Santorum Satan (not Miroslav) remarks

[Magox]

The American public is akin to an 11 year old with A.D.D

 

 

"Johnny! Johnny!! focus! stop looking at the fish bowl, I know the little fishy looks kinda funny, but you gotta study."

[3rdnlng]

Figure? Like a women's figure?

 

Sure. Exactly what I had expected from you, some inane schit. Do you have someone with you that knows how to invade my computer? I swear a picture of a "Newman" look-a-like came on my screen and in the background I could hear a woman yelling at you that it was 10:00pm. She said you needed your rest so that you could pass your PE test at school tomorrow and get out of middle school.

[DC Tom]

Let me put it this way...would you be comfortable voting for somebody convinced that Voldemort is plotting against America?

 

After all, it's just his personal convictions, right?

 

Like we've never had stupid-crazy in the White House before.

 

 

My bigger worry is that he reminds me of

[John Adams]

The American public is akin to an 11 year old with A.D.D

 

 

"Johnny! Johnny!! focus! stop looking at the fish bowl, I know the little fishy looks kinda funny, but you gotta study."

 

To pull one of your lines, "I expect more from you."

 

There is more to an election than plans and promises. See Barack Obama. Santorum's character, moral basis, and history as a Senator all matter. When I hear some guy railing about fighting the Evil Prince, it sounds pretty flipping unbalanced and calls into question whether I want such a guy to be president, given his penchant for expansion of government control.

 

There's a guy who walks around Philadelphia with a bullhorn and he's covered with cardboard signs...maybe some of the things on the signs make sense. But largely, he's nuts. I won't vote for him. Or Santorum.

Edited February 24, 2012 by John Adams

[Magox]

To pull one of your lines, "I expect more from you."

 

There is more to an election than plans and promises. See Barack Obama. Santorum's character, moral basis, and history as a Senator all matter. When I hear some guy railing about fighting the Evil Prince, it sounds pretty flipping unbalanced and given his record, calls into question whether I want such a guy to be president, given his penchant for expansion of government control.

 

There's a guy who walks around Philadelphia with a bullhorn and he's covered with cardboard signs...maybe some of the things on the signs make sense. But largely, he's nuts. I won't vote for him. Or Santorum.

I've already defended Santorum much more than I am comfortable with, he is not my sort of candidate at all, but no way on god's green earth would I ever vote for Obama over Santorum and that's the end of this topic for me.

[Dante]

What I think most people believe (maybe I give most people too much credit, as you argue) in this case serves as no justification for my opinion that people who believe in a supernatural being that runs around plotting evil are not thinking rationally. It doesn't meant that they can't do good things in the world or be nice people, but something in them is not working rationally and electing someone who believes in that sort of thing and speaks publicly about how he's leading a mission against the "Evil Prince," well, it scares me. You're fine with it. We're just different on this point.

So none of the founding fathers were rational? They were all very religious. Just sayin

[IDBillzFan]

There's a guy who walks around Philadelphia with a bullhorn and he's covered with cardboard signs...maybe some of the things on the signs make sense. But largely, he's nuts. I won't vote for him. Or Santorum.

After three years of watching Obama try to tread water in an Olympic pool, make no mistake, I'll take my chances with Bullhorn Guy before I'll vote to give the current leaderless dolt another four years.

[yall]

So none of the founding fathers were rational? They were all very religious. Just sayin

 

I'd challenge that statement. They certainly were not all very religious (although both statements are highly subjective. After all, what does that mean?). Furthermore, someone can also be "very religious" without thinking Satan is nipping at their heels.

[Booster4324]

I'd challenge that statement. They certainly were not all very religious (although both statements are highly subjective. After all, what does that mean?). Furthermore, someone can also be "very religious" without thinking Satan is nipping at their heels.

 

Actually, all the Founding Fathers worshiped Satan.

 

Link

 

"Today, there are more than twenty complete zodiacs in Washington, D.C., each one pointing to an extraordinary mystery. David Ovason, who has studied these astrological devices for ten years, now reveals why they have been placed in such abundance in the center of our nation's capitol and explains their interconnections. His richly illustrated text tells the story of how Washington, from its foundation in 1791, was linked with the Zodiac, with the meaning of certain stars, and with a hidden cosmological symbolism that he uncovers here for the first time." [Jacket flyleaf]

 

Immediately, we are told that the capitol city of the United States of America was founded according to the Biblically forbidden practice of Astrology from the beginning of its serious construction. Further, as we get into this material, you will discover that Washington, D.C. and its key government buildings, were specifically oriented and dedicated to the Dog Star Sirius, which we will later study, is the occult designation of Satan .

