Comments


  • Rommey just pulled 2 more chestnuts out of the fire to pick up old "mo". I really, really, really wish Santorum would get the nod and pick Palin for a running mate. Please support the John Bircher of your "choice" and help Rick recreate the 1950's. .

    March 1, 2012 at 4:20 p.m.

  • itisi—Freedom of choice?

    I found the freedoms of: religion, speech, the press, petition, assembly, to bear arms, no quartering, equal justice, to own private property, to live or travel anywhere in our nation, to marry and raise a family, to work at any job you qualify for, to receive a good and free education, and to join a political party or union or any other legal group.

    I could not find anything on the freedom of choice being guaranteed to any of us. But, please, point me in the right direction as I would like to take a look at that right.

    March 1, 2012 at 1:57 p.m.

  • Gary,

    Thank you for "trying". Have a good day.

    March 1, 2012 at 1:16 p.m.

  • EA, sorry I didn’t get back to your s/a remark… Only need to name one, the healthcare law, which was passed by a democratic controlled senate and house. And 76% of the American people disapproved of that bill at the time of passage… The President signed into law requiring all to purchase medical insurance, and or be subject to a fine therefore you have lost your freedom of choice… Nuff said!

    March 1, 2012 at 12:21 p.m.

  • Vet43

    Calling an individual a "bully" is name calling and is, in my opinion, a personal attack.

    I somehow feel you will be able to recover from this tremendous insult & the trauma that I caused you with this deep personal attack against our friend.

    Now you have stated your opinion, I firmly disagree. Would it be ok if someone for the next 3mos
    consistently badgered/harassed & reminded you how wrong , insane, confused, drunk etc you are for saying such stupid things? Even when you are trying to make comments about things that are completely disconnected with previous post? OF COURSE I OR ANYONE ELSE WOULD BE IN THE WRONG if we did that.

    As a rule I refuse to be drug into a pit bull , go for the throat type of conversations. If I cant strongly disagree with some one & still have a love in my heart from them, then its time for me to go back to the alter & pray through until I get that back in my heart.

    Of course I believe in correcting error or sin, but what is our motive in it? Is it just to show how righteous & smart I am? God forbid

    Ok Ok I have said enough, class dismissed. Just remember God loves you & I am trying to(lol)

    Thanks Gary W

    March 1, 2012 at 11:13 a.m.

  • I stand by my statement. Calling an individule a "bully" is name calling and is, in my opinion, a personal attack.

    March 1, 2012 at 10:18 a.m.

  • I don't recall saying, or acting like, anyone is a victim here, countrychic.

    And how did I "call out Gary"?

    March 1, 2012 at 9:17 a.m.

  • sugarmagnolia and vet: you have the nerve to call out Gary. Mr. Williams has at numerous times ranted and raved and insulted me and others when we did not agree with him. when the shoe is on the other foot he cannot take it. i have personally apologized to him and he was not man enough to accept it. quit acting like he's the victim!!

    March 1, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.

  • Writein

    Ok, I will go to your wall, you waskely wabbit.

    February 29, 2012 at 2:14 p.m.

  • Gary.

    Do you know what is your problem? You can't even tell the difference between disagreement and offend. Dale Zuck and BSSpotters are RON Paul supporters, they respect me as a MAN more than most conservatives on here. Again, I'll spell it out for you, They respect me as a MAN. Now I only aplogize to those who deserves and who will honor that apology. NOT ONCE THEY CALLED ME ANTI-christ or anyother name. If you want continue this then put it on my wall.

    Mr. Williams

    February 28, 2012 at 7:28 p.m.

  • Gary - I didn't say that he did or did not insult Bob. I merely said that he apologized to Bob. For what, only Writein knows. It is not the first time I have seen him do so. I was just making a statement. I believe it takes a big man to apologize sincerely when warranted. Take it for what you will.

    February 28, 2012 at 5:43 p.m.

  • Sugar
    He didnt insult Bob, Dear Bob I am sorry to for having to deal with this on your site, hopefully enough has been said.

    Good Day GW

    February 28, 2012 at 4:37 p.m.

