Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Rick Santorum is easily the most likable candidate remaining in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination. Of all the Not Romneys to emerge this year, he’s the first that’s the antithesis of Romney: comfortable in his own skin, intellectually consistent, and in touch with ordinary Americans–everything Romney is not.

He’s a man of deep religious faith who seems to truly live by his beliefs.* Indeed, it is this which makes him so grounded and consistent. In this case, however, extremism is a vice that makes him unfit to govern a free nation. His extreme homophobia and bizarre views on women are enough to make him someone that I can’t support but I recognize that a huge swath of America–and especially the Republican nominating electorate–have similar views. But there’s actually much more beneath the surface.

Right Wing Watch‘s Kyle Mantyla points to an August 2008 speech that Santorum gave at Ave Maria University. The video is there for you to view in context but a few quotes stand out:

[Satan] attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions. The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first successful was in academia. He understood pride of smart people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were, in fact, smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different. Pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it because they’re smart. And so academia, a long time ago, fell.
And you say “what could be the impact of academia falling?” Well, I would have the argument that the other structures that I’m going to talk about here had root of their destruction because of academia. Because what academia does is educate the elites in our society, educates the leaders in our society, particularly at the college level. And they were the first to fall.

And so what we saw this domino effect, once the colleges fell and those who were being education in our institutions, the next was the church. Now you’d say, ‘wait, the Catholic Church’? No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it. So they attacked mainline Protestantism, they attacked the Church, and what better way to go after smart people who also believe they’re pious to use both vanity and pride to also go after the Church.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rick-s ... r-america/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's such a fokking idiot....is this what Republicans have to offer their constituents this year? Santorum, Gingrich or Robotney? Un-fokking-believable.....

Santorum could be the new Hitler........if we gave him a chance.

Just think of all the fvcks on this board who are going to vote for that guy, Jeff. Make you sick??

Cap'n Cat wrote:Just think of all the fvcks on this board who are going to vote for that guy, Jeff. Make you sick??

Yeah it does......makes me want to vomit in the mouth of Alphagizz.......

Cap'n Cat wrote:Just think of all the fvcks on this board who are going to vote for that guy, Jeff. Make you sick??

Most of em (Z, Appaholic, Mountedbyacatman...) will lie and say they didn't vote for him, when they actually did, cuz a black man is in da mahfuckin howse.

As much as I like Santorum on a personal level, I think this article hits the nail right on the head.

Either be a preacher or be a politician, but being a politician in a diverse, free nation means you have to check your religion at the door. I'm not saying that your moral beliefs should not inform your political outlook -- of course it should -- but I am saying that you cannot enforce your religious beliefs as the source of law.

JoltinJoe wrote:As much as I like Santorum on a personal level, I think this article hits the nail right on the head.

Either be a preacher or be a politician, but being a politician in a diverse, free nation means you have to check your religion at the door. I'm not saying that your moral beliefs should not inform your political outlook -- of course it should -- but I am saying that you cannot enforce your religious beliefs as the source of law.

WOW! Thanks JJ....(who is this guy?)

JoltinJoe wrote:As much as I like Santorum on a personal level, I think this article hits the nail right on the head.

Either be a preacher or be a politician, but being a politician in a diverse, free nation means you have to check your religion at the door. I'm not saying that your moral beliefs should not inform your political outlook -- of course it should -- but I am saying that you cannot enforce your religious beliefs as the source of law.

No.

He's a collosal douchebag whether he's a preacher or a politician. Might be worse as a preacher.

but I am saying that you cannot enforce your religious beliefs as the source of law.

And why not? Bear in mind that I am an agnostic, but I always marvel at the way in which people say that it's not OK to use religious belief as something like "the source of law" but apparently think other kinds of beliefs are OK.

Every law is based on some belief. Is there something about secular humanist belief that makes it OK for somebody to base what they do on that?

Heck, our Declaration of Independence premises our rights on the existence of a Creator that bestows them upon us. And it's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, that sets forth the broad principles behind the existence of this country.

JohnStOnge wrote:

but I am saying that you cannot enforce your religious beliefs as the source of law.

And why not? Bear in mind that I am an agnostic, but I always marvel at the way in which people say that it's not OK to use religious belief as something like "the source of law" but apparently think other kinds of beliefs are OK.

Every law is based on some belief. Is there something about secular humanist belief that makes it OK for somebody to base what they do on that?

Heck, our Declaration of Independence premises our rights on the existence of a Creator that bestows them upon us. And it's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, that sets forth the broad principles behind the existence of this country.

It's 2012, St. Wronge, not 1776. Get with it.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Just think of all the fvcks on this board who are going to vote for that guy, Jeff. Make you sick??

Not THIS GUY.

D1B wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Just think of all the fvcks on this board who are going to vote for that guy, Jeff. Make you sick??

Most of em (Z, Appaholic, Mountedbyacatman...) will lie and say they didn't vote for him, when they actually did, cuz a black man is in da mahfuckin howse.

Damn! He's onto us!

JohnStOnge wrote:

but I am saying that you cannot enforce your religious beliefs as the source of law.

Heck, our Declaration of Independence premises our rights on the existence of a Creator that bestows them upon us. And it's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, that sets forth the broad principles behind the existence of this country.

such lofty ideals that the Southern People actually believed in like.......

"whenever government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to ALTER or ABOLISH it and to institute new government laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as TO THEM shall seem most likely to effect THEIR safety and happiness".

Appaholic wrote:He's such a fokking idiot....is this what Republicans have to offer their constituents this year? Santorum, Gingrich or Robotney? Un-fokking-believable.....

