are tax paying citizens who deserve equal rights. Your tone itself insinuates they are second class citizens and that is unacceptable.

[Guest]

Gingrich said clearly in a recent debate, and I think Romney said also, that civil union type rights can be granted under the law without redefining Marriage as it was instituted thousands of years ago.


Instead of fixing what's not broke, this makes a lot of sense to me.

[Guest]

Marriage came into being as a way to formalize land ownership and inheritance laws. Go learn about the history of the church. Remembers priests could be married until the 12th century....the church wanted to land that the priests family held. They did not want it going to wives and children. Love had little, if anything, to do with marriage. . And homosexuals think they are tax paying citizens who deserve equal rights. Your tone itself insinuates they are second class citizens and that is unacceptable.

And your tone presumes something I neither think nor said.

I was talking about contemporary homosexual militant activists who seem to think traditional wisdom handed down thru the ages since Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and down thru our nation's founding fathers was the wisdom of "fools".

Our nation's constitution and institution of legal marriage did not last this long based on the wisdom of fools.

[Guest]

War is OK....love isn't. I do not understand why some people have a problem with other peoples happiness.

[Guest]

War is OK....love isn't. I do not understand why some people have a problem with other peoples happiness.

I sure wish you would say more on this, as I dont understand fully your meaning !

There are people who find happiness in many things that are not legal. Is the thrust of what you say that if it makes you happy, then you should be allowed to do it ? Of course you will need money and support from somewhere but then once you get enough money and others who support what makes you happy, then it becomes legal ?

[Guest]

I sure wish you would say more on this, as I dont understand fully your meaning !

There are people who find happiness in many things that are not legal. Is the thrust of what you say that if it makes you happy, then you should be allowed to do it ? Of course you will need money and support from somewhere but then once you get enough money and others who support what makes you happy, then it becomes legal ?

That is the best twist of someones words I have seen in a long time. What Waynet said was clear and to the point and very easy to understand.

[Guest]

no one is suggesting that gay partners should be subject to such discrimination and loss of assets that dpjlong describes. this problem can be resolved legally with civil unions without changing the definition of marriage. but that is never good enough for the "gay rights" agenda, which insists on insinuating gays into every aspect of family life and getting society to accept a deviant behaviour as normal and healthy and desirable.

I thought that considering gays as deviants was a thing of the past. :ohdear:
I think that most gays are just as normal and healthy as straights.

[Guest]

I thought that considering gays as deviants was a thing of the past. :ohdear:
I think that most gays are just as normal and healthy as straights.

They are unless you fall into the 6 pac mentality.

[Guest]

They are unless you fall into the 6 pac mentality.

Still acting the lunkhead. You're always betraying your true nature, and you never realize it.

Someday you'll be able to stay on topic, instead of your gratuitous attempts at insulting those you cannot debate with intelligence.

[Guest]

Still acting the lunkhead. You're always betraying your true nature, and you never realize it.

Someday you'll be able to stay on topic, instead of your gratuitous attempts at insulting those you cannot debate with intelligence.

Thanks Richie. I need the encouragement. I agree I cannot debate anyone with intelligence that I do not posses. I can only speak the truth and I do appreciate your recognition of that.

[Guest]

Thanks Richie. I need the encouragement. I agree I cannot debate anyone with intelligence that I do not posses. I can only speak the truth and I do appreciate your recognition of that.

??????????recognition; always the dreamer. It's good to dream, I guess.

[Guest]

ChaChaCha is correct. Gingrich said clearly in a recent debate, and I think Romney said also, that civil union type rights can be granted under the law without redefining Marriage as it was instituted thousands of years ago.

Just who do contemporary homosexuals think they ARE, pushing to redefine the most fundamental criteria--one man and one woman--of marriage which has been the very bedrock of civilizations, societies, and the regeneration of life itself????

Thousands of years ago, marriage was about PROPERTY - as in the women who were PROPERTY of their husbands. It was about landowners teaming up - or kingdoms forming alliances.

Heck, even today we haven't totally eradicated the whole bit about arranged marriages and other forced pairbonding in some parts of the world!

We have redefined marriage in comparatively RECENT times to mean two people who love each other.. And, let's face it, until not long ago, a woman couldn't exactly say no to a proposal in most places.