  • Vet43 & neighbor

    Please show me where I have been guilty of the things that I accuse writein of? I will certainly also appologise, now I certainly may say some things you dont like, or dont agree with, but as for me personally calling people insane,drunk,druged,liar,ignorant,stupid,uneduacated etc etc I dont think you find to much of that. Even if you can find it , I think it would be safe to say that it is not part of my daily dialogue.

    I refuse to be intimated by bullies, I normally dont waste my time with responding like this but enough is enough. I have witnesses suporters of Mr Williams tell him the same thing, these are people who like you dont have a good disposition towards me & yet they have cared enough for him to caution him, to no avail.

    Again I say the Vicad website should be safe place for all to visit, I think that is good buisiness, I dont appreciate viscouse attacks on my self or others, even if the others are not necesarily folks that I agree with.

    Quick example; I have been involved with a poster (atheist) on the Vicad for some time, He has been very open with his disdaine for God/ religion etc, I dont believe I have even ounce insulted him personally, even though we disagree big time on most everything.

    I feel its a shame that Mr Williams be permited to turn every conversation into some kind of personal argument, a personal vindata with a chip the size of Texas on his shoulder. I am not intrested in it & I doubt alot of other people are either.
    Thanks for listening GW

    February 28, 2012 at 4:32 p.m.

  • Gary,
    Please take this in best possible way. Your posts are over the line and are with out doubt personal attacks. I have seen others that push the line but I believe you are about 3ft on the other side of civil. WWJD

    February 28, 2012 at 3 p.m.

  • Gary - Writein is a big enough man to have apologized sincerely to Bob.

    February 28, 2012 at 1:56 p.m.

  • Writein

    I dont just speak for myself, for my taste you are to aggressive, abrasive & at times bordering on the edge of verbal assaults. I find many things in your statements that are either untrue, un founded or mis directed, but I dont hate & attack you over them. Or continuously badger you for it.

    A number of times you have noted that nobody likes anybody on this site, THAT IS EXACTLY YOUR MIND SET. And so thats how you see the rest of the world, in the future speak for yourself when making those kind of comments. I wonder if sometimes you dont purposely put your shoes on the wrong feet in the morning or pour vinegar in your cereal. Enough said, just back it off a couple of clicks is all I am asking.

    Good luck GW

    February 28, 2012 at 1:40 p.m.

  • I've see that story before...I believe it was by RM.

    February 28, 2012 at 1:37 p.m.

  • "An old expression comes to mind. "Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it?" Just see Ron Paul's first election from this district

    When Ron Paul was running in the Republican primary in this district the Democrats were being encouraged to vote for DR Paul because they thought he would be easier to defeat in the general election in the fall. Dr Paul's opponent was Greg Laughlin The much despised by the Democrats as a "turn coat"

    A conservative Democrat, Laughlin ran for the United States House of Representatives in 1986, narrowly losing to freshman Republican Mac Sweeney, who had served as an aide in the Ronald W. Reagan White House. Laughlin sought a rematch in 1988, and this time he won. Laughlin survived a bitter re-election campaign during the next cycle despite old allegations involving favoritism to a firm.
    Laughlin was the only member of Congress to see active duty during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, as a Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves.
    In 1995, the Republican Party, which had gained a majority in the House for the first time in four decades, offered Laughlin a seat on the Ways and Means committee if he joined the GOP. Laughlin did so on June 26, 1995. He claimed that as a Democrat, he had to make some hard votes.
    In the subsequent congressional election in 1996, Laughlin was endorsed by the Republican establishment, including then-Governor George W. Bush, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and other members of the party from outside the district and the state. Despite this, Republicans in Laughlin's district still saw him as too moderate, and he faced a primary challenge from former Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988, and Jim Deats, Laughlin's Republican opponent from 1994 (when Laughlin was still a Democrat). In the three-way race, Laughlin won the initial primary election with 42 percent of the vote, but by failing to win a majority he was required to face the second-place Paul in a run-off election.Paul easily defeated him in this election. Did Democrat crossover votes help??

    Crossover voting dirty tricks no matter which party is encouraging it?

    February 28, 2012 at 12:08 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 28, 2012 at 10:58 a.m.

  • Today on election day Santorum has flooded Michigan with robocalls to democrats to vote for him to beat out Romney. I do take exception to this tactic. It is not in the spirit of having voters cast their ballots for what candidates stand for. It really casts a dark shadow on the sponsor of strategies that to me are underhanded, underminding the electoral process, and truly reflects desperation..