Don't I know it.

No wonder there's a Tea Party, if the Republican Party cannot do any better than this. Looks like I will be voting 3rd party again this year.

There are so many good candidates out there, but I wonder what it says about their sense of duty when they don't run. I understand the reticence of people like Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush or the rest, but at some point somebody needs to step to the plate and take one for the team.

I like Rubio, but I don't think he is nearly experienced enough for the job yet (which was one of my complaints about Obama, which has turned out to have been a legitimate concern).

citdog wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:


Heck, our Declaration of Independence premises our rights on the existence of a Creator that bestows them upon us. And it's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, that sets forth the broad principles behind the existence of this country.

such lofty ideals that the Southern People actually believed in like.......

"whenever government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to ALTER or ABOLISH it and to institute new government laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as TO THEM shall seem most likely to effect THEIR safety and happiness".

Ya'll had principle....then went blew your wad on not wanting to plow your OWN field...now anyone who actually has a LEGIT reason to pursue these ends is automatically lumped in with Col Hampton's Light Brigade & the rest of the SC "elite".....thanks Palmetto State...

JoltinJoe wrote:As much as I like Santorum on a personal level, I think this article hits the nail right on the head.

Either be a preacher or be a politician, but being a politician in a diverse, free nation means you have to check your religion at the door. I'm not saying that your moral beliefs should not inform your political outlook -- of course it should -- but I am saying that you cannot enforce your religious beliefs as the source of law.

In other words...hide your religion and actual intents as best you can while you find subtle ways to enforce your beliefs as much as possible.

Charter schools are the actual Satan in our schools.

There's a reason why Santorum, as an incumbent Senator, lost by the widest margin ever (59% to 41%) as an incumbent Senator - the guy is an absolute whacko. He's fine and actually pretty good economically, but he's an absolute whacko everywhere else. Heck, Bob Casey Jr, the guy who beat him, is probably one of the dumbest guys walking the planet - seriously, he's flat out stupid, it's possible that citdog is even smarter than he is - and people flocked to vote for him. The more you get to know Santorum, the more likely you are to be repelled and disgusted by him.

Cluck U wrote: Charter schools are the actual Satan in our schools.

I always separate inner city Charter schools from Charter schools in other, better areas. I've got no problem with Charter Schools in places where using the public schools as they stand today would be condemning the kid to not getting an education. No sense making a kid face that while we spend years dithering over why those inner city school districts have failed so mightily.

GannonFan wrote:There's a reason why Santorum, as an incumbent Senator, lost by the widest margin ever (59% to 41%) as an incumbent Senator - the guy is an absolute whacko. He's fine and actually pretty good economically, but he's an absolute whacko everywhere else. Heck, Bob Casey Jr, the guy who beat him, is probably one of the dumbest guys walking the planet - seriously, he's flat out stupid, it's possible that citdog is even smarter than he is - and people flocked to vote for him. The more you get to know Santorum, the more likely you are to be repelled and disgusted by him.

Oh boy.


In regard to Santorum, HOW IN THE FUCK does he even think he could win the presidency?? He couldn't even have won it in Klan times. He's so whacked, Bull Connor woulda shot him!

WHY HASN'T OBAMA PUBLICLY DENOUNCED SATAN?!? IS HE A CLOSET SATANIST?!?

GannonFan wrote:There's a reason why Santorum, as an incumbent Senator, lost by the widest margin ever (59% to 41%) as an incumbent Senator - the guy is an absolute whacko. He's fine and actually pretty good economically, but he's an absolute whacko everywhere else. Heck, Bob Casey Jr, the guy who beat him, is probably one of the dumbest guys walking the planet - seriously, he's flat out stupid, it's possible that citdog is even smarter than he is - and people flocked to vote for him. The more you get to know Santorum, the more likely you are to be repelled and disgusted by him.

my iq is 155...........what's yours gannonnutsacksniffer?

Skjellyfetti wrote:WHY HASN'T OBAMA PUBLICLY DENOUNCED SATAN?!? IS HE A CLOSET SATANIST?!?

no he's a nigra

JohnStOnge wrote:

but I am saying that you cannot enforce your religious beliefs as the source of law.

And why not? Bear in mind that I am an agnostic, but I always marvel at the way in which people say that it's not OK to use religious belief as something like "the source of law" but apparently think other kinds of beliefs are OK.

Every law is based on some belief. Is there something about secular humanist belief that makes it OK for somebody to base what they do on that?

Heck, our Declaration of Independence premises our rights on the existence of a Creator that bestows them upon us. And it's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, that sets forth the broad principles behind the existence of this country.

Ah yes, but Secular humanist beliefs are based in proven reality. We make laws based on what we are in solidarity on and what science tells us to do. Religious belief can't say that. For instance, we made it illegal to kill or rape people, because no one wants to be killed or raped. We're in solidarity on that. Those who disagree with that, whom want to suggest that killing is something we should do or wants to be killed is dismissed as a sociopath or a psychopath, and rightfully so. We don't take the political or moral positions of a sociopath or psychopath, just as we don't take a creationist perspective on biology seriously or someone who doesn't think 2+2=4 on mathematical studies. The rule of law is based on concepts and values almost universally accepted by the governed with the objective of having law that shapes a more prosperous society. The injection of religious law or the use of it as a source of law leaves much to be desired. After all, science and reality is the only thing that binds all of us together, religion, by definition not being science, does not have the power of ethos in that respect.

And the Declaration of Independence is a Deist document if anything, which is a lot different and in some ways the weakest God in comparison to other religions.

Could it be.....SATAN?