There is a huge difference between our founders’ vision of a Christ-informed populace participating in self governance and a policy of trying to run the entire (federalist) nation from Washington DC, to obey the dictates of a city-state located on a boot-shaped peninsula of Europe.
Newt Gingrich is pro-life and pro-marriage. So is Santorum. Gingrich wants to aggressively defend America from Agenda 21, plus audit The Fed and act upon what information is attained. Santorum is wobbly on this and is a ‘team player.’ Which is more moral?
posted on 03/09/2012 9:32:13 AM PST
(It's the Sovereignty, Stu... | We are Gulag Bound)
There is a huge difference between our founders vision of a Christ-informed populace participating in self governance and a policy of trying to run the entire (federalist) nation from Washington DC, to obey the dictates of a city-state located on a boot-shaped peninsula of Europe. Thank you. I accept that you believe this. I don't buy into 0.000000001% of it. Sorry. No sale. I file stuff like this in my flying saucer sighting file.
http://gulagbound.com/27042/post-supertuesday-song-for-americans-fighting-for-our-sovereignty/comment-page-1/#comment-151491 Okay, a poster on another forum has an over-active imagination. I'm just not into buying off on stuff like this. This guy is not going to turn the U. S. Government into Vatican City West.
Newt Gingrich is pro-life..., Okay, good... So is someone else.., ah what's his name? Oh yes, Rick Santorum. Unlike Newt, Rick also urges less promiscuity outside of marriage.
...and pro-marriage. Puuuulease...
So is Santorum. Yes, but thank heaven he's not as pro-marriage as Balut.
Gingrich wants to aggressively defend America from Agenda 21,... Balut sits on benches with Leftists expounding on fixes to Global Warming, which he wants desperately to help with. NO!!!!
...plus audit The Fed and act upon what information is attained. Okay, maybe... He has promised so many things, that it has finally become nearly impossible, even impractical, and ultimately unbelievable to think he's going to actually follow through with much of any of it. It has become almost laughable every new promise he comes up with. If he actually did it all, I'd be quite thrilled, but I'm simply not that gullible.
My idea of realistic campaign promises, generally come in a short list of important core issues. You quite naturally know the guy is on your side, because his core list of issues actually translate beyond the list. When a guy starts being specific with ten, twenty, thirty, forty... ideas, I begin to lose any confidence in the guy. It's as if he thought that by promising to fix my kitchen sink drain leak, he'd get my vote. He can't spend the time to do that for all of us either, and it reduces my belief that he means any of it.
Santorum is wobbly on this and is a team player. I'm sorry, but you've been sipping a little too much of Balut's campaign tea. I don't buy into this.
Which is more moral? Don't get me started on Balut's morals. I am not a subscriber to that rhetoric. Do you have any idea of the immorality involved with global warming fixes? And if the guy was gullible enough to buy into that nonsense only a few months ago, how is he not 'a gullible global team player', and ultimately the poster boy for what you seek to speak out against? If this guy could buy off on Global Warming and the disasterous fixes the Left had dreamed up, what wouldn't he buy into? I'm sorry, but that whole bench episode was a game ending buzz-kill for me.
You are smarter than this. I know you are.
posted on 03/09/2012 10:19:12 AM PST
(Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson