[TH Spangler]

Interesting ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy

If Mitt Romney wins ... he will need a Christian running mate or the Dem's will spend a billion dollars running the "White Horse Theory" down our throat? That's where Rick Santorum might fit in?

[jbock13]

Last time I checked Santorum is pretty much an advocate of theocracy.

At the very least, he is for government legislating morality beyond what is reasonable.

[LUconn]

Last time I checked Santorum is pretty much an advocate of theocracy.

Don't say stupid things.

At the very least, he is for government legislating morality beyond what is reasonable.

That seems more like a reasonable opinion. Examples please.

[jbock13]

Contraception?

Bombing every Muslim around the planet? Why does he want to go to war with Iran when even Israel believes they aren't a credible threat?

Clearly the guy has some sort of wacky obsession with dictating to people how they should live their lives, or whatever he thinks the religious thing is to do. Leave the sins for the pastor to deal with. The last thing we want is government legislating morality. Clearly, Santorum intends to do so by federalizing social laws. For example, he would pass a national ban on gay marriage, and define it as sodomy. I, though against gay marriage, see no reason that federalism could not be used by the states to decide under which laws they live in.

But I guess that just makes me a soft Christian...

[Purple Haize]

Interesting ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy

If Mitt Romney wins ... he will need a Christian running mate or the Dem's will spend a billion dollars running the "White Horse Theory" down our throat? That's where Rick Santorum might fit in?

Then the Obama people will have to defend Jeremiah Wright et al. If they play the religion card could easily back fire.
Perry needs to go back to Texas

[Humble_Opinion]

Contraception?

Bombing every Muslim around the planet? Why does he want to go to war with Iran when even Israel believes they aren't a credible threat?

Clearly the guy has some sort of wacky obsession with dictating to people how they should live their lives, or whatever he thinks the religious thing is to do. Leave the sins for the pastor to deal with. The last thing we want is government legislating morality. Clearly, Santorum intends to do so by federalizing social laws. For example, he would pass a national ban on gay marriage, and define it as sodomy. I, though against gay marriage, see no reason that federalism could not be used by the states to decide under which laws they live in.

But I guess that just makes me a soft Christian...

I don't know the context of your question on contraception, but as explained in the following article, Santorum is personally against it because of his Catholic faith: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... sexuality/

It has long been a staple of the Catholic church that "unnatural" forums of contraception are sinful in nature and against the laws of God. For an explanation, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... on_1.shtml.

However, as he explains, he is in no way for the federal government legislating for or against contraception, though he does believe that states have the legal right to do so if they choose. That sounds to me like he's more "Libertarian" than one might think. Personally, I'm not for Santorum, but the fact that the man is willing to stand up there and let me know about his personal belief system regardless of what sort of scrutiny he might receive from it, lends credibility to his message and builds my trust in his ability to lead.

Finally, I don't know where your statement about Israel not viewing Iran as a 'credible threat' came from, but I assure you it's way off base. I could post article after article stating the opposite.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... on_1.shtml

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 95,00.html

[TH Spangler]

Thank you Humble for taking time to respond ..... I didn't know where to start? Purple you make a good point. And last night Ron Paul was ... "way out there somewhere"?

The VP pick may not be running for the top job, might be on the sideline still ..... I still think Romney would be wise to balance the ticket with a Christian candidate for VP.

[jbock13]

Santorum is not Libertarian at all. In fact, he's dismissed Libertarianism and confused it intentionally with Anarchism. I believe he said that in his speech in Iowa.

Clearly, either Santorum is too stupid to know what Libertarianism is, or, he certainly doesn't espouse libertarian principles. Either of those, though more the former, is a deal breaker for me.

I could be wrong about the Israeli officials not deeming Iran a credible threat, so let me continue to research that. Either way, we should not get ourselves involved in that conflict.

But anyhoo, there's no doubt Santorum's position. Instead of using diplomacy, and dare I say closing military bases all around the Middle East, because the countries clearly do not want us there, Santorum wants to send your sons and your daughters into battle... for what?

[El Scorcho]

[youtube]

[/youtube]

I give up. This completely drains me of hope for the Republican party.

[Humble_Opinion]

I wasn't saying that Santorum as a candidate is an all-around Libertarian. His views on the topic you brought up though are that it's essentially a State's Rights issue, which is the typical Libertarian view in general for all issues not specifically addressed by the Constitution and something I as well agree with.

Also, you made a statement that we see often, "...the last thing we want is Government legislating morality." However, in most cases is there not some sort of moral issue or belief at the root of each law that is passed? Otherwise, what is the basis/reason for passing a law (a rule either for or against something) in the first place?

In regards to Iran, I don't know that we are at the point of us having to go to battle. But let's look at this from Iran's standpoint. Why should they take diplomacy seriously if there isn't a very real threat that would force them to do so? Diplomacy, by itself, has never been effective. If you can find an instance in history where this was the case, then I'll gladly admit I was wrong. There are also many other variables at play here (i.e. China, Russia and Europe). Ultimately, we have essentially reached the end of our diplomatic playbook, as there are very little economic ties between our two countries, so what sort of diplomacy would you advocate at this point?

[jbock13]

And these same morons cheered every time Newt opened his mouth.

I love these idiots. Newt always says the right things, but never does them.

[alabama24]

I give up. This completely drains me of hope for the Republican party.

I agree. There wasn't enough booing, and there was too much cheering at the end. Ron Paul is like the crazy uncle no one wants to sit by at Thanksgiving.

Oh... but I will be voting for him in a few months.

[thepostman]

I give up. This completely drains me of hope for the Republican party.

