Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Santorum Slaps Down Scarborough
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | March 19, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 03/19/2012 3:50:58 PM PDT by Kaslin

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Some audio sound bites. John McCain, on Meet the Press, was asked by David Gregory: "You're worried about tone of the campaign. You've been in some nasty fights yourself politically. Do you think this is having a toll, this Republican primary?"

MCCAIN: This is the nastiest I have ever seen. It's a result of the worst decision the United States Supreme Court has made in many years, the Citizens United decision where you have naivete and sheer ignorance, uh, the majority, uh, of the Supreme Court, uh, just unloosened all mo -- released all money now.

RUSH: That's absurd. With all due respect.

Oh, folks, by the way, you gotta remind me tomorrow. On Saturday night, we watched Game Change. This movie... This movie is a joke! I've read the reviews of this movie by Republican conservative media people. They should have excoriated this movie. This movie is an outright embarrassment. It is so over the top! It's a cartoon that pretends to reflect reality! It was horrible. Kathryn walked out of it after an hour. It's a two-hour movie. She got up and left the room! This McCain sound bite made me think of that because it's about him and Palin and their campaign. This Citizens United Supreme Court decision, that's not the problem here. Money is not the problem in politics. Anyway, Santorum responded to this. He was on CBS This Morning today, and Charlie Rose said, "Senator McCain said that this the dirtiest campaign he's ever seen."

SANTORUM: Yeah, he should tell the guy, uh, that he's supporting to stop spending tens and tens of millions of dollars running negative ads. It's not Rick Santorum who's been running all the negative ads or even Newt Gingrich. It's Mitt Romney who's systematically just gone out there and run a negative campaign, has had no positive vision for this country, and spends billionaire dollars, uhh, to tear down every single opponent that's in his path.

RUSH: That happened in '08, too. And that's why there was the animosity for Romney back then. So that's Santorum's answer to McCain. "Hey, it's not the money; it's the guy spending it," is Santorum's point. "It's not the money. It's not the gun. It's the guy pulling the trigger." It's the same thing. But McCain has to say this. McCain-Feingold, campaign finance reform, all of that. But it's an absurd premise that the money is the problem. Then this morning on Scarborough's show on MSNBC, Santorum was again the guest, and Scarborough said, "Rick, just so you know, I've been critical of the focus on this issue of contraception. I brought it up to you today because we've talked about it a lot, and certainly now that we have you here, we want you to respond to it. Let's move beyond the issue of contraception. Rick, what are you doing?"

SANTORUM: Hold on one second. Go and come to any of my now almost thousand town hall meetings and let me assure you: I don't think the word "contraception" has ever come up. Let's just deal with reality instead of what the media trying to do which is to pigeonhole you and tell a narrative. We are losing our freedom. We have a government that is getting bigger and bigger. We have a group of elites who think they can run our lives better than we can run it ourselves. And unfortunately we have another candidate in the Republican Party, uh, who believes the same things as Barack Obama when it comes to the big issues of the day of government control of your life. And in specific, the biggest overreach of government and be that is in the area of health care --

SCARBOROUGH: All right.

SANTORUM: -- and on that score, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are the same. And that's what we can't have in this election.

RUSH: Scarborough was not pleased with that answer.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, I have certainly talked about your focus on this in the past, and you've known me for a long time. Do you think I'm trying to pigeonhole you and stereotype you?

SANTORUM: Well, I mean, the fact that you continue to bring it up? Yeah! Sure!

SCARBOROUGH: Why would I? I think my record on this in -- in Congress is the same as yours. All I'm saying is, it is a legitimate issue.

SANTORUM: Joe, the only reason I talk about this issue, as I said, is with respect to government mandates on people of faith. That's why this issue continues to be talked about and should continue to be talked about in the context of government forcing people of faith to do things that are against the religious beliefs -- something the federal government has never done and should never do when it comes to whether it's the Catholic Church or any other legitimate religion.

RUSH: Right on. Exactly right.

