Replies

Here’s a thought. Okay, lets see.

Maybe our candidates ought to talk about what we’re concerned about. You know, the economy, our exploding debt, jobs, inflation up the wazoo, and did I mention the economy and jobs?

Well that's certainly what folks on this forum have been doing isn't it. Cough cough...

But, instead, we got Preacher-man (more holy than thou), talking about abortion, contreception, abortion, gay marriage, abortion... and did I mention abortion?

You know, the though processes of some of you folks are really amazing.

Jim Robinson is stridently pro-life. He will never support Mitt Romney due to that fact. And here you are belittling Santorum for addressing abortion.

You are so angered by the fact he addresses it that and a couple of other issues, that you attempt to belittle him by calling him Preacher-man and hit him over the head with the word abortion four times in one sentence. When Santorum addresses contraception, he does so because contreception creates an environment where sexual promescuity is made more thinkable. Sexually transmitted diseases, increased pregnancy, an increase in out of wedlock births, and an increase in abortions result. With all the focus on contraceptives and their disbursement, the worse stats possible continue to be a plague on this nation. As for homosexual marriage, are you now advocating we throw in the towel on that too? Wow, you certainly do have the Conservative talking points down don't you.

Sounds like a Democrat think tank around here at times.

Santorum took his 10 minutes of fame and turned it into a sermon instead of an election campaign. And that’s all on him, not on those that point it out.

Let me explain the difference between you and I.

You point it out. We can tell what vent you use when you do it. Thanks for the example.

I point it out and agree with the man. I try to be true to my values system.

Anymore than it’s the little boy’s fault for pointing out that the King has no clothes.

In your opinion I'm sure this just just another fine post where you tried to live up to what you suggested others should do, "Maybe our candidates ought to talk about what we’re concerned about. You know, the economy, our exploding debt, jobs, inflation up the wazoo, and did I mention the economy and jobs?"

Even you couldn't do it.

Well, you prove my point. The election, as the electorate has been screaming, is hinged on jobs, the economy, the debt, etc.

Yet, that is what you ignore. Instead, you focus on issues that are, while important, not on the radar of the voters at this time.

Furthermore, you are so focused on these issues that you render everything else irrelevant. So you focus on the candidate who is the best on that, regardless of how bad he may be on other conservative issues.

That monomania blinds you. You support a candidate that is great on social issues, middlin’ on defense, and poor on fiscal/small government issues.

Whereas I look at them all, with special focus on pushing small government.

And Newt is an 80% type of candidate. 80% of what I want on both social and fiscal conservatism... which means he's good in all the areas, not just one.

But your monomania on solely social issues keeps you from looking at the rest of the complete conservative package. And that's specially bad when the election climate isn't focused on those social issues.