Replies

Have you even read his web page? (Mariner, post #74)

(ME to Mariner & Apollo5600) Prove it that this [His comments about THEOLOGY & VALUES] is a full-blown “campaign”...and if you can’t, then you & Mariner need to reconsider the gossip straw men you so easily toss around.“

(Apollo5600): Yes I can. Look at his campaign website. What are the first “Issues” on his positions page? I’ll give you a hint. It’s about pornography. The next one is about his grandpa and being a coal miner and believing in America and blah blah blah.Now compare that to the campaign website of Herman Cain, or Newt Gingrich, or the former website of Rick Perry. What difference do you see here?

In post #82, engraved-on-his-hands posted 11 of the 18 issues on Santorum's Web site issues page...and there's OTHER issues on the front page that are "roving" -- including a couple of energy issues. (You, Apollo5600, reduced his Web site to simply opposing porn & coal miner stuff...rather pathetic attempt @ dismissal, IMA)

And 'tis even more pathetic that you deem porn as only a theological-based issue (remember, THEOLOGY WAS the umbrella issue under discussion). I guess those less theologically focused feminists who oppose porn aren't allowed to do that for less-than-theological motivations, eh, Apollo?

And if THEOLOGY was so much at the "forefront" (a term used by Mariner TWICE now to describe Santorum's theological focus), tell us Mariner, why is "Faith & Families" #15 on a list of 18 things on the issues page of his Web site? Shouldn't it be -- to fulfill your misguided caracature -- #1?

And why does most of that discuss his "family" (rather than his faith) before it shifts to pro-life content tucked away in those 2 short graphs?

Do EITHER you care to PROVE your straw-man contention that Santorum has built some elaborate prominent theological campaign that's at the daily "forefront?" Or do you always go around ruining your credibility as well as forfeiting your integrity with such statements?

And Mariner, since your rabbit-trail reference on post #74 doesn't defend your comments on post #47, my challenge in post #70 still holds. Please address it, lest you also assume a reputation of doing cartwheels to avoid your increasing tag of being one our leading FReeper strawmen-constructors.

Here...let me try to help you both out:

..On #17 of that 18-point site list, I did find this one theologically-derived line buried in his pro-American exceptionalism stance: "Rick knows that backing down to the Jihadists means that we are only putting our foundational principles at greater risk."

Yup! You got it! EVERY reference to Jihad & Jihadists made by politicians & journalists & posters alike is indeed a reference to a theology! (Well, at least a theology as promoted by Muslims & their Quran!)

But I suppose if Rick mentions too much about Muslim theology by mere reference of the word "jihadist" or "jihad" we'll get continued knee-jerk reactions from both of you (+ Hinckley Buzzard) on how Santorum should discuss other matters than words rooted in somebody's "theology." (God forbid God gets ANY mention in these campaigns!)