This is an issue because of Barack Obama violating the Constitution, acting without the authority to mandate that people who conscientiously object to these things must provide them. That's why it's in the news. It's in the news because Obama wants it in the news because Obama wants to be able to construct this phony Republican war on women. Nobody was talking about contraception until one of Obama's operatives, George Stephanopoulos at ABC News, brought it up in a question to Romney. It was in a Republican primary debate on January 7th in Manchester, New Hampshire.

It was not being discussed until then, and Stephanopoulos' question came literally out of the blue. And Romney said (paraphrased), "I don't know what you're talking about, George. This is silly. Nobody wants to ban contraception." Well, it turns out that Obama wanted to mandate that the Catholic Church buy it for everybody. If you want your own contraception, go down to Walmart and get it. It's five bucks or nine bucks. Going to do it! Why does everybody else have to pay for it? And where's the Obama get the authority to tell the Catholic Church or any other church or religious school to buy it for somebody?

That's what this is about.

And Santorum is dead-on right about it.

END TRANSCRIPT


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: rush; santorum; scarborough

1 posted on 03/19/2012 3:51:02 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I'm "conscientiously opposed" to funding the drug habits, lifestyles, and "bling" that I'm forced to pay for through the Democrats "taxdollars-funneled-for-votes" methods, and I'm "conscientiously opposed" to having my tax dollars FUNNELED TO THE DNC, via Union Dues when the Union is "bailed out" (aka; Obama Motors), or, when large donors create phony "Green Energy" boondoggles, pocket millions in Taxpayer-funded handouts, and kick-back those dollars to the DNC.

I don't think that the "conscientiously object" argument will stand up in Court; but the Un-Constitutionality of Mandating and Forcing me to pay cronies should!

2 posted on 03/19/2012 4:00:22 PM PDT by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I am curious why Obama thinks it’s OK to force Orthodox Jewish people and Catholics to fund abortions, but makes compromises in ObamaCare bill itself to comply with Sharia law, which prohibits participation in insurance as a form of “gambling.”

Very curious double standard.


3 posted on 03/19/2012 4:00:30 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
government forcing people of faith to do things that are against the religious beliefs.

That's even true of our beliefs outside of religion. I'm not Catholic and don't agree with Catholics on contraception but I sure as hell don't want to pay for it let alone force people who oppose it to pay for it.
4 posted on 03/19/2012 4:00:48 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“MCCAIN: This is the nastiest I have ever seen. “

McKennedy, you’ve not heard what we conservatives think about you, you smarmy piece of dog stuff that the Navy would have tossed years ago save for your Admiral dad.

You’re an idiot who screwed his way into money and bought a senatorship....sorta like Nancy (slut) Pelosi.

Hey, why not marry her so we can have a matched set of b*stard/b*tch.

Go away.

Dead Ted is calling you. He says you’ll be quite warm there.


5 posted on 03/19/2012 4:03:19 PM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about unions forcing people to join and pay dues against their will or be fired.

Never forget the first time I was told that I had to pay dues to a corrupt do nothing NYC Taxi Drivers union every shift or I couldn't work.

Rick the lawyer voted against right to work legislation, and is a megalomaniac fraud.

6 posted on 03/19/2012 4:06:20 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Rick Santorum voted against Right toWork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

When Obama asks muslims to forcably eat pork then I’ll reconsider the issue....until then , no go


7 posted on 03/19/2012 4:10:00 PM PDT by MadelineZapeezda (Conservatism: "It's either there or it isn't.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
Rick the lawyer voted against right to work legislation, and is a megalomaniac fraud.

As a senator he shouldn't unless its federal employees. Its an issue for the states to deal with thank God. We've seen more progress in fighting unions in the states during Obama's tenure than we've seen in my lifetime.
8 posted on 03/19/2012 4:10:23 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

I’m with you. Guess that makes us “conscientious objectors”. It would make a good bumper sticker. Drive the Lefties (most of my neighborhood) crazy.

I read somewhere that the Amish are excluded from the mandate. Do you know anything about that?