    February 28, 2012 at 10:26 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 28, 2012 at 10:23 a.m.

  • An old expression comes to mind. "Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it?

    February 28, 2012 at 9:59 a.m.

  • Wow. Dad and I had a heated....er, discussion Sunday night about Santorum, which bled over into other politics, which bled over into religion, which bled over into civil rights, gay marriage, world overpopulation, abortion, and women's rights which....

    Anyway, let's just say there wasn't really a meeting of the minds on some subjects.I actually found myself getting annoyed at him and possibly even a little pissed. That doesn't happen very often. I can't seem to make him see this guy for what he is an extremist and a zealot. Not that he's a big Santorum supporter, but he despises Obama and the Democrats so much, he is willing to do anything to get him/them out of the office. I think Sunday night was the first time I realized just how deep those conservative roots run with dad.

    I just wound up telling him to be careful what he wishes for.

    February 28, 2012 at 8:22 a.m.

  • Bob.

    Please accept my apology.

    February 28, 2012 at 3:12 a.m.

  • neighor.

    Thank you. I'll keep that in mind.

    February 28, 2012 at 3:09 a.m.

  • Wriein, just a few words of inspiration. Next time someone lunges at you on here. Quote Matthew,
    bible.cc/matthew/7-5.htm

    "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) ...
    This should halt the tin hat diatribe vide.

    February 27, 2012 at 10:13 p.m.

  • Sometimes I think we worry to much about what the candidate says on the campaign trail about religion. We have to remember that they are politicians and are trying to get elected. I don't think Rick Santorum wants a papacy ruling America anymore than JFK. Politicians are either pandering or trying to quell fears. It is very interesting from a political standpoint the opposite things they did and are doing to get elected. JFK was going to be the first Catholic president. That was a little taboo at the time. People are afraid of someone that is different from themselves having influence over their lives. I think it is human nature. JFK had to go on the defensive and convince people he was not going to ask people to kiss his ring. Santorum is pandering. I don't know if he doesn't have any other lightening rod issues to run on that anyone would pay attention to. Or he is just pandering on peoples fears. He is trying to make a lightening rod out of government influenced contraception, etc. Politicians are either kissing babies or stealing their lollipops. I think that is why it is such an unpopular career path.

    February 27, 2012 at 9:48 p.m.

  • I urge all of you posting comments to respect all points of view and please no personal attacks on others. I have appreciated the dialogue on my blog and appreciate the interest it has generated. Let's keep the dialogue civil and show some restraint.

    February 27, 2012 at 9:20 p.m.

  • Gary.

    You should look in the mirror about the word respect. You made at least two or three lies about me though your assurptions.
    Bullies pick on small and defenseless people. I go after people who offends me there's the difference. Gary you have cross many a line with me. So drop the VICTIM CARD because you are no victim. Do not make me go on comment history and expose you. Expose you on why you said I want to enslave Jews in Isreal or how you follow Edith Ann and wanting things destoryed.

    Respect is a two way street. Not a one way street, when I humble or surrendered myself to people who rather offends me. I will never apologize until you do.

    February 27, 2012 at 8:45 p.m.

  • Writein

    I assume you were a bully in school, some bullies grow out of it, I will keep my fingers crossed in your situation, but they are starting to turn blue, please hurry, the Internet should be a safe place for all to express there selves, right or wrong. It should not be a place for you to continue your insults, badgering,condescending etc mannerisms. You always feel the need to be the king of the hill, your always slapping others down & exerting your dominance, quite often in a personal way. I tell you that it is not necessary, we should not pull others down in order to lift ourselves up.

    I tell you these things because maybe your parents,teachers or pastor never has, or maybe they have & you just need a friendly reminder. You want respect? Earn it with character. You will never receive what you so desire by pursuing it in a militant way.

    Thanks for your consideration Gary W

    February 27, 2012 at 6:34 p.m.

  • It's all that Commie science stuff that is driving our youth into sin and degradation.

    Get rid of that Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and the Devils playground of History our kids will settle down and be just as sweet as Opie and the Beaver. .

    February 27, 2012 at 6:08 p.m.

