|
|
| Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State (913091) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
|
| (913425) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 02:24:36 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 27 02:20:06 2012. I just marvel how the names change each week but the rants remain the same. Gotta love it. |
|
|
| (913453) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Feb 27 07:17:08 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 21:50:43 2012. more Obama Derangement Syndrome.Or maybe you just don't support the positions you did before. At any rate I hope Santorum is the GOP candidate for US President. your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (913455) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 07:44:49 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 02:10:43 2012. Yes of course, you mean posting a photo of some ayatollah. Uh huh. The spin is the propaganda. |
|
|
| (913458) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 07:51:06 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Edwards! on Sun Feb 26 23:55:40 2012. If he's "losing" who cares? |
|
|
| (913459) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 07:52:55 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 02:09:57 2012. No, we had "Change" for the worst in 2008. |
|
|
| (913460) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 07:55:33 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 02:08:32 2012. No, he said I am an "Independent", but would vote for whoever runs against Obama. And that Democrats should stick to Democrats and Republicans to Republicans. Okay, but I don't vote for 'Republicans" exclusively, nor Democrats exclusively, I vote for both. That's the definition of Independent, even according to SMAZ, so his point makes no sense. |
|
|
| (913461) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 07:56:23 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah, posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 27 02:23:59 2012. Heh. |
|
|
| (913462) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 07:57:00 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 02:15:44 2012. That's why I find all the posts about this hysterical. The more they spin, the more I will spin against. THIW. |
|
|
| (913463) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 07:58:38 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 14:17:11 2012. The SPIN is what's the propaganda. It's no different than the spin the Republicans made out of Obama when he said things. |
|
|
| (913482) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 27 08:52:46 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 19:21:36 2012. I thought you've cared considerably about some Obama sound bites, like redistribution of wealth. Then again maybe that was the other Chris. But if not, is it only foolish Democratic sound bites that bother you? |
|
|
| (913496) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon Feb 27 09:42:59 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Fred G on Mon Feb 27 07:17:08 2012. True. I can see voters running to the polls to vote for Obama regardless of their political views. |
|
|
| (913506) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 10:01:11 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon Feb 27 09:42:59 2012. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| (913507) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 27 10:01:38 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Fred G on Mon Feb 27 07:17:08 2012. At any rate I hope Santorum is the GOP candidate for US President.Be careful what you wish for. A bit more Euro disaster, plus Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz, and the economy could plunge again. Then Santorum could win. |
|
|
| (913513) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 10:07:45 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by AlM on Mon Feb 27 10:01:38 2012. I would much prefer Romney, but there's no way I would vote for 4 more years of Obama. I have to vote for a change. I hope Santorum isn't the Candidate, but we shall see. |
|
|
| (913532) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 27 11:52:29 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by bingbong on Sun Feb 26 20:50:18 2012. That's the magic of living in a Republic with a Constitution. No president can do anything strictly prohibited. Reagan didn't overturn abortion. Ed Meese didn't eliminate pornography.People don't want to hear this shit, they want to talk about jobs and the economy and the woeful record the current president has in relation to both issues. |
|
|
| (913535) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 27 12:14:57 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 27 11:52:29 2012. People don't want to hear this shit, they want to talk about jobs and the economy and the woeful record the current president has in relation to both issues.Then why does Santorum keep bringing it up (and before him, Gingrich and Bachman)? |
|
|
| (913536) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 12:25:38 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 07:44:49 2012. No, that is totally irrelevant. The OP had his OWN WORDS and they do not horrify you. |
|
|
| (913537) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 12:26:21 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 07:52:55 2012. Perhaps, but that is nothing compared to a Santorum presidency. |
|
|
| (913538) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 12:27:16 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 07:55:33 2012. You may be an "independent" by party registration, but that you would favor Santorum over Obama shows you to be a true right-winger. |
|
|
| (913539) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 12:29:51 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by AlM on Mon Feb 27 12:14:57 2012. Gingrich IMO was pandering. Santorum is dead serious. |
|
|
| (913559) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon Feb 27 13:57:27 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 02:24:36 2012. EEK!! Steve is channeling SelkirkTMO. |
|
|
| (913579) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Feb 27 14:46:24 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Fred G on Mon Feb 27 07:17:08 2012. At any rate I hope Santorum is the GOP candidate for US President.I'll be voting for the paesan'. |
|
|
| (913591) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Feb 27 15:12:20 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 12:27:16 2012. and an EXTREMIST right-winger at that.So much for his now-laughable "religious fanatics make me sick" line. |
|
|
| (913592) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Feb 27 15:15:52 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 07:58:38 2012. What spin.....you still haven't shown me what you consider spin in an article full of facts. |