9 posted on 03/19/2012 4:11:48 PM PDT by oneamericanvoice (Support freedom! Support the troops! Surrender is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MadelineZapeezda

forceably


10 posted on 03/19/2012 4:12:03 PM PDT by MadelineZapeezda (Conservatism: "It's either there or it isn't.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: oneamericanvoice
I'm not sure that the Amish have recieved a "Waiver".

I believe only Union Amish got a pass......

11 posted on 03/19/2012 4:14:12 PM PDT by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

You would do well to find out why he voted the way he did on any issue. Things aren’t always as they seem.

I sat about a foot and a half from the man as he answered every concern honestly and without hesitation.

Since you aren’t voting for Santorum, plese tell which candidate you’ve found who walks on water?


12 posted on 03/19/2012 4:15:12 PM PDT by oneamericanvoice (Support freedom! Support the troops! Surrender is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Its an issue for the states to deal with

Nonsense.

That son of a bitch Warren in US Vs. Brown threw out the provision in Taft Hartley that required union leadership to sign affidavits that they were not communists.

As a result, union leadership is comprised of nothing but.

No worker in the US should be held hostage to unions period, compulsory union dues are unconstitutional under the first and 14th amendments, and the unions need to be stripped of their ability to steal money from workers paychecks on a national and State level.

FORCED UNIONISM IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SLAVERY

If the workers love unions so much they will be happy to voluntarily send them dues.

Criminalize Government employee unions, blatantly illegal mechanisms for raping taxpayers by bribing leftist politicians with money and votes in exchange for unsustainable compensation and benefits.

There’s nothing patently illegal about a POTUS issuing an executive order immediately ending withholding of union dues nationwide, and ordering the National Labor Relations Board to get a Federal Court Order enforcing the Presidents decision

Lets fight it out in the courts, and lets make it a campaign issue, with the promise to end compulsory withholding of union dues one of the first acts of a new GOP Administration.

Its stupid to allow the left (Communists) to use the same mechanism the IRS uses to fund themselves.

U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) 381 U.S. 437

UNITED STATES v. BROWN. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 399.

Argued March 29, 1965.

Decided June 7, 1965.

Respondent was convicted under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for one who belongs to the Communist Party or who has been a member thereof during the preceding five years wilfully to serve as a member of the executive board of a labor organization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding 504 violative of the First and Fifth Amendments. Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional. Pp. 441-462.

(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 441-446.

(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 . Pp. 447-449.

(c) In designating Communist Party members as those persons who cannot hold union office, Congress has exceeded its Commerce Clause power to enact generally applicable legislation disqualifying from positions affecting interstate commerce persons who may use such positions to cause political strikes. Pp. 449-452.

(d) Section 504 is distinguishable from such conflict-of-interest statutes as 32 of the Banking Act, where Congress was legislating with respect to general characteristics rather than with respect to the members of a specific group. Pp. 453-455.

(e) The designation of Communist Party membership cannot be justified as an alternative, “shorthand” expression for the characteristics which render men likely to incite political strikes. Pp. 455-456.

(f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 , where the Court upheld 9 (h) of the National [381 U.S. 437, 438] Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of 504, the Court erroneously assumed that only a law visiting retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 , which it sought to distinguish from 9 (h), as being in that category. Pp. 456-460.

(g) The legislative specification of those to whom the enacted sanction is to apply invalidates a provision as a bill of attainder whether the individuals are designated by name as in Lovett or by description as here. Pp. 461-462.

334 F.2d 488, affirmed.

Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Nathan Lewin, Kevin T. Maroney and George B. Searls.

Richard Gladstein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Norman Leonard.

Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California et al., and by Victor Rabinowitz and Leonard B. Boudin for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we review for the first time a conviction under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or (except in clerical or custodial positions) as an employee of a labor union. 1 Section 504, the purpose of which is to protect [381 U.S. 437, 439] the national economy by minimizing the danger of political strikes, 2 was enacted to replace 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which conditioned a union’s access to the National Labor Relations Board upon the filing of affidavits by all of the union’s officers attesting that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist Party. 3 [381 U.S. 437, 440]

Respondent has been a working longshoreman on the San Francisco docks, and an open and avowed Communist, for more than a quarter of a century. He was elected to the Executive Board of Local 10 of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union for consecutive one-year terms in 1959, 1960, and 1961. On May 24, 1961, respondent was charged in a one-count indictment returned in the Northern District of California with “knowingly and wilfully serv[ing] as a member of an executive board of a labor organization . . . while a member of the Communist Party, in wilful violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 504.” It was neither charged nor proven that respondent at any time advocated or suggested illegal activity by the union, or proposed a political strike. 4 The jury found respondent guilty, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded with instructions to set aside the conviction and dismiss the indictment, holding that 504 violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. 334 F.2d 488. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 899 .