  • From addictinginfo.com's article on Santorum's interview with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning:

    "Rick Santorum, who is also a Catholic, believes the opposite of Kennedy. He intends to let the Catholic Church and its religious doctrine dictate how America is governed.

    His duty is to the Pope and the Bishops and to no one else.

    Despite the fact that the American people are made up of different faiths and beliefs, Santorum only cares about forcing his religious beliefs upon us. In doing so, he would be the first and only President to do such a thing, tearing asunder the principles of religious freedom, freedom of conscience, and religious tolerance that have been cornerstones of the American governmental system since the nation’s founding."

    That ought to scare the bejesus out of anyone!

    February 27, 2012 at 4:02 p.m.

  • Public education,health care,Social Security,Medicare or public roads have one thing in common;everyone likes them but no one likes to pay for them...I 've been watching a two part PBS documentary on Bill Clinton which cements that theory...Bill Clinton was defeated after his first term as governor because he imposed an increase in taxes to pay for (at that time) the nation's worse roads and to stay above Mississippi in their race for the bottom in public education...Several voters were upset because their license plate tags went from ~$7 to $16, not equating bad roads to costly car repairs,accidents,and that delaying the inevitable made it more costly in the future....Texas will keep their property taxes low but what will that cost in the future?

    Rick Santorum will pander to the unions in Michigan but will take the opposite approach in right- to- work states.

    February 27, 2012 at 1:24 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 27, 2012 at 1:07 p.m.

  • Bloomington--

    The problem is his whole attitude of education. He is the one making the statements! He contradicts himself at every turn! For someone with THREE college degrees (undergrad, MBA and JD), to hear him speak with little or no regard for education is disturbing to me. I am already trying to wrap my head around a governor who believes that it is perfectly fine for Texas to sit at #48 or #49 in the nation regarding education. Do I really need a President who is discouraging folks from a college edcation?

    But on the other hand, as evidenced right here, every day, on this very forum, dumb sheep are easier to herd.

    February 27, 2012 at 12:55 p.m.

  • Someone faulted Rick(Adults should lose the nickname Rick personal opinion) for the following cheap shot

    " Rick Santorum has said various things at various times, He claims to be pro public education but he home schools his children"

    There is probably no one a stronger supporter of public schools than I am even though I know most are bad . But they are all most of us can afford. I have no doubts that my wife and I could have given our children a superior education at private schools. but we were too busy trying to make a living to help pay for public schools etc. If we could have afforded private schools or thought that we could home school them we would have In a New York minute. BUT I would not have complained about paying school taxes even though we were not using them

    How many big time politicians do send their children to public schools?

    February 27, 2012 at 12:33 p.m.

  • Thanks Mike, I agree completely with your most recent post.

    February 27, 2012 at 11:54 a.m.

  • Enough already: the first amendment contains two distinctive clauses about religion.

    The establishment clause prohibits the GOVERNMENT from establishing an official religion or preferring one religion over another..This is where the courts have interpreted this clause to make their case for the separation of church and state.

    The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the GOVERNMENT from interfering with a PERSON'S practice of their religion....Religious actions and rituals can be limited by civil and federal laws...I can produce case law where the courts made their rulings but that would make this post too long.

    Rick Santorum wears his religion on his sleeve at all times and thinks religion should be front and center in the public square at all times;that's the reason JFK's speech made him want to throw up. In a practical scenario such as an embryonic stem cell research,I believe Rick Santorum would be guided by the church's view.

    There's nothing wrong with Rick Santorum going to catholic churches and soliciting their vote because politicians are known preparing for pandering on both sides.

    Rick Santorum is being judged by the many statements he has made and when he is corned he blames the media...I think David Gregory took him to school yesterday when he said"MR. GREGORY: Sir, in this campaign you talk about it. And I've gone back years when you've been in public life and you have made this a centerpiece of your public life. So the notion that these are not deeply held views worthy of question and scrutiny, it's not just about the press."

    February 27, 2012 at 10:56 a.m.

  • Speaking of seperation of church and state. In a video promoting the ‘African Americans for Obama’ campaign, Obama urges black people to pressure churches into supporting his administration by getting his message out via “the faith community”. He also calls on voters to become “congregation captains”.

    February 27, 2012 at 10:16 a.m.

  • JasonB,

    So, your saying that Rick Santorum and others (read ultra religious conservatives) DO support the separation of church and state? None of these GOP leaders would every suggest that laws be written that would regulate a given moral position is anti-nonchristian?

    February 27, 2012 at 9:22 a.m.

  • EditAnn
    I don't think it was irrational, I happen to agree with his point on this.
    I didn't try to make up anything about Obama. (the yall reference)

    vet43
    I was trying to respond to the absolute impossibility of this statement made by you,
    "The instant any governmental entity is guided by any religious doctrine the very concept of "religious" freedom vaporizes",

    February 27, 2012 at 5:12 a.m.

  • Neighbor.

    Thank you for giving me your opinion without the all of the tin foil hat wearing vibe and religious foolishness. I too see your point and agree with it. I am probably the only Democrat on this board who disagree with “Obama-care”. I disagree with it from the constitutionally of it, the politics behind it, how long the bill was, and more importantly its effects on the National Debt. I wrote a blog nearly two years ago about the Health Care law check it out if you want (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/weblo... ).

    Our debt is too high and this country is too divided to have such system. I agree with you about the single payer system it would save the drama and fear mongering, although I am against it as well.

    Mr. J. Williams

    February 27, 2012 at 2:27 a.m.

  • Gary.

    Here we go again. It seems every time Religion is bought up, you come on and muddy up the waters. Rick Santorum is a lair pure and simple. Why is Santorum a lair? It is because he took then Senator John F Kennedy’s Houston speech out of context. John F Kennedy stated that he would not allow the pope in Rome or a church bishop controlling his policies. If I were President I don’t want the National Baptist Association controlling my own policies for the country.
    Even you have lied yourself. You preach church this and constitution that, but it seems you never read the CONSTITUTION!!!!!

    ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUl6T2... ) & ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xaAfS... )

    You have been calling folks gullible. You know what is VERY GULLIBLE and More danger when people wanted theocracy like yourself. With Newt Grinchrich or Santorum in office will get what you and others wanted a third World War based on religion so that y’all doomsday seeker can rush Armageddon.

    Mr. J. Williams

    February 27, 2012 at 2:09 a.m.

  • I know they are two different things, but one helped create the need for the other.

    February 27, 2012 at 1:50 a.m.

  • You made a good point. I think they are two seperate things though. The government created a benefit for the public (county hospital). The government levies a property tax to pay for it. If you own land, you pay for the county hospital. Perfectly within the confines of our government to levy a tax for that. I just do not think that the bill the way it is written now will pass the commerce clause.

    February 27, 2012 at 1 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 27, 2012 at 12:50 a.m.

  • Here's how I see it. When it became law for hospitals to treat everyone who came through the door, no matter what the issue was, it opened up a huge can of worms. The mandate is an attempt to do something about that and to put personal responsibility back onto the backs of the people, where it belongs.
    Granted, if the first thing had not happened, the second thing wouldn't be such an issue now.
    It's the people who misuse and abuse the system who are causing most of the problems.
    Single payer would have been so much better, although I do see problems with that too.
    County clinics worked great for those non-emergencies, but those have all but gone away.

    February 27, 2012 at 12:11 a.m.

  • Writein, I want to take a stab at answering your question. Has President Obama taken away any of your individual rights. I don't think President Obama is alone in this. Government in itself gradually erodes individual freedoms. George Bush passed the patriot act, at the time the a very radical encroachment according to most people on the left. But I will agree with the left on this one. The government has powers it never had before the patriot act. President Obama has been successful in passing Universal Healthcare. Without discussing the merits of health care. A government takeover of 1/7 of the U. S. economy. I think that there are many doctors, hospitals, clinics, medical insurance companies, and most of the U.S. public will think that the mandate is an encroachment on individual rights. I don't see a government interest in forcing individuals to buy a health insurance policy. People on the left, don't yell at me, I am just trying to stimulate the board. I think if the government had gone for the whole banana and had single payer and called it a tax, it would not run into any difficulties. As it is now, it will be up to the Supreme Court to interpret our constitution. I know the judges have biases like all people, but I think if they apply the constitution, it will be poured out. I forgot what are we talking about, the plantiffs will argue that this is a massive intrusion on individual rights.

    February 26, 2012 at 11:18 p.m.

  • The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

    Thank GOD for that.. ;-)

    February 26, 2012 at 11:14 p.m.

  • Vet43

    Some con men sell Bibles. The fact that most of those Bibles were not read & adhered to yesterday, is the very reason you are facing the problems of church & state uniting today.

    February 26, 2012 at 11:09 p.m.

  • Jasonbourne,

    You are being completely ridiculous! You are trying to defend an irrational statement by a man who has been making many irrational statements over the past few weeks. And I really doubt we will ever have a cannibal run for President.

    Y'all provided so much grief where President Obama's religion was concerned and you perpetuated misinformation about his religion. Why is Santorum's religion not an issue here? Explain what the difference is.

    February 26, 2012 at 10:41 p.m.

  • Gary:

    Some con men sell Bibles.

    JasonB:

    What?

    February 26, 2012 at 10:40 p.m.

  • So with that vet43, if a President thinks to himself, "killing another person is bad". Then someone asks him, Mr. President, exactly what are you basing that thought on"?
    If he answers "well, it's in the ten commandments".

    What then? Time to panic? Not really.

    The 1st Amendment is clear. It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

    It means that government shall not tell us what we should do when it comes to religion or try to tell us one religion is better than another. It does not say a government official can or cannot worship a God or receive guidance from some religious belief or doctrine.

    Now if we ever elect a President that thinks cannibalism is a great idea because he follows the religious beliefs of some tribe that thinks it is, then we may have to take another look at this.

    February 26, 2012 at 10:28 p.m.

  • Vet43

    I guess my concern is what church should be intermingled with our constitutional laws? He was repulsed because JFK told the Baptist Convention that he would not let his Catholic religion dictate his decisions.

    At least Rick is honest, JFK, well I hate to call anyone a liar, there is a reason that JFK was Bill Clinton's hero & had his desk as his desk in the oval office. I recommend watching the DVD The Kennedy's & the Mafia, its a excellent documentary & should be able to be found at most public libraries.

    Vet43 I appreciate that you are like many, you hear a mans words & you are naturally prone to believe them. The reason you are that way is because you are honest & not prone to lying yourself & so naturally you look at others through those rose colored glasses & want to give a person the benefit of the doubt.

    Liars & thieves etc experience a great deal of success because they are counting on the gullibility & trust of descent common folks like many on this site.

    My final thoughts; You will never meet a con man that you dont like.

    God bless GW

    February 26, 2012 at 9:53 p.m.

  • The instant any governmental entity is guided by any religious doctrine the very concept of "religious" freedom vaporizes. Did not work in Salem, Belfast, Berlin or any body of law givers that must insure the rights of all.

    The 1st Amendment is very clear that each belief is to be protected equally..

    February 26, 2012 at 8:57 p.m.

  • Bloomington.

    I see that no one, no local Conservative is answering your question. Again what rights have Barack Obama took from them. I have been asking that question on this site for years and I never have a straight up and honest answer. It was leads to Jeremiah Wright, Abortion, a birth certificate, or that he is a Muslim. I voted for President Obama and I still have my guns, my 12 gauge, my pistol, etc.
    I know what the game is.

    Mr. J Williams

    February 26, 2012 at 8:23 p.m.

  • Santorum makes Rick Perry look like Teddy Kennedy.

    February 26, 2012 at 7:53 p.m.

  • I guess my concern is what church should be intermingled with our constitutional laws? He was repulsed because JFK told the Baptist Convention that he would not let his Catholic religion dictate his decisions. That is what Mr. Santorum seemed to be upset with.

    February 26, 2012 at 7:32 p.m.

  • It sounds as if he is saying mans prior or lifetime religious influence can be used in his decision making in government, which is what we expect, eh.

    It doesn't sound like he is saying government decisions should be made in order to influence religion.

    If I am interpretting this correctly, whats wrong with that?

    February 26, 2012 at 7:23 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 26, 2012 at 7:10 p.m.

  • This is from the body of the text--

    "I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country,” said Santorum. “This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion...."

    February 26, 2012 at 6:13 p.m.

  • Yes, it does! Watch the video.

    February 26, 2012 at 5:58 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 26, 2012 at 5:31 p.m.

  • http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/...

    Second item in a Google search.

    February 26, 2012 at 5:16 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 26, 2012 at 5:06 p.m.

  • Rick Santorum has said various things at various times, and we are now learning that he is a serial liar. In 2008 he pledged to see to that every student in his state that wanted to go to college could go. In 2012, he states that when students go to college, they are indoctrinated against their religion. He claims to be pro public education, but homeschools his children. Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up. Maybe he's not a serial liar. It may be that he is just derranged!

    February 26, 2012 at 4:44 p.m.

  • Mr. Santorum has just said on ABC News that he does not agree with the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. I had to read it at lease 3 times from other sources to make sure it is true. It is true. Comments?

    February 26, 2012 at 2:06 p.m.

  • Name one 'right' specifically that you have lost since Obama became president. I can't think of a one, personally.

    The right to choose what type light bulb to use??

    February 26, 2012 at 1:14 p.m.

  • I have to admit there is much to be said for the man's effect on the GOP base. If all the folks in aluminum hats follow him as a 3rd party candidate Mitt will have to sell one of his wife's Cadillac (at least one of them) to support his soul saving quest.

    vet 43 posted the above. I am sure Mitt appreciates vet's concern but also since Mitt's worth is estimated to be above 200 million I don't think the size of his Caddy fleet( coffee money) is any big concern. He is right up there with Heintz 77 Kerry

    February 26, 2012 at 1:11 p.m.

  • vet43

    Poor Mitt,he had this big speech all planned at Detroit's Ford Field where he talked about his wife's caddy but hardly anyone showed up making that huge 70,000 seat stadium look empty..Only a 1,000 showed up but many of those were school children who were bused in...:-)

    February 24, 2012 at 4:56 p.m.

  • Yes, itisi--there are 535 members of congress and only President Obama is making decisions. I get it. I had no idea how that worked. Apparently you don't either.

    Name one 'right' specifically that you have lost since Obama became president. I can't think of a one, personally.

    February 24, 2012 at 4:51 p.m.

  • itisi.

    "Heck you’ll anything is better than this progressive liberal socialist Euro land president we have now".

    You might rue the day you said this because there "are" a lot worse than President Obama.

    February 24, 2012 at 4:29 p.m.

  • Just a thought. What is more frightening, Rick Santorum's twisted sense of right and wrong or the masses of avid supporters sending him money?

    I have to admit there is much to be said for the man's effect on the GOP base. If all the folks in aluminum hats follow him as a 3rd party candidate Mitt will have to sell one of his wife's Cadillac (at least one of them) to support his soul saving quest.

    February 24, 2012 at 4:15 p.m.

  • Heck you’ll anything is better than this progressive liberal socialist Euro land president we have now. How much more of your freedoms are you willing to give up to this man’s socialist ideology? Dang just how much government do you want in your home? From light bulbs to the cars you drive, this man seems to think he can make that decision for you. Heck, start thinking for yourself for a change, heck you don’t need the government. If you need the government to survive you have a lot more problems than the government can fix.

    February 24, 2012 at 4:09 p.m.

  • I was listening to a clip of Rick Santorum being interviewed by Glen Beck (that right there ought to bring into question whether he has enough sense to run this country, but I digress) and they are discussing kids going to college.

    Santorum said 62% of kids attached to religion become separated from that religion when they leave college. He said he now understands why President Obama is so gung-ho on a college education--it is so kids can be indoctrinated away from their religion!

    We just thought Michelle Bachmann defined bats**t crazy! Rick Santorum has redefined it!

    February 24, 2012 at 2:45 p.m.

  • Santorum is another big government "Conservative". Having suffered through eight years of that with W, all I can say is God help us all.

    February 24, 2012 at 11:43 a.m.

  • Bob
    Rick Santorum was instrumental in the 2005 Terri Schiavo case being turned in a national spectacle like having President George W. Bush fly in from Texas in the middle of the night to sign a Federal bill to intervene in a already decided state decision...he even wanted to hold a Florida judge in contempt of Congress...

    I want Rick Santorum to win the GOP nomination for my own selfish reasons because it will be a total wipe out;congressional seats,governorships etc...Women will come out in droves when told that the best shot Roe v Wade has of being overturned is Rick Santorum because the next president will likely pick a replacement for Justice Ginsberg.

    February 24, 2012 at 10:13 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    February 24, 2012 at 8:58 a.m.