I agree. There wasn't enough booing, and there was too much cheering at the end. Ron Paul is like the crazy uncle no one wants to sit by at Thanksgiving.

Oh... but I will be voting for him in a few months.

how is he crazy??

I know your answer already because I have heard it over and over again, but please explain.

[alabama24]

how is he crazy??

I know your answer already because I have heard it over and over again, but please explain.

Ron Paul is right about a lot of things, but he comes off crazy. Personally, I was (and am) a big fan of G.W. He often came across in a less favorable light than I would have preferred. My comment was not that he IS crazy, rather that he comes across so.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on his military stance, but that is not the primary issue with me. Rather, he says contradictory things at times. He says we should have gone directly for Bin Laden (ok. good. fine.), but he now criticizes that we took him out. Which is it? Why is it wrong to "violate Pakistan's sovereignty" now, but it would have been OK 7 years ago?

[thepostman]

I was never a fan of GW and that form of "conservatism" and his military stances are supported more by the military then not. I wonder why that is?

Ron Paul is not perfect, but he is not crazy either. Its just what Fox News has pushed on people and a lot of republicans have eaten it right up.

[jbock13]

well, I'll leave the more ardent Paul supporters to comment more specifically, but Bush wasn't always the most artful speaker either. I find that interesting, as ironically many of his supporters are very young.

I honestly think reasonable people can disagree over the wars. What I can't stand is how one issue disqualifies a candidate. Ron Paul is by far the best candidate on economic issues. I'm still learning about his foreign policy, but I would advise you this. Pay no attention to the wacky Paul nuts out there who think he's the savior of America. Just go on to his website, and read his plans. You'll find that the reason why some people hated Paul, was not because of him, but the media and the impressions his fans gave to you. At least that's my own personal story. You can find when I first posted on here some of the things I said about him. My father hated him, but when he heard Paul speak, he realized that he had been told lies and mischaracterizations.

But then again, I look back and regret a lot of things I say on here

[LUconn]

because he's making stuff up. We endlessly bomb other countries? That's a stupid statement.

[Purple Haize]

Ron Paul is a theoretician not a practicianer. He has interesting ideas but has never done anything to implement them. While you may like s Ime of his ideas you have to at least question the ability he would have in implementing them. As President he would have to work with Congress to get any of his ideas into law. The same Congress he has been unable to present let alone have any legislation passed.
His Golden Rule diplomacy is absolutely naive. This is where his theories run into facts. There is evil in the world. The US is in a unique position to deal with it. Further, it's not like we just woke up one day and said, 'Hmmm we are bored, let's go bomb somebody. What's Djibuti up to? Send in the B52's". Last nite he made it sound like the US just randomly bombs countries for the hell of it.

Romney didn't look prepared for his attacks last night, but that's a good thing because it is giving him a look at what is going to be thrown his way in the general.

Newt dominated last night. But I agree. He SAYS the right things but doesn't always DO the right thing!

Perry. Please leave.

Santorum. Are you running for pope or president

[From the class of 09]

Why were we in Iraq again?

[jmdickens]

Why were we in Iraq again?

Because they had weapons

Same argument as Iran. When we go to war with them, except they might resist a bit more. Then, if they somehow manage to get a Nuke working and use it on us or Israel, Iran would be wiped off the face of the planet. US needs to slow our roll here. We are jumping the gun and it could lead to another unnecessary invasion of another country.

[Purple Haize]

Why were we in Iraq again?

For defying UN Resolution. Shooting at UN/NATO planes in the no fly zone.
Implementing the policy of regime change that was policy left over from the last administration
Weapons of Mass destruction

Everyone focus' on the last one because it looks like everyone got that wrong and has to blame someone. If he didn't ship them somewhere, I'm looking at you Syria, he did a great job faking people out. And it makes perfect sense on his part. If people THINK he had WMD's they would be less likely to mess with them.(Iran).
The case with Iran is different. The only similarity is that the whole world agrees they are in the process of obtaining them.

[TH Spangler]

The VP pick may not be running for the top job, might be on the sideline still ..... I still think Romney would be wise to balance the ticket with a Christian candidate for VP.

Maybe ..... Romney - Huckabee?

[ATrain]

Appartently Gov. Bob McDonnell wants to be added to the ticket. Would be a smart move politically, popular in Virginia (although dropping significantly in Hampton Roads and among State workers), and with Virginia being a swing state could turn it back to red.

[jbock13]

And those state workers can screw it!

I know you're one ATrain lol but seriously cuts must be made somewhere. He's gotta fix what Tim "Make it Rain" Kaine messed up. But of course your not the ones I'm mad at lol

[Humble_Opinion]

Virginia has become more of a moderate state in recent times because of a few different reasons.

1) The Alexandria area has been flooded by a bunch of elitist beauracrats
2) Jim Gilmore's reign as governor was not so popular as he caused some of the fiscal mess in the state
3) Mark Warner's subsequent rise in VA politics during his reign as governor. There aren't very many "Blue Dog" Democrats anymore, but this guy I think comes about as close as anyone left.
4) George Allen's makaka comment.

If the Republicans in the House of Delegates can get some important legislation through this upcoming year and McDonnell can continue his strong showing, then I think Republicans have a real shot at reversing 2006 and 2008 when they lost the Senate seats and the presidential election.

Also Purple, remember that almost all agencies back in 2001 also thought that Iraq possessed WMD's. Even our French counterparts thought the same... they just had too much to lose and alot to hide (i.e. them sidestepping the U.N. oil for food program etc.). I agree though, Iran is much different this time around... They have the capabilities to produce the bomb and they have been talking tough about using it for a while now. Does anyone here not take them seriously when they say they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?