The Santorum "Sickened" by JFK's Assurances on Church and State (913091) | |
Home > OTChat |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 1 of 4 |
(913113) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 13:26:37 2012, in response to The Santorum "Sickened" by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 26 12:49:55 2012. No source stated, so I assumed it was the usual propaganda, and when I googled it, it's all leftist propaganda sites that come up, no wonder you didn't state a source. Unlike people on the left, I don't need to be spoonfed info by blogs. |
|
(913120) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 13:35:12 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 13:26:37 2012. What do you want from the commies? It's actually an AP article, who have leaned left themselves for ages.The notion of the separation of church and state is still not in the Constitution anyhow; it appears in the USSR's constitution.
|
|
(913122) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 26 13:42:17 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 13:26:37 2012. There's a difference here. This isn't a liberal claiming that there's a constitutional separation of church and state (there isn't). This is a conservative saying he does not believe in the separation of church and state. This is an argument over interpretation and of principle, not of fact. Anything that is not strictly excluded or included in the Establishment or Exclusion Clause(s) of the 1st Amendment is simply personal opinion and belief.Santorum's religious beliefs are fine, but he needs to stop stepping into MSM traps and talking about it every time he's prompted. Neither one of the 2 major candidates seem to understand that everyone (except FOX, which is in the tank for Romney) in the MSM is out to destroy them. He needs to change the subject every time one of these loaded questions is put to him. Like that economy thing. |
|
(913124) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 26 13:51:12 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 13:26:37 2012. up, no wonder you didn't state a source. Unlike people on the left, I don't need to be spoonfed info by blogs.No source? How about his own mouth. This guy said he is "sickened" and "wanted to throw up" because Kennedy promised not to impose Catholicism on the Baptists or on anyone else if elected President. That's who YOU would vote over Barack Obama. I await your lame rationalization and excuses for what he said. |
|
(913133) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Feb 26 14:08:16 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 13:26:37 2012. Just google the quote, and you get the video where Santorum actually says those words. |
|
(913135) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 14:09:25 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by AlM on Sun Feb 26 14:08:16 2012. It's the spin I am talking about, not words taken out of context. |
|
(913136) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Feb 26 14:10:03 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 26 13:42:17 2012. This is a conservative saying he does not believe in the separation of church and state. This is an argument over interpretation and of principle, not of fact.For sure. But the other Chris is saying that the quote was fabricated, which it wasn't. It took me 2 minutes with google to find it. |
|
(913137) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 26 14:10:23 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by AlM on Sun Feb 26 14:08:16 2012. I already linked the video in my reply.He will say that some liberal-made Santorum clone actually appears in that video. |
|
(913138) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 26 14:11:22 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 14:09:25 2012. His words need spin?They speak for themselves. |
|
(913144) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 14:13:29 2012, in response to The Santorum "Sickened" by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 26 12:49:55 2012. I saw both interviews, on ABC and NBC earlier. They made me want to throw up.Sanitorium is flat out unAmerican. Religious dogma has no place in our government. Mullahrick has no place in it, as the people of Pennsylvania (excepting Olog) demonstrated by a large margin not too long ago. Let him go and live as his wishes,he's free to do so, leave us alone. |
|
(913145) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 14:14:45 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by AlM on Sun Feb 26 14:10:03 2012. No, where did I even hint that the quote was fabricated? I said the piece was a leftist propaganda piece, full of the usual spin.And the FINDING it is RIGHT in my post with a link "google". Reading comprehension problem again Al? |
|
(913146) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 14:17:11 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 14:14:45 2012. There wasn't a single unbiased point in the article. I watched the show. Everything reported happened. |
|
(913147) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 14:18:34 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 14:09:25 2012. Once again, the article had no spin. |
|
(913149) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 14:19:30 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 14:14:45 2012. Reading comprehension problem again Al?Sad. If one is going to play devil's advocate, one should at least be clever. |
|
(913150) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 14:19:43 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 14:18:34 2012. The whole thing is spun. |
|
(913153) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 14:28:17 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 14:19:43 2012. There isn't a single syllable of spinin the article. What in it do you have such a hard time believing? |
|
(913156) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 14:32:58 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 14:28:17 2012. There isn't a single syllable of spin in the article |
|
(913157) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 14:34:01 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 14:32:58 2012. proff. |
|
(913159) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Feb 26 14:41:20 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 14:14:45 2012. OK, so I misunderstood. It doesn't bother you even slightly that he is sickened by JFK's actions? I thought you were refusing to believe he said that. |
|
(913160) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 14:42:13 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 14:34:01 2012. Read the OP. First line launches into it:Utter misquote, never mind misparaphrase. Who are they "startling" to? Only leftists. |
|
(913162) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 14:49:03 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 14:42:13 2012. He DID say *precisely* that. From there, he said that the church (ahem,which one?) should provide input for legislation.His political intent, to enact his ban on contraception (ignoring settled law) for one example, is what makes his stances on social issues startling. |
|
(913166) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by clearaspect on Sun Feb 26 15:10:36 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 14:42:13 2012. Seeing the fact that he's been the main story on the news this week... yeah olog you're wrong as usual |
|
(913168) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 15:13:15 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by clearaspect on Sun Feb 26 15:10:36 2012. Your "reasoning" makes zero sense. Something is true and correct because it's pushed by the media?? |
|
(913177) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Feb 26 15:25:07 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 14:32:58 2012. I laugh @ Lizzie Windsor, Olog's God Queen. |
|
(913185) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 26 15:53:02 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by AlM on Sun Feb 26 14:41:20 2012. No. JFK's presidential legacy is artificially boosted by the manner in which his term ended. |
|
(913210) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 17:14:50 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 14:09:25 2012. LOL |
|
(913213) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Feb 26 17:17:59 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 26 15:53:02 2012. Wht does that have to do with the substance of his words? |
|
(913220) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Feb 26 17:24:25 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 14:42:13 2012. Weak. |
|
(913224) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Feb 26 17:30:02 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 13:26:37 2012. Since when is the source of the article, the Associated Press, a "leftist propaganda site"? |
|
(913238) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 17:45:11 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by italianstallion on Sun Feb 26 17:17:59 2012. They're not Rush's words. There's the problem ... |
|
(913241) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 17:48:07 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by clearaspect on Sun Feb 26 15:10:36 2012. There's VIDEO with SOUND where he says it. No signs of any edit either. But Olog lives in the laughing academy so he doesn't have TV privileges until he stops smearing feces on the wall. |
|
(913243) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 17:52:17 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by italianstallion on Sun Feb 26 17:24:25 2012. Meanwhile he pisses and moans about this in Germany. Heh. |
|
(913249) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Feb 26 17:58:01 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 17:48:07 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2IN8l6YoZw |
|
(913254) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 18:03:18 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Feb 26 17:30:02 2012. It isn't Drudge now, is it? Asked and answered ... :) |
|
(913255) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Feb 26 18:04:15 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 18:03:18 2012. Proper Gander says Olog's all quacked up...LOL! |
|
(913259) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Feb 26 18:12:16 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Feb 26 18:04:15 2012. Neyah hah hahhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWiajiC69po :-) |
|
(913261) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 18:13:58 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Feb 26 18:04:15 2012. Olog's impressed me so much, I did a score of the Communist Manifesto in 4/4 time with a harpsichord. :) |
|
(913262) | |
Re: The Sanitarium ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Feb 26 18:14:46 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by RockParkMan on Sun Feb 26 18:12:16 2012. NO NAZIS THIS TIME. |
|
(913273) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 19:06:10 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sun Feb 26 17:30:02 2012. I posted a story from them that talked badly about the left some months ago, and was told it's propaganda by the usual leftist suspects and how it's not the same as it used to be.furthermore, all the links in the google link I provided, are leftist propaganda blogs. |
|
(913274) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 19:06:50 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 14:13:29 2012. You must throw up pretty easily. |
|
(913276) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 19:11:08 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 19:06:50 2012. Me? Not so easily. Can't speak for Sanitorium in the Vomitorium. |
|
(913277) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 19:13:30 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 19:06:50 2012. It's a time of bread and circuses ... the vomitorium is open 24/7. :)"When in Rome ..." :) |
|
(913278) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Feb 26 19:13:43 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 26 15:53:02 2012. I know it doesn't bother you that Santorum is sickened by JFK's actions. I was asking the other Chris. |
|
(913279) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 19:14:30 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by AlM on Sun Feb 26 19:13:43 2012. Nah ... he seems cool with it too. :-\ |
|
(913282) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Sun Feb 26 19:16:39 2012, in response to The Santorum "Sickened" by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 26 12:49:55 2012. "This is who the "independent" GP38 Chris would vote for over Obama"I'd vote for Curly Howard over Obama!! |
|
(913284) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 19:18:31 2012, in response to The Santorum "Sickened" by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by SMAZ on Sun Feb 26 12:49:55 2012. This is who the "independent" GP38 Chris would vote for over ObamaA lot of independents will. Pity you don't understand what it means to be independent in anything . . . |
|
(913288) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 19:21:36 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 26 19:14:30 2012. Don't really care about the soundbites. |
|
(913289) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 19:21:59 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sun Feb 26 19:16:39 2012. Good post. |
|
(913290) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah |
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 26 19:23:25 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 26 19:18:31 2012. Unlike the Leftists who are joined at the hip with any Democratic politician, no matter how horrible.I never said this wasn't going to be a lesser of two evils election. Unfortunately they all are over the last few elections. |
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |