Santorum for President ping. Let me know if you want on or off the list.
Top 10 Reasons why Conservatives should support Santorum
16 Reasons Why Mitt Romney Would Be a Really, Really Bad President
Posted on 01/14/2012 2:05:00 PM PST by PieterCasparzen
Rick Santorum should be president for three basic but important reasons. First, his policies are sound. His economic recovery plan includes a reduction of federal non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels by enacting across the board spending cuts. He has called for and pledged to sign into law the repeal of ObamaCare and to replace it with market based healthcare innovation and competitive, market based solutions that will leave healthcare choices where they belong…. between doctors and their patients. Santorum has called for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution and a capping of government spending to 18% of GDP.
...
The second reason to support Santorum is the stability of his personal life. His commitment to his wife and family as a husband and father reveals a man of character who is willing to keep his word. You can’t be pro-family when your family is in disarray.
...
Finally, Santorum deserves our support because of his passion for God. He has had his faith tested in the crucible of personal trial and in the pressure cooker of public attacks against him because of his strong stands on moral issues. His personal relationship with Jesus Christ has in the past and continues in the present to sustain and strengthen him.
...
All of the candidates for the Republican nomination have their strengths. But only one can be the standard-bearer of true conservatism.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at christianfaithinamerica.com ...
Your anti-Gingrich rebuttal is long on hyperbole and opinion, and short on documented facts - like his actual voting record, for instance.
I’m well aware that Newt’s gone ‘off the reservation’ more often than we’d like, but it’s my contention that he did far more good in Congress, than he did harm, and that he remains correctly oriented toward the Framers’ vision of America.
If you want to counter what I posted about Santorum’s voting record, post Newt’s.
Oh. So applying a word with a negative connotation to what I'm doing somehow makes it invalid, without merit, unfair, or something of that nature, am I right?
Well, alright. You can throw a slur at my posting of Santorum's Senate record if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a truthful record of what he actually voted for and against while he was an elected representative.
It's information that is vital for making an informed choice in this election, no matter how ugly it is. I think most conservatives would agree that our side votes on intelligence, not emotion, don't you?
Oh. So those quotes from Newt are lies, I guess.
Yep, he didn't say all that stuff. All those direct quotes advocating big government are immaterial--his voting record from over a decade ago is more pertinent than what he's saying now.
So why would I support a guy who's lying? Because you don't believe his own words, so he can't be telling the truth about his own record.
Nice diversion. Too bad we're supposed to support him NOW and not over 10 years ago.
Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said you lied.
I said, what you posted was long on hyperbole and opinion, and short on facts - like Newt's actual congressional voting record, for instance.
Are you so insecure in your rebuttal that you can't acknowledge that I also replied that I'm fully aware that Newt's gone 'off the reservation' a time too many?
If you want to rebut my post of Santorum's voting record, post Newt's for comparison. That's the challenge.
I don’t care how long your cherry-picked, out of context data dump gets, I’m still ignoring it.
Huh? It's Santorum's documented Senate voting record.
If it bothers you so much, why don't you dig up his conservative votes and post them?
Good God, why are you trying to obfuscate instead of facing the facts?
I never said YOU said I lied--clip and paste it if that's the case. You can't, because I didn't say anything of the kind, I ASKED you if NEWT was lying,
You keep talking about 'post his voting record' when I have already addressed that.
Why must you invent these phony disputes? You couldn't engage the DIRECT QUOTES from Newt, so you bring up his voting record. I in turn said, "Which should I pay attention to--his voting record of the nineties, or what he's sqaying NOW?
Just answer that question. I have no use for all the "Look over there!" foolishness. Santorum's voting record? Who brought THAT up, and what does that have to do with Newt's being a big-government type--which, you seem to keep geting away from because I've posted the evidence supporting it.
Answer that one simple question--do I decide on whether I support Newt or not based on his voting record of a decade a ago, OR what's addressed in these answers to your initial request?
Good God, why are you trying to obfuscate instead of facing the facts?
I never said YOU said I lied--clip and paste it if that's the case. You can't, because I didn't say anything of the kind, I ASKED you if NEWT was lying,
You keep talking about 'post his voting record' when I have already addressed that.
Why must you invent these phony disputes? You couldn't engage the DIRECT QUOTES from Newt, so you bring up his voting record. I in turn said, "Which should I pay attention to--his voting record of the nineties, or what he's sqaying NOW?
Just answer that question. I have no use for all the "Look over there!" foolishness. Santorum's voting record? Who brought THAT up, and what does that have to do with Newt's being a big-government type--which, you seem to keep geting away from because I've posted the evidence supporting it.
Answer that one simple question--do I decide on whether I support Newt or not based on his voting record of a decade a ago, OR what's addressed in these answers to your initial request--his words NOW?