Respondent urges - in addition to the grounds relied on by the court below - that the statute under which he was convicted is a bill of attainder, and therefore violates Art. I, 9, of the Constitution. 5 We agree that 504 is void as a bill of attainder and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on that basis. We therefore find it unnecessary to consider the First and Fifth Amendment arguments. [381 U.S. 437, 441]

13 posted on 03/19/2012 4:20:11 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Rick Santorum voted against Right toWork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

To the best of my knowledge there are no “union” amish.


14 posted on 03/19/2012 4:24:35 PM PDT by oneamericanvoice (Support freedom! Support the troops! Surrender is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: oneamericanvoice
"To the best of my knowledge there are no “union” amish"

Yeah; well you have to READ Obamacare before you know what's IN there!

LOL

15 posted on 03/19/2012 4:25:52 PM PDT by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

Tell me what signs of “megalomaniac” behavior you’ve seen from Rick Santorum?


16 posted on 03/19/2012 4:26:09 PM PDT by oneamericanvoice (Support freedom! Support the troops! Surrender is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: oneamericanvoice
You would do well to find out why he voted the way he did on any issue. Things aren’t always as they seem.


True. In 08 it was often repeated that Duncan Hunter voted for amnesty for illegals. It turned out that his yes vote was on a procedural measure that was never going to get past the pro amnesty side. (it was a vote to hold it up) However that there were a couple of those same people claiming that Chuck Yeager was a cross dresser. (Yeager endorsed Hunter)
17 posted on 03/19/2012 4:27:21 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
"Lets fight it out in the courts, and lets make it a campaign issue, with the promise to end compulsory withholding of union dues one of the first acts of a new GOP Administration"

Amen, Brother!

I am certain that it would be a real threat to the Democrat/Socialist/Progressive movement, as the money-laundering of Dues, which are PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS, is how half the country now lives off others.(Pay no taxes).

Second, you would suddenly see MASSIVE refusals of Unionization, more Right-to-Work States, and the COST to Taxpayers for government-funded projects could revert to COMPETITIVE BIDDING WITHOUT FORCED UNION REQUIRED FOR BIDS.

18 posted on 03/19/2012 4:31:00 PM PDT by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
This is an issue because of Barack Obama violating the Constitution, acting without the authority to mandate that people who conscientiously object to these things must provide them.

Its a religious freedom issue, but its also a freedom-freedom issue. They are dictating to private companies what their business model must be. If they wanted to provide that service they would provide it. No government mandate would be required. If they don't want to provide it, in a free country they would not compelled to provide a service against their will.

Being compelled to provide a service against your will has been illegal in this country for about a century and a half.

19 posted on 03/19/2012 4:32:25 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca
I am curious why Obama thinks it’s OK to force Orthodox Jewish people and Catholics to fund abortions, but makes compromises in ObamaCare bill itself to comply with Sharia law

Because he's a Muslim who hates Christians and Jews. And he loves killing babies.

20 posted on 03/19/2012 4:37:16 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

C'mon put up your dukes you pansy.


21 posted on 03/19/2012 4:39:17 PM PDT by McGruff (Newt Gingrich, the closest thing we've got to Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oneamericanvoice
Symptoms of megalomania include delusions of grandeur.

When not representing wrestlers in court, sweater vest idiot man was busy supporting Romney for POTUS and Arlen Specter for Senate.

This genius lost his reelection bid in his own state by 18%, and decided that was a good reason to run for POTUS .

You do know that he is being bankrolled by Romney supporter Foster Friess in order to take out Gingrich, and that Friess will pull the plug on him 2 seconds after Gingrich drops out right?