[Guest]

My wife and I put money down on a lot in The Villages with the idea of moving there. But, reading this forum, I do not know if I can stand living in a place full of Leftist Loonies. Rick Santorum is no bigot, and he is a good, decent man. He is not a Communist like we have in the White House now. I would vote for any of the Republicans for President as they are all better than BHO! Even Romney, RINO that he is, would be an improvement.

I wish I had found this forum before we committed to a house to be built, I find lots to be concerned with. Another forum implied that cars should run over the golf carts, don't wait for them. Found some nasty person when we were on Lifestyle tour trying out golf carts, very impatient, acting like a New Yorker.

So much for "Florida'sw Friendliest Hometown". Might be worth losing deposit if this is what we have to put up with.

[Guest]

My wife and I put money down on a lot in The Villages with the idea of moving there. But, reading this forum, I do not know if I can stand living in a place full of Leftist Loonies. Rick Santorum is no bigot, and he is a good, decent man. He is not a Communist like we have in the White House now. I would vote for any of the Republicans for President as they are all better than BHO! Even Romney, RINO that he is, would be an improvement.

I wish I had found this forum before we committed to a house to be built, I find lots to be concerned with. Another forum implied that cars should run over the golf carts, don't wait for them. Found some nasty person when we were on Lifestyle tour trying out golf carts, very impatient, acting like a New Yorker.

So much for "Florida'sw Friendliest Hometown". Might be worth losing deposit if this is what we have to put up with.


Interesting post, Bavarian...After a year as a member of this forum, there are several folks that I doubt I would ever want to meet in person. It is difficult to dispute your conclusion. :ohdear:

[Guest]

"leftist loonies"? if thats what you think get your deposit back.

[Guest]

My wife and I put money down on a lot in The Villages with the idea of moving there. But, reading this forum, I do not know if I can stand living in a place full of Leftist Loonies. Rick Santorum is no bigot, and he is a good, decent man. He is not a Communist like we have in the White House now. I would vote for any of the Republicans for President as they are all better than BHO! Even Romney, RINO that he is, would be an improvement.

I wish I had found this forum before we committed to a house to be built, I find lots to be concerned with. Another forum implied that cars should run over the golf carts, don't wait for them. Found some nasty person when we were on Lifestyle tour trying out golf carts, very impatient, acting like a New Yorker.

So much for "Florida'sw Friendliest Hometown". Might be worth losing deposit if this is what we have to put up with.

IMHO, this is a very friendly place. You will need a sense of humour and the ability to "go with the flow" to be happy in TV. I truly hope you have made the right decision.

It will only be "Florida's Friendliest Hometown" for you, if you also do your part. I respectfully suggest that you should watch the labels! You are referring to people as Leftist Loonies. You've referred to a nasty person as "acting like a New Yorker". I'm not from NY, but I find that to be an unfriendly comment!

[Guest]

My wife and I put money down on a lot in The Villages with the idea of moving there. But, reading this forum, I do not know if I can stand living in a place full of Leftist Loonies. Rick Santorum is no bigot, and he is a good, decent man. He is not a Communist like we have in the White House now. I would vote for any of the Republicans for President as they are all better than BHO! Even Romney, RINO that he is, would be an improvement.

I wish I had found this forum before we committed to a house to be built, I find lots to be concerned with. Another forum implied that cars should run over the golf carts, don't wait for them. Found some nasty person when we were on Lifestyle tour trying out golf carts, very impatient, acting like a New Yorker.

So much for "Florida'sw Friendliest Hometown". Might be worth losing deposit if this is what we have to put up with.

There is a much greater representation of "leftist loonies" on this forum than in the general Village's population; or Florida's population for that matter.

[Guest]

There is a much greater representation of "leftist loonies" on this forum than in the general Village's population; or Florida's population for that matter.

I have to take exception to the last part of your sentence. There are 500,000 more registered democrats than republicans in Florida.

[Guest]

There is a much greater representation of "leftist loonies" on this forum than in the general Village's population; or Florida's population for that matter.

Thanks for the encourgement. I listen to Rush and he always said FL was turning Conservative and come on down, escape the high taxes. The Maryland slogan now is "If you can dream it, we will tax it".

[Guest]

I wish I had found this forum before we committed to a house to be built, I find lots to be concerned with. Another forum implied that cars should run over the golf carts, don't wait for them. Found some nasty person when we were on Lifestyle tour trying out golf carts, very impatient, acting like a New Yorker.

So much for "Florida'sw Friendliest Hometown". Might be worth losing deposit if this is what we have to put up with.


I have been on this forum for a couple years and have visited TV twice and I think you may have the wrong idea of what TV is.


This political forum is not a good representation of TV as a whole. I think you get more liberals in this section because they feel it is the only place they can speak freely.
Some of them are way left and some of the posters are way right also.
When I visited I found the New Yorkers there to be pleasant, more so than when I visited New York.

I think your deposit is in a good place and that you will be surrounded by many people who share your political views.
I would bet if you talk to people like your post comes across you get a reaction that matches. Maybe give everybody a chance to be nice.
I am a independent and lean right, so I am saying this as a kindred soul.
TV is a good place made up of many good people, left, right and the middle.
Enjoy your new home.

janmcn
Are saying that there are more "loonies" in Florida? I think that is what Richie was talking about not just dems.

[Guest]

Bavarian, trust me, you can't go wrong moving to The Villages. It is paradise.

[Guest]

I have to take exception to the last part of your sentence. There are 500,000 more registered democrats than republicans in Florida.

So far, unlike when I lived in NJ, everyone I've voted for in 2 1/2 years in Florida has won.

The only exception being the Republican primary, where my choice was not the Republican of choice here.

Maybe Republicans are just more reliable actual active voters here.

(I did say "leftist loonies" and not Democrats, now that I think about it. I think I'm still technically correct in my original statement.)

[Guest]

I have been on this forum for a couple years and have visited TV twice and I think you may have the wrong idea of what TV is.


This political forum is not a good representation of TV as a whole. I think you get more liberals in this section because they feel it is the only place they can speak freely.
Some of them are way left and some of the posters are way right also.
When I visited I found the New Yorkers there to be pleasant, more so than when I visited New York.

I think your deposit is in a good place and that you will be surrounded by many people who share your political views.
I would bet if you talk to people like your post comes across you get a reaction that matches. Maybe give everybody a chance to be nice.
I am a independent and lean right, so I am saying this as a kindred soul.
TV is a good place made up of many good people, left, right and the middle.
Enjoy your new home.

janmcn
Are saying that there are more "loonies" in Florida? I think that is what Richie was talking about not just dems.

We have been coming here for 8 years and I never meet any Democrats. If they are here, they are hiding.

[Guest]

Really? I hope that is tongue in cheek!

I could name them.

The majority are Reps and conservatives but many lefties.

[Guest]

:duck:Really? I hope that is tongue in cheek!

I could name them.

The majority are Reps and conservatives but many lefties.

I exaggerated a little. I am a conservative republican at heart, but since I support rights for Gay Americans and pro-choice, I am called a liberal loony at times. One thing about the two parties, Republicans do have the loudest voice in The Villages. That works well for me at voting times, but concerns me when it comes to human rights for all issues. I personally find that most conservative republicans do not wish to compromise on any differences. No Flames please.

[Guest]

Good Lord has it come to this. That we don't even want to live in the same proximity to those of different politicial persuasions. We are rapidly becoming the 'Divided States of America'. :ohdear:

[Guest]

in reality the only place where an R or a D matters is on forums like this or in the voting booth. The other 99.8% of the time nobody cares!!! And thank GOD for that!!!!

Don't let the false worlds of the media and especially anonymous pipelines like forums fool anybody. Anonymity cloaks reality.

Most of us are satisfied to be Americans.

btk

[Guest]

in reality the only place where an R or a D matters is on forums like this or in the voting booth. The other 99.8% of the time nobody cares!!! And thank GOD for that!!!!

Don't let the false worlds of the media and especially anonymous pipelines like forums fool anybody. Anonymity cloaks reality.

Most of us are satisfied to be Americans.

btk

:bigbow:

[Guest]

Quote:
Originally Posted by billethkid View Post
in reality the only place where an R or a D matters is on forums like this or in the voting booth. The other 99.8% of the time nobody cares!!! And thank GOD for that!!!!

Don't let the false worlds of the media and especially anonymous pipelines like forums fool anybody. Anonymity cloaks reality.

Most of us are satisfied to be Americans.

btk


:bigbow::bigbow:


X2