|
|
| (913595) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 27 15:17:01 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah, posted by SMAZ on Mon Feb 27 15:12:20 2012. Santorum is only an extremist on social issues. On economic issues he's a typical fuzzy Republican, in favor of reduced taxes, reduced deficit, and unchanged spending. |
|
|
| (913597) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Feb 27 15:21:37 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah, posted by AlM on Mon Feb 27 15:17:01 2012. Why do you say that Santorum is an extremist on social issues? What is he proposing to do if elected President. I have not been paying attention to him because he's Italian and Catholic, which means he has no chance of winning the GOP candidacy.btw--I found out why Catholic Charities only shows up to the anti-death penalty rallies to hand out candles but does not go beyond that. They have been threatened with lawsuits over their tax-exempt status. |
|
|
| (913598) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 27 15:22:10 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by bingbong on Mon Feb 27 15:15:52 2012. Chris's claim is that swing voters don't actually care what Santorum says about social issues, because they know he has know chance of enacting his views into law.He's partly right - SOME swing voters don't care. All the polls suggest on the other hand that some do, particularly swing voters who are women. And I know my brother-in-law cares. He wants a pro-business Republican and doesn't see Santorum as one. He's disgusted at the Republican Party for abandoning business issues in favor of social crap. |
|
|
| (913604) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 27 15:38:15 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Feb 27 15:21:37 2012. Why do you say that Santorum is an extremist on social issues?“Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’ It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” He doesn't seem to think it's a good thing that MARRIED women have access to birth control pills. I can see why JFK sickens him. JFK said "I won't let the Pope tell me what to do." Santorum seems to be saying "I will let the Pope be my guide." There are plenty of sources for this quote. Here's one. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/19/santorum-contraception-contradiction/ |
|
|
| (913619) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 27 16:04:40 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by AlM on Mon Feb 27 12:14:57 2012. He DOESN'T, the media people keep bringing it up. Santorum doesn't seem to understand that this is a carefully coordinated plan to get people to talk about his strong religious views, and not Obama's pathetic record as President. |
|
|
| (913622) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 27 16:05:18 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 12:29:51 2012. Yes, he's a devout Catholic. |
|
|
| (913626) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 16:08:55 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by AlM on Mon Feb 27 15:22:10 2012. Correct. All this is is spin and scare tactics making a major issue out of this by the left. That's exactly what I meant. |
|
|
| (913632) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 16:13:03 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 27 16:04:40 2012. Exactly! That's why I have kept calling this "spin" by the left. It's a diversion from the real issues. |
|
|
| (913639) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 16:21:03 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 27 16:04:40 2012. It is the DUTY of the media to report on all of the details of the candidates, not just the ones you find convenient. |
|
|
| (913640) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 27 16:21:13 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 27 16:04:40 2012. Um, Santorum keeps bringing it up.Today - Mr. Santorum, who now trails Mr. Romney in the latest polls, reiterated his call for blurring the divide between religion and public policy, telling supporters that he would seek to increase the role of religion in crafting economic polices. Sunday - Obama doesn't support religious freedom Sunday - the JFK remark Feb 22: debate in Mesa, AZ. Feb 19: criticizing Obama for not supporting freedom of religion |
|
|
| (913645) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 16:29:17 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 16:21:03 2012. Totally agreed. Too bad it's mostly one sided, as Obama got a free pass from most of the media. |
|
|
| (913650) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Feb 27 16:33:23 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 27 16:04:40 2012. and he does so by lambasting JFK's speech, which was PRAISED by conservative Protestant evangelicals due to their prior concern that Kennedy would institute a "Papist Presidency", especially on matters of divorce and contraception? |
|
|
| (913653) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Feb 27 16:38:18 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. Why are you SO AFRAID of the truth? geez! |
|
|
| (913655) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Feb 27 16:52:39 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by SMAZ on Mon Feb 27 16:33:23 2012. Chris will continue to fail to realize what is presented to him unless it really hits him in the head at full force. |
|
|
| (913656) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Feb 27 16:54:07 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 27 16:05:18 2012. and as a devout Catholic he should know that JFK's speech was essentially codified into official Catholic doctrine through the encyclical "Dignitatis Humanae" in 1965 and reiterated by Pope Benedict last year in his message on World Day of Peace:A common patrimony 5. It could be said that among the fundamental rights and freedoms rooted in the dignity of the person, religious freedom enjoys a special status. When religious freedom is acknowledged, the dignity of the human person is respected at its root, and the ethos and institutions of peoples are strengthened. On the other hand, whenever religious freedom is denied, and attempts are made to hinder people from professing their religion or faith and living accordingly, human dignity is offended, with a resulting threat to justice and peace, which are grounded in that right social order established in the light of Supreme Truth and Supreme Goodness. Religious freedom is, in this sense, also an achievement of a sound political and juridical culture. It is an essential good: each person must be able freely to exercise the right to profess and manifest, individually or in community, his or her own religion or faith, in public and in private, in teaching, in practice, in publications, in worship and in ritual observances. There should be no obstacles should he or she eventually wish to belong to another religion or profess none at all. In this context, international law is a model and an essential point of reference for states, insofar as it allows no derogation from religious freedom, as long as the just requirements of public order are observed.[7] The international order thus recognizes that rights of a religious nature have the same status as the right to life and to personal freedom, as proof of the fact that they belong to the essential core of human rights, to those universal and natural rights which human law can never deny. Religious freedom is not the exclusive patrimony of believers, but of the whole family of the earth’s peoples. It is an essential element of a constitutional state; it cannot be denied without at the same time encroaching on all fundamental rights and freedoms, since it is their synthesis and keystone. It is “the litmus test for the respect of all the other human rights”.[8] While it favours the exercise of our most specifically human faculties, it creates the necessary premises for the attainment of an integral development which concerns the whole of the person in every single dimension.[9] Religious freedom, a force for freedom and civilization: dangers arising from its exploitation 7. The exploitation of religious freedom to disguise hidden interests, such as the subversion of the established order, the hoarding of resources or the grip on power of a single group, can cause enormous harm to societies. Fanaticism, fundamentalism and practices contrary to human dignity can never be justified, even less so in the name of religion. The profession of a religion cannot be exploited or imposed by force. States and the various human communities must never forget that religious freedom is the condition for the pursuit of truth, and truth does not impose itself by violence but “by the force of its own truth”.[10] In this sense, religion is a positive driving force for the building of civil and political society. How can anyone deny the contribution of the world’s great religions to the development of civilization? The sincere search for God has led to greater respect for human dignity. Christian communities, with their patrimony of values and principles, have contributed much to making individuals and peoples aware of their identity and their dignity, the establishment of democratic institutions and the recognition of human rights and their corresponding duties. Today too, in an increasingly globalized society, Christians are called, not only through their responsible involvement in civic, economic and political life but also through the witness of their charity and faith, to offer a valuable contribution to the laborious and stimulating pursuit of justice, integral human development and the right ordering of human affairs. The exclusion of religion from public life deprives the latter of a dimension open to transcendence. Without this fundamental experience it becomes difficult to guide societies towards universal ethical principles and to establish at the national and international level a legal order which fully recognizes and respects fundamental rights and freedoms as these are set forth in the goals – sadly still disregarded or contradicted – of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. |
|
|
| (913660) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 16:57:04 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Blah'' blah Blah's Blah blah Blah blah Blah, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Feb 27 15:21:37 2012. Why do you say that Santorum is an extremist on social issues?Because he's an extremist himself, that's why. |
|
|
| (913663) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Blahened'' blah Blah's Blahsurances Blah Blah and Blah |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 16:59:05 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 16:08:55 2012. All this is is spin and scare tactics making a major issue out of this by the leftTransparently so. |
|
|
| (913691) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 27 17:15:37 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon Feb 27 13:57:27 2012. We put weed in his jelly donuts. :) |
|
|
| (913704) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 27 17:26:09 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 27 16:04:40 2012. Santorum could stop pulling pins on his own grenades and putting same in his pants yaknow ... but like a good bored again republican, he just can't ... |
|
|
| (913722) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 17:58:06 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 16:29:17 2012. No, he didn't. Remember Rev. Wright? Remember his comment about how people "cling" to guns and religion? |
|
|
| (913725) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Feb 27 18:01:50 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 17:58:06 2012. ? |
|
|
| (913728) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Feb 27 18:04:45 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 17:58:06 2012. ?Wright never made the "cling to guns and religion" statement. Obama said it himself in San Francisco. As for Wright, there were GOP offices in NC that tried to buy time on television showing clips of a Rev Wright speech and the NC television stations would not run it, fearing backlash from blacks. Rev Wright was largely a Fox News/Rush Limbaugh topic. |
|
|
| (913729) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 18:05:33 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Feb 27 18:04:45 2012. I don't think my post in any way implied that it was Rev. Wright and not Obama who said that. |
|
|
| (913730) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 18:12:40 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 17:58:06 2012. Rev Wright was brought up by the Hillary campaign, and it was dropped by the left as soon as Obama became the definite candidate. Furthermore, it was only news like Fox News, or right leaning media (of which there's far less than left) that covered it. |
|
|
| (913731) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 18:13:21 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Feb 27 18:04:45 2012. LOL, that's exactly what I just said. |
|
|
| (913732) | |
Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Feb 27 18:14:53 2012, in response to Re: The Santorum ''Sickened'' by JFK's Assurances on Church and State, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 27 18:05:33 2012. My point was that the left leaning media (which is most of it) didn't cover the Wright, or any of Obama's skeletons, and when they did, it was not made a big deal out of.Can you just imagine if someone on the right had some lunatic preacher like that saying God Damned America and the sheer racism against whites (or in that case of course it would be blacks)? |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||