 

This book absolutely proves the Satanic nature of Freemasonry in its Invisible Fraternity, the vehement protestations to the contrary from Masons today. Surely, you say, this book was written by an Anti-Mason. Wrong! The author, David Ovason, is a noted Astrologer, and his work is highly acclaimed by none other than C. Fred Kleinknecht, 33 Degree, Sovereign Grand Commander, The Supreme Council, 33 Degree (Mother Council of the World), Southern Jurisdiction, U.S.A., Washington, D.C. [Page viii].

[Dante]

I'd challenge that statement. They certainly were not all very religious (although both statements are highly subjective. After all, what does that mean?). Furthermore, someone can also be "very religious" without thinking Satan is nipping at their heels.

Not sure what to say. Just from a few books I read. History class and so on.

 

Here's a link breaking down all their religious affiliations.

 

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

[Adam]

Whether or not someone believes in Satan is irrelevant. It tells whether you think a bad activity was motivated intrinsically or extrinsically. After said act has been committed, does it really matter why?

 

That said, Roger Santorum's rant was disturbing.

[yall]

Not sure what to say. Just from a few books I read. History class and so on.

 

Here's a link breaking down all their religious affiliations.

 

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

 

I identify as Catholic, but haven't been to mass in years. I'm not very religious. Most people on the planet self identify with some religion, but it doesn't make them very religious. Its like my Hebrew pal that eats sausage burgers with cheese. We call him "Jew-ish".

[John Adams]

1330112697[/url]' post='2388596']

So none of the founding fathers were rational? They were all very religious. Just sayin

 

Read some history. Just sayin.

[DC Tom]

So none of the founding fathers were rational? They were all very religious. Just sayin

 

It's questionable they were religious.

 

It's also questionable they were rational. "Hey, let's declare ourselves a country and take on the British Empire!" "Yeah, great idea! In fact, I'm gong to write my signature in large bold letters on this parchment here, just as a great big 'Up your royal ass!' to King George...!" is not exactly rational behavior.

 

Which is not a criticism...you have to be a certain level of nuts to take on an empire. Gandhi almost starved himself to death a couple of times, THAT'S certainly not rational behavior.

Edited February 25, 2012 by DC Tom

[Nanker]

And let's not bring up Polk's divine vision of manifest destiny. That one lit up the west and wound up having us take half of Mexico for ourselves.

[yall]

It's questionable they were religious.

 

It's also questionable they were rational. "Hey, let's declare ourselves a country and take on the British Empire!" "Yeah, great idea! In fact, I'm gong to write my signature in large bold letters on this parchment here, just as a great big 'Up your royal ass!' to King George...!" is not exactly rational behavior.

 

Which is not a criticism...you have to be a certain level of nuts to take on an empire. Gandhi almost starved himself to death a couple of times, THAT'S certainly not rational behavior.

 

I dunno. Have you ever eaten Indian food?

[Dante]

It's questionable they were religious.

 

It's also questionable they were rational. "Hey, let's declare ourselves a country and take on the British Empire!" "Yeah, great idea! In fact, I'm gong to write my signature in large bold letters on this parchment here, just as a great big 'Up your royal ass!' to King George...!" is not exactly rational behavior.

 

Which is not a criticism...you have to be a certain level of nuts to take on an empire. Gandhi almost starved himself to death a couple of times, THAT'S certainly not rational behavior.

In the face of overwhelming odds I guess it could be considered irrational. But wouldn't it also be considered irrational to roll over and take up the bung hole constantly? I mean apparently 5% of us would enjoy it but I hardly think the founders played on that team.

[Fingon]

Not sure what to say. Just from a few books I read. History class and so on.

 

Here's a link breaking down all their religious affiliations.

 

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Many of the founding fathers had religious "affiliations" but were deists. Paine, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, and Madison all were deists or subscribed to deist philosophies.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Fingon

[Chef Jim]

Many of the founding fathers had religious "affiliations" but were deists. Paine, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, and Madison all were deists or subscribed to deist philosophies.

 

The were boozers

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

In the face of overwhelming odds I guess it could be considered irrational. But wouldn't it also be considered irrational to roll over and take up the bung hole constantly? I mean apparently 5% of us would enjoy it but I hardly think the founders played on that team.

 

American colonists, especially affluent socialites like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc. were not being oppressed. Given the myriad travesties born of colonialism, taxing stamps and tea without asking aren't particularly noteworthy.

 

My point, of course, isn't that the results of the revolution were negative. I quite enjoy not bowing to a king. But causing political tumult certainly wasn't in the best interest of the Fathers. Had the revolution failed, history would probably remember them as propagandists on the wrong end of a firing squad.