And that his family in Italy are TOP COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERS, right?

Yeah, RICK SANTORUM, just what the USSA needs to defeat Hussein Obama and pick up huge majorities in both houses of Congress

22 posted on 03/19/2012 4:40:57 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Rick Santorum voted against Right toWork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Just when we think McCain can’t possibly be more idiotic, he surprises us, but not much. As his senility rapidly advances, expect him to become even more incoherent, and unable to comprehend simple questions.


23 posted on 03/19/2012 4:43:58 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

“I am curious why Obama thinks it’s OK to force Orthodox Jewish people and Catholics to fund abortions, but makes compromises in ObamaCare bill itself to comply with Sharia law”

“Because he’s a Muslim who hates Christians and Jews. And he loves killing babies.”

Of course, you and I know that. But I wonder what his justification is -— that is, if he’s even been called on it.


24 posted on 03/19/2012 4:46:59 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
I am certain that it would be a real threat to the Democrat/Socialist/Progressive movement,

Curious how we don't hear a peep out of sweater vest man about kicking the communist leadership in the balls and taking away their license to steal.

And where is Mr. pro wrestler lawyer on Tort Reform?

He's with Bill and Hillary and Barry Hussein and Moochelle and Mitt, that's where he is.

NOWHERE

25 posted on 03/19/2012 4:47:24 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Rick Santorum voted against Right toWork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

Hey, is that you Romney?


26 posted on 03/19/2012 4:53:07 PM PDT by Linda Frances (Only God can change a heart, but we can pray for hearts to be changed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
Second, you would suddenly see MASSIVE refusals of Unionization, more Right-to-Work States.

The unions are getting hammered now without the federal government. Just last week in Michigan the governor signed a bill that says grad students can't be unionized and another that ended automatic dues deductions for teachers and school employees.

Snyder Signs Bill Reinforcing That Graduate Students Are Students, Not Employees

Our view: The motive behind teacher union dues legislation(Whining)


Also last week a local factory voted down joining the Teamsters.

Employees at Jackson's Production Engineering Inc. vote against unionization

The unions also have other problems growing from within.

UAW Member: Union Workers 'Need to Embrace' Right-to-Work Laws
27 posted on 03/19/2012 4:53:40 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Rush is right.

And Santorum is right.

28 posted on 03/19/2012 5:03:11 PM PDT by Osage Orange (The MSM is the most dangerous entity in the United States of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Great

So by your logic, if Alabama decided to re institute slavery tomorrow, that would be OK?

Destroying the institution of forced unionism requires federal action


29 posted on 03/19/2012 5:06:44 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Rick Santorum voted against Right toWork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

Honestly I don’t care what you think because you’re kind of an idiot.


30 posted on 03/19/2012 5:23:10 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
You think Michigan is the greatest place in the world and I'm an idiot?

Far out man!!

31 posted on 03/19/2012 5:35:56 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Rick Santorum voted against Right toWork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

That was a very impressive performance by Santorum, taking Scarborough apart. He is getting downright scrappy and pretty good on his feet. I like that.


32 posted on 03/19/2012 6:07:51 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

That was a very impressive performance by Santorum, taking Scarborough apart. He is getting downright scrappy and pretty good on his feet. I like that.


33 posted on 03/19/2012 6:20:15 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

Rick the lawyer voted against right to work legislation, and is a megalomaniac fraud.

How many dang times do you have to be told that the people of Pennsylvania overwhelmingly do not want right to work. Are you stupid? Just an innocent question.


34 posted on 03/19/2012 6:21:44 PM PDT by napscoordinator (A moral principled Christian with character is the frontrunner! Congrats Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
Joseph Stalin didn't need a writ of attainder when he executed half the Soviet officer corps.

He didn't need one when he executed scores of thousands of Polish officers.

He didn't need one when he executed millions of Ukrainians, Volga Germans, and Tatars just for being who they were.

But Warren cries a river over this Commie s.o.b., who supported everything Stalin ever did, and would have done the same here in America if given the chance.