You're angry, and now throwing bricks at me. I told you that I acknowledged Newt's travels 'off the reservation', ergo, I'm not disputing the validity of the facts you presented.
Trust me, those things bother me as well, but they don't overshadow Newt's overwhelmingly positive record of service in office.
What bothered me about the snippets you posted, were the opinions and hyperbole embedded. It wasn't a simple and clear statement of Newt's record of votes, like what I posted.
If my posting of Rick Santorum's actual Senate voting record bothers you so much, why not dig up Newt's voting record and post it for comparison? They served in Congress during the same time.
LOL, yes, getting personal--the last refuge of the one backed into a corner.
In other words, I asked you a simple qustion that could be answered in one sentence, so you once again keep trying to change the subject.
Thank you, I have my answer.
I especially liked Santorum’s view that social and economic issues are directly connected...one always has consequenses on the other and should be considered in all political matters.
P.S. For someone who gets so indignant about 'putting words in my mouth,' you should try to be honorable and not do the same--I never said I was bothered by posting Santorum's record. So please, try to practice what you preach.
I hear the Newties throwing around the word “true Conservative” like a cheap token to buy off the gullible. A man who isn’t faithful to one he has given a sacred vow will not be faithful to one who has given him his trust. Not very “conservative” if you ask me.
Oh, another “for it before he was against it” flip-flopper...we’ve already been down that road once before.
Geez whiz.... I never said that YOU said you were bothered by my posting of Santorum's record. It's simply MY observation of your responses to that posting. You're obviously upset about it, as evidenced by the tirades you've been posting at me.
I'm trying to be as dispassionate about this as I can. I posted one candidate's voting record. You posted some snippets of people commenting and opining about another candidate's record (which I freely admit, contained some FACTS).
I'm not upset about what you posted, and freely admit that I agree with you that Newt transgressed against our commonly held conservative ideals with those actions. However, those actions were not sufficient to overshadow or wipe out all the good the man did while in office.
If they were, he'd have zero chance of convincing any conservatives to support him in this race, and would have been laughed off the stage as a pathetic traitor to the cause.
It's late, and I'm about to check out. My challenge to you stands, and I will probably continue to post Santorum's voting record where and when it seems necessary to inform conservative voters.
Good night.
If you're truly interested in a discussion, why do you keep avoiding it?
Last chance:
Should I base my decision to vote for Newt on his voting record of the nineties, or his current words?
Your previous tirade:
If my posting of Rick Santorum's actual Senate voting record bothers you so much...
Your own words show your inability to just deal with the actual points. You prefer to just go round and round, insinuating personal insult when all you have to do is answer one simple question...which you repeatedly refuse to do.
I have no more time for folks who can't be honest.
The Newties wouldn’t want you to base your decision on anything Newt has done since leaving Congress in disgrace (after being fined $300,000 for ethics violations), such as pushing for the DNC Gorebull warming myth, his praise of Hitlery Clinton, or his “education tour” with race-baiting poverty pimp Al Sharpton.
05/04/1979 – He voted for a federal land grab that put tens of millions of
acres of land in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
09/20/1979 – He voted to raise the debt ceiling for the first time.
09/27/1979 – He voted to establish the Federal Department of Education.
06/04/1980 – He voted to raise the debt ceiling for the second time.
02/05/1981 – He voted to raise the debt ceiling for the third time.
06/28/1984 – He voted to raise the debt ceiling for the fourth time.
04/02/1987 – He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine (anti 1st Amendment
legislation)
02/22/1989 – He cosponsored the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989.
10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police
Corps.
03/–/1993 – He was “passionately in favor” of sending $1.6 Billion in
foreign aid to Russia.
11/19/1993 – He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.
11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
04/10/1995 – He supported Federal taxdollars being spent on abortions.
04/25/1996 – Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education
spending ($3.5 Billion)
–/–/1996 – He earned a “D” rating from the Gun Owners of America.
http://www.knowthelies.com/node/6760
Education Reform à la Al (Sharpton)
Pelosi and Gore are not Gingrich’s only strange bedfellows. He recently toured the nation with Reverend Al Sharpton and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to promote President Obama’s education reforms and charter schools. Of course, there are a number of problems with that scenario, not the least of which is Gingrich’s association with Al Sharpton, a controversial left-wing activist, or his contemptible pandering to the dictates of the liberal Obama administration. The main problem, as usual, is Gingrich’s endorsement of patently unconstitutional measures. The tour agenda recommends increased local control of schools to be regulated and subsidized by the federal Department of Education. That’s right: increased local control through increased federal regulation.
The proposal also calls for “the ability of parents to pick the right school for their child.” Parents would already have that ability if it weren’t for the Department of Education. Rearranging how the federal government regulates education may be “reform” of the current system, but the current system is unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.