35 posted on 03/19/2012 6:22:22 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
How many dang times do you have to be told that the people of Pennsylvania overwhelmingly do not want right to work. Are you stupid?

I know you are, but what am I?

36 posted on 03/19/2012 7:00:27 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Rick Santorum voted against Right toWork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Right on

COMMIES OUT!!!!


37 posted on 03/19/2012 7:03:18 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Rick Santorum voted against Right toWork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This was great! I heard it on Rush and was cheering in my car.


38 posted on 03/19/2012 9:34:34 PM PDT by Yaelle (Santorum 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; a fool in paradise
Are you going to (say that) Scarborough's Fair?


39 posted on 03/19/2012 9:38:06 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

I can’t believe there are people he tricked into still believing he’s Muslim. If he was Muslim, he’d be way more conservative on a lot of issues. He’s leftist. They like Muslims and dislike Jews & Catholics, even though Muslim’s hold positions that leftists strongly disagree with. (i.e. abortion, homosexuality, etc.) His only religion is leftism.


40 posted on 03/20/2012 12:21:13 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
Delusions of grandeur like taking credit for everything Reagan did, even though he worked against Reagan as a Rockefeller Republican, and messianic moonbase built on the backs of taxpayers? Or how he will singlehandedly will save the environment, with a giant law that gives the government the power to ruin the economy to protect bthe environment from evil humans. (He COSPONSORED a communist environmental bill with Nancy Pelosi in 1989, and still hopes to pass an updated version. Or his insane attack on conservatives who dared to criticize him for supporting Dede Scozzafava?

Let's face it, Gingrich would have to move to the right to be a RINO.

41 posted on 03/20/2012 1:37:27 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

>> Let’s face it, Gingrich would have to move to the right to be a RINO.

What nonsense. Rick is the establishment bit player. The big-government statist. The serious man without a plan.

Newt and the moon...

Here’s One Reason The Moon’s Gravity Is So Important To The Military
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2860522/posts

And here’s your hero...

The Santorum campaign has referenced Mitt Romney’s treatment of his dog Seamus four times over the past week
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2861179/posts


42 posted on 03/20/2012 1:49:38 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
I never even wanted Santorum to run. But that doesn't change the face that Gingrich is a conservative-hating socialist.

Why did he cosponsor the 1989 economy-killing environmental bill. Why did he cosponsor 418 bills with Pelosi , more than any other Republican. And why did he get on the coach with her and declare surrender? A 30 year relationship, but he can blot it out by saying, "it's a mistake." He is running for president, yet he still ADMITS he believes in global warming. Why don't you write to Gingrich and ask him to put his rant trashing conservatives in 2009 after he was criticized for supporting Dede Scozzafava. If Gingrich were to become president, the left would have a field day. He always has to kiss their butts - kind of like he admitted Clinton, "made him melt." Why conservatives would support a man who hates them with a passion is beyond me.

43 posted on 03/20/2012 1:58:57 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Safe to say the moonbase criticism is off the table?

Nick, I’m not denying Newt’s idiotic decisions. Yes, he’s made plenty of them. I’ve never said otherwise.


44 posted on 03/20/2012 2:32:40 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

I noticed that you didn’t say who your candidate is, but by process of elimination from your comments, it seems that it would be Ron Paul. Right?

There are no delusions or illusions of grandeur or anything else about Santorum. Ron Paul on the other hand....

Santorum has a solid rating from top conservative groups.
Pennsylvania is a blue state where the Democrats spent big money to defeat him. Arlen Specter, when he was a Republican, befriended the newly elected Senator Santorum. If you look at their voting records, you will see that their voting records are not alike.

He is not in the race to take out Gingrich.

You should read the whole story about communist relatives. Here’s a direct quote. “...83-year-old matriarch Maria Malacarne tells the Italian Magazine Oggi...”That said, Maria doesn’t understand how Santorum diverged so much from his grandfather Pietro and uncles who were “‘red communists’ to the core.”


45 posted on 03/20/2012 5:18:09 PM PDT by oneamericanvoice (Support freedom! Support the troops! Surrender is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson