That "putz" is still a million, no 15 trillion, times better than the current putz. Erin, congratulations on all of your success, both in the working world and at home!

Fine, let him get the nomination! Once he has the President responding to his multitude of stupid statements in a debate, this buffoon will be humiliated to the point that he won't stand a chance to beat Obama.

Yeah if it wasn't for liberals we wouldn't have strippers and hookers. Imagine telling women to keep thier legs closed. Wine and dine for tomorrow we die! Give the check to my childrens children. Come on Obama 2012 lets max the goverment credit card out and party. Morans!

Yeah and he hasn't even been to all 57 states yet.

@ David McLean:

Um, what is a "MORANS!" ??

Santorum 's tone and practice is similar to Sharia Law? Really. Who'd of guessed. Hide the swords people, because it's off with your heads if you don't comply!

Actually, santiago, it seems like you have the short memory. "Republicans brought us to the brink of total financial breakdown?" You obviously forgot, or more likely you chose to ignore the FACT that during the last two years of President G. W. Bush's last term, the democrats controlled the House AND the Senate AND the the purse-strings (expenditures) AND, in addition, Frank and Dodd (democrats and friends of those who cannot qualify for traditional mortgages) chose to fight every Fannie and Freddie regulation President Bush and the Republicans attempted to implement, thus helping to create the economically-devastating housing bubble. Well, at least your memory loss has company. obama is suffering from the same illness.

In reply to Jimmy, perhaps you can explain who got us into 2 wars, without a financing scheme, who took a 14 trillion dollar surplus, and turned it into a deficit, and, at the same time, made the current president, have to approve the bailouts, that were set up, before he took office!! It appears, he "bypassed " Congress, and the Senate, so, what is it you don't understand??

4 more with Obama and there won't be another chance, America will never recover.
Lay off the Kool Aid!

Yeah and this President can sleep at night knowing his own brother lives in a dirt hut with no running water. What a man Obama is. The evil dark heart of a liberal knows no bounds.

Ron, The discussion is about Rick Santorum's draconian views, not the deficit. It is about all people having equal rights, especially women. As to labeling women "feminists", that is just another code word for keeping women down. Female rights activists were trying to level the playing field, and in some ways they did, although as far as equal pay for equal work, not so much. As far as Santorum, his religious beliefs are more extreme than Mel Gibson's. I applaud Erin's commitment, first to her job, and second to her family, and I find it hilarious that most if not all of the negative comments are made by men, who have NO BUSINESS meddling in a woman's right to her own body.

But, Grandpamike, when a new, unique human being is living inside a woman's body (the only place this can successfully occur), the state has a right to protect THAT life as much as (but not more than) the woman's.

@BobLeMay,
This discussion is about contraception and not abortion. Contraception prevents abortion in many cases. The rightwing zealots are trying to eliminate contraception but not viagra. Interesting logic..or more like another vehicle in which to blame and control women.

@Tawanda: As much as I think Viagra use is a symptom of denial of growing old and of egotism, Viagra is used to fix a broken bodily system. Medical contraceptives are used to break a normally functioning bodily system. That is one reason why I am against the use of contraceptives, and the mandatory coverage in insurance plans.

Bob, Some would say the reasons for Viagra are normal bodily functions similar to menopause. Please keep in mind that this is about peoples choice and freedom. If you or any religiously inspired individual does not want to use contraception, then do not. That is your choice. And if you are a religious institution that doesn't want to pay (sic) for insurance that (at no extra cost) is now covering contraception, then simply continue your diatribe. 98% of said religious patrons use it. I repeat, 98%. What is the issue here?

Bob, Viagra is used to treat a broken bodily function ?!. Maybe it's time you brush up on your medial knowledge regarding contraception and female birth control. I suffered from endometriosis for 15 yrs and "the pill" allowed me to live a life without excruciating pain and many surgeries. The only other option would have been a hysterectomy which I had 3 yrs ago only because my breast cancer had spread.
To think that any person can decide what is good for another is beyond belief. When they pay my bills, house me, feed me, pay my medical and wipe my butt is when they'll have the right to choose what's best for me. Until then I will do what I see fit and that will be my deciding vote come next election.

I find it ironic that the same people who vote for the high and mighty are the same ones who make their profits off the rest of us. (Mr. and Mrs. Pharmaceutical company who pays the least in taxes.)

@patricia hish: First, yes, Viagra treats a medical condition, the breakdown of a natural function. Second, when contraceptives are prescribed for medical reasons, then they should be covered by health insurance. I know several relatives for which this was necessary. However, when they are prescribed to interfere with a bodily function for the convenience of being able to have sex whenever one wants, they should be covered "out-of-pocket", like condoms and other birth control.

Bob LeMay posted <snip>

@patricia hish: First, yes, Viagra treats a medical condition, the breakdown of a natural function. ... when they are prescribed to interfere with a bodily function for the convenience of being able to have sex whenever one wants, they should be covered "out-of-pocket", like condoms and other birth control.
<end snip>
The crotch police have arrived. Now I am clear about exactly where you are coming from ( no pun intended ) It's about whose having recreational sex.

How dare they, right ? If you can't or won't, then no one can, at least not on *your* dollar.

@towanda: <sigh> It's about elective drug use vs. necessary drug use. When doctors see patients, the identify a code for the reason for the visit or procedure or prescription. Insurance companies decide which they will cover, and to what extent. Therefore expensive, experimental treatments may not be covered under a plan.

All I am saying is that birth control is elective--no one "needs" it to be healthy. Therefore it is not necessary to be covered under a health plan. (Most prescriptions for Viagra are also probably not necessary, but doctors are enablers in many cases, which causes all of our health plans to be more expensive, for both employers and employees.)

Bob,
Honestly I don't think you know that your even doing this, you agree to disagree with yourself. First it's okay to use contraceptives for medical reasons, now you say " no one needs it to be healthy" WRONG. Grandpamike gave a list of conditions (one I had) that are controlled through the use of contraceptives "the pill" I would have been more than happy to trade my monthly experience with you. You would have missed at least 3 to 4 days of work each month because you would have spent most of that time on the bathroom floor waiting for the next bloody clot to pass.
Surgery after surgery only corrected the problem short term. The pill gave me my life back and I could be there 100% for my kids. If a select group could experience just one menstruation cycle I think this case would be closed. But then again civilization as we know it might not exist. (notice I didn't include all)

Patricia, you obviously aren't paying attention. No one needs "birth control" to be healthy, although the birth control drugs may be prescribed for medical reasons. If so, they would have a different diagnosis code from birth control.

Gosh Bob it's that darn man made diagnosis code that screwed me all up. Here I thought you were flip flopping like Romney.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Thanks Ron for the early morning entertainment.

Another liberal with a short memory. obama and the democrats enjoyed HUGE majorities in the Senate and the House during obama's first two years in office, but obama did not succeed becasue the "Republicans refused his initiatives?" Yeah, okay, please spew your spin on another board, say huffington post. They'll LOVE you over there.

Jimmy: What exactly did Obama not succeed in (not get approved) when Dems held both Senate and house?

As the economy improves over the coming 2 yrs, I am sure you will attribute that resurgence to the republican party in some way OR deny the improvement, which has been the case as of late.

Please review this non partisan link depicting deficit creation: 5 Trillion Bush, 1.4 Trillion Obama (through 2017) These are based on policy by president, not what happened during what year. For example, Bush tax cuts adversely effect deficit to this day.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/

btw There's a gag gift out there called the "F-Bomb", it's pretty funny!

How about working on their marriages instead of running to divorce lawyers? If you don't want to stay home and take care of your kids, who should be a mother's top priority, don't have them. That's the decision that was made by most of us years ago. And there were plenty of jobs for men back then too. I am married 41 years, raised three children, they all went to college. I thank God our daughter waited to have their children till they could afford it and stay home to raise them. Same for daughter in laws, both teachers. BUT NO....too many self centered "adults" want the biggest hoouse, best cars, bet vacations and someone else to change the dirty diapers. Granted, some have become single mothers by no choice of their own, but the vast majority just aren't satisfied taking care of their husband and family. It's much harder than working ladies.....now go ahead and attack.

Uh, Erin already said that.

Hi Bob. When you say men and women are NOT created equal, does that mean you think men and women should be afforded different rights? Or, do you think they should be afforded the same rights (equal rights)?

>>[W]omen are generally more interested in dialogue and compromise, whereas men are generally more confrontational and competitive. And women tend to be more nurturing and men tend to be more disciplinary.<<

Matriarchy now!

Absolutely men and women should have equal rights--I'm all for women serving in combat roles in the military, for instance, if that is what they want AND they can meet the same physical demands that men must meet. But that does not mean that there haven't been misguided attempts to FORCE equality: I know many women with math and engineering degrees, but I can't say that there will ever be 50% of engineers that are female. The biological/psychological differences may make a smaller percentage of women interested in certain careers (and men, too).

WOW!!! "Men and Women are NOT equal". WOW!!! I see that you have made the obvious observation that men and women are different. From this conclusion that women are differnt from men, you then make the conclusion that men and women are NOT equal to each other. There are also differences between black and white people. With your logic, black and white people are also NOT equal. I can see why you support Rick "I'm not evil, just midevil!" Insanetorium.

@BobLeMay:
You assume that all marriages are worth saving. Not so. Marriages are made up of 2 people bringing their various issues, hangups and baggage into their relationship and hoping that somehow the good times will outweigh the bad times and somehow it will work.
In days gone by, the burden of keeping a marriage together was shouldered by the wife in return for financial support. Everyone seem to have their assigned roles to adhere to and women were strongly discouraged from pursuing an identity outside her role as wife and mother. To be a divorcee was a fate as bad as death itself, complete with stereotypes and labels, not to mention poverty.
A women's role was strictly defined in domestic terms by men and reinforced by religion and government.
Rick Santorum wants to take America back to that place and time where men defined a women's role in society and this is completely unacceptable on every level.

@Tawanda: No, I do not believe that all marriages are worth saving, hence my statement above: "partially a reflection of the freedom and independence that women feel to get out of abusive marriages"

You might want to point that out to Mr. Santorum. He believes in Creation. Yet, my understanding is that Evolution is taught in the science classes of Catholic schools, from elementary schools through Ph.D. programs at universities.

I watched a documentary a while back about the daily life at the Vatican, and there was an interview with the Pope's science advisor. He was an English priest with multiple degrees in science. He was offended by people who use the Bible as the basis for their scientific beliefs. He pointed out that a typical science textbook for any education level goes out of date within a few years. So, why would any person base their scienctific beliefs on the Bible, when the newest parts of it are nearly 2000 years old?

Ray--Really? SOME priest in SOME church at SOME time preached about the "evils" of the working mother? Obviously when you make statements that: A) cannot be refuted because they have NO particulars, and B) are the opinion of a single individual we can ignore them as having no particular relevance to the discussion.

@Kent:
I am sure Rick Santorum will present his views on this situation as soon as he is done consulting with Sarah Palin.

I guess if a father's income alone can only afford them a rickety shack, and that family doesn't already have a boatload of money, then "Sweater-vest Ricky" would prefer that they live in a shack. With lots and lots of kids.
(But there aren't many shacks being built these days)

BRAVO ! right on target !!

It gets worse than that. Santorum is not your typical Catholic, but something way beyond any fellow Catholic I ever knew.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/rick-santorum-wants-your-sex-life-to-be-special/253104/

"One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea... 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. They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative. "

Steve, your quote from Santorum sounds EXACTLY like the teaching of the Catholic church. Perhaps you and the "fellow Catholics" you know should either study up on the beliefs of your church, or find a church which is more amenable to your beliefs. Check out Catechism 2363 (http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml).

@ Bob - Church teachings, yes. Using the Presidential office to enforce those beliefs, no. The Oval Office is no place to codify religious belief into law, Catholic or otherwise. If you disagree, then help him get the nomination and watch the Independents run from him in droves.

And quit trying to minimize others' dedication to Catholicism. Lay people are in no position to try and call out who the true believers are. Hypocrite.

@Steve: From your statement ("fellow Catholic") I deduced that you were a Catholic. From your statement (saying that Santorum's statement was "way beyond") I deduced that you thought his statement was extreme. So I pointed you to the church's teaching in the Catechism. (And, no, this teaching isn't a new one, made up by one of the recent "conservative" popes.)

I just pointed a teaching of the Catholic church, which all members are expected to believe and adhere to. As a fellow Christian I am supposed to charitably try to correct--St. Paul tells us to do that.

So, if anyone is a hypocrite, it is would appear to be you, calling yourself a Catholic but not believing in the fundamental truths of the faith.

As for Rick Santorum, just because he believes as the church doesn't make it a religious belief. Is it also a religious belief that one shouldn't murder? Should the government not restrict the rights of murderers? The church teaches truth, and it's followers agree with truth.

There you go judging without the authority of the church, Bob. Very hypocritical of you.

My issue with Santorum is he plans to have this dialogue as President, where his beliefs have no place. You may be more of a Catholic as you say, but I see mostly parents with 3 or less children at Mass and have for almost 40 years, so if you have the Papal Authority to clean house, then you will be sitting in a nearly empty, much older house. And if you want Santorum as your nominee, get him the nomination and see how many independents run from him. Good luck on both.

Steve, point out exactly where I am judging? We are all sinners, and all fall short, but we are called to support and try to follow the teachings of the church. If we fail, we repent, promise to do better, and move on.

However, if we publicly dissent in essential truths without remorse, that is a different matter, and can lead others into sin.

As for judging, your comments about Catholics in church with 3 or less children implies that you know what they are doing, what their health issues are, and what they believe.

Bob,

You realize that mathematically, the key to winning an election is through the independents right? People who vote democrat and people who vote republican typically do exactly that. There's very little statistical deviation from either party.

However, there's that rather large slice of the demographic pie who vote for whomever the hell they feel like is the most qualified at best, or the least biggest train wreck at worst.

Santorum fits neither role in a theoretical presidential race between him and Obama, so he would then get his regular democrat vote and the lion share of the independent vote. Santorum winning the GOP primary would be the democrat party's dream come true.

This is a very weak year for the GOP. I don't think the party is representing itself very well. I'm not sure if this is because the GOP is not presenting it's best candidates because they feel the presidential race is a foregone conclusion (a loss to Obama) or if this is just what the GOP has become (a depressing thought).

Yeah most of you catholics are commie lovers anyway. But Santorum being old school, compared to what your new school, were you love and admire Barny Frank, and his harem of 17 yr old boys? We need how sick and evil you liberals are. Liberalism is a mental illness, and the country is being destroyed by it.

Bob,

Please, stop with the Obama screeds, it does not make your arguments valid. Yes, Santorum's wife was what you say, but she was also in a relationship with an older man, a Liberal Dr, who was an abortion provider. but I guess that was all absolved by the Church, as most sins are, for a price. Funny, how no one mentions her, er, indiscretions.

Obama new slogans for 2012.
I can see Meca from da White House.
Jobs whats a job I never had one.
Yes we can,get away with it!
I lied! So what!
Fore more!
Hope and Welfare for all.
A 1/4 chicken in every pot.
Being unemployed is patriotic.
My brother lives in a hut,so will you!
The evil rich is anyone with a job.
Open da borders we need more voters!

As a left of center voter, I'm also dissapointed that the GOP, and conservatives in general, can't seem to find someone who can appeal to the conservative issues that come Democrats hold. Most people are a mix of beliefs, holding Liberal views on some issues and a few Conservative beliefs. A sane Republican can appeal to that and possibly win. The extremism that the current GOP is courting will destroy them faster than any opponent. I mean, how seriously can you take a party that insists on "purity tests" for candidates?

Mr. Cesare,
I agree with you, it's very depressing pickens. Right now I'm not happy with either side but one is worse than the other. What scares me most is the thought of cutting social security which most seniors depend on. My husband worked for Enron and lost all of his retirement because of the greed of a few. We have very little savings due to my health and without that check each month I don't know what we'd do. Everyone thinks our children should take care of us and that's not their job or responsibility.

I also like Mr. Grandpamike,s comments. A woman has the right to her own body. What she chooses to do with it is her choice. People need to mind their own business with regards to each others choices concerning their own bodies.

But, Brandie, as I said above, when a new, unique human being is living inside a woman's body (the only place this can successfully occur), the state has a right to protect THAT life as much as (but not more than) the woman's.

Sadly, the Republicans had Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty at one time, and they got little support. They actually appealed to the more moderate citizen, but for some reason, they got little support.

Left of center? Does that make one a Moderate?

The definition of a Moderate - someone who doesn't believe in something strongly enough to take a stand.

"if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything" Aarron Tippen

The GOP has no room for moderation or anyone who disagrees with the official party line du jour. It's their way or...hasta la bye-bye ! This is exactly why there is so much feuding between the various candidates and the seemingly endless parade of " Joe Plumber & Donald Trump-types " each trying to outdo the other in the whose the bigger wacko and media gadfly department.
All they have succeeded in doing is to alienate even more voters.
Rick Santorum's extreme views of women are taking it to an entire new level by repelling better than 50% of voters in their own party.
Soon there will be no one left except themselves.

I hear Ya Man...It is crap that you all have such bad options...

I hear Ya Man...It is crap that you all have such bad options...

I agree that Florida tends to be pretty nutty.

People want a true Conservative America? Not even close. People want an America where the citizens are given equal rights regardless of race, religion, sexuality, and gender. The slop the GOP candidates are slinging are pure bigotry. See below:

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religious belief or spirituality, nationality, language, sexual orientation, and age; and to those from a different region, with non-normative gender identity, those who are homeless, and those with various medical disorders, particularly behavioural and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigots with the following quote: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."[1]

Sound familiar?

So, Julie, is it bigoted to believe that someone with a "behavioural or addictive disorder" should be treated for such? Or are we to accept them as they are, with the addiction? Is it bigoted to help homeless people by working in shelters, trying to find them jobs, etc.? Or are we supposed to accept them as they are, in their homeless state? Is pedophila a behavioral problem that we should accept in order not to be a bigot? How about nymphomania?

You see, some things that have been long identified as "abnormal" or "disordered" are now being re-defined as "acceptable". Just because some still consider certain actions and behaviors doesn't make us bigots; only those who--in your definition--are "hostile". I, for one, have never been hostile to the homeless, mentally disordered, homosexuals, or "trans-gendered". However, that doesn't mean that I have to accept their state as normal, acceptable, or even preferable.

Bob, that isn't my definition of bigotry. Google it.
The only person who stands in a place of judgment of ANY of us is the God Almighty.
Not accepting people for who they are is bigotry. Telling people that they are not entitled to being treated the same as everyone else because of their race, creed, gender, sexual preference, phsyical and mental disabilities is bigotry. No one is better than his neighbor.

But Julie, if you are a Christian (if not, we have no point of reference), you must know that even Jesus decried some behavior. Love the sinner, hate the sin. And the definition you quoted indicates "hostile to".

ABO 2012

Does anyone read anything but the patch?

Gas prices are up 85% since BO became president. The debt is skyrocketing, unemployment is not dropping. Don't tell me it is, the real unemployment rate is in the mid to upper teens. Always wondered why if you are no longer collecting unemployment, but still unemployed the government doesn't count you as unemployed anymore? This joke of a president along with his Dem lead Senate (don't forget he controlled both houses til 2010) can't do anything to get the economy going. Rick might not be the answer, but neither is another 4 years of OB.

"You are incorrect in your assessment of militant feminist leaders like Gloria steinem. She advocates liberal policies first and women second. She and others like her do not support your choice to stay home with your children. To them you are letting down your sisters in arms.

Mr Santorum is one of the only politicians who have ever given stay at home moms any thought."

That is absolutely correct. Read The Flipside of Feminism, Venker and Schlafly.

TO EVERYONE WHO REPLIED TO THIS STATEMENT:
I am the Real Nicole Webb! I did not write this post! 1st of all, I do not remember even subscribing to this site so when I tried to login to post my correction, I could not! I then pushed "forgot my email address & password" & gave my current email address. I was sent an email that informed that my sign in email address was an emil address that I have stopped using and cancelled a year before the date of theis article. So I have registered as MY REAL SELF! I DID NOT WRITE THIS LIBERTARIAN RUBBISH! NOR AM I ON RICK SANTORUMS TEAM!! I CAN'T STAND RICK SANTORUMS BELIEF'S OR MITTENS ROMNEY'S. I WOULD NEVER SPEW SUCH TRITE GARBAGE!

Hi Nicole: Can you give an example of what the radical feminists have done in support of liberal causes? I'd like to be more informed on this issue. Thank you.

@Nicole: please give a few examples of " radical feminists of today who have hijacked the movement in favor of liberal causes.."

"Feminism has much to anwer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families."-Rebecca Walker, daughter of The Color Puprle's Alice Walker

@Christine:
Rebecca Walker also said " "Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating."

Do you suppose Rebecca might be a french fry short of a happy meal ?

@Tawanda

I have read all of your responses and agree with everything you say. It is refreshing to know that there are people such as yourself with the intelligence to recognize what the reality of these discussions are about. I especially love the last paragraph above, as it echoes my thoughts exactly. It should be The American Evangelical Taliban.

"That's why they do not speak of viagra or penis pumps being covered by insurance but only that which impacts women because women are not permitted to enjoy sex but only to breed."

HIlarious! And sadly true. I wonder what Santorum thinks should happen to all the women who keep right on having children until their late 40s (like Mrs. Santorum) and when the odds finally don't go your way and then at 48 you deliver a child with signficant health problem -- what happens if you are not wealthy enough to afford to be at home and meet the medical expenses for your child while your husband jet sets around campaigning? Do you work? Then who watches the child? Do you stay home? Then who pays the bills?

Gee...those darn realities really mess with ideology, huh? Oh wait -- God will provide. Silly me. I'm sure he will send a check straight on over to ComEd for my electric bill and pay all the co-pays for medical care while he's at it. LMAO

Some of us prefer to deal in reality and make the choices that are best for us and our families. People like Santorum just can't wrap their heads around any of what goes into that. Like I said earlier - a loon!

@BobLeMay: you have not been paying much attention to what the Rick Santorum-GOP talking heads have been saying or doing.
Rick Santorum's own words regarding contraception tells a lot about where is coming from and going to. The GOP's attacks on EEOC and programs designed to help women and minorities are more evidence of their hostility.

Yes, Angelique, President Obama and his administration do not have any wealthy corporate buddies...NOT!

Angelique, follow the money. Both sides are taking money from the "evil" corporations. OB has called on PACS to start raising money from him. Tell me, is it the little people paying $ 38,000 a ticket to attend OB's fundraisers? NOT. Our political system is broke on both sides. I'm not rich, but I would rather have small/limited government than a large SOCIAL government.

I want them (all politicians, Federal, state, and local) to get their greedy little hands out of my pockets.

@Eileen: Why is it automatically assumed that a woman is the better parent and thus the logical choice to stay at home and raise the kiddies? Why is it assumed that women work not to sustain an economic existence but instead to aquire unnecessary luxury items at the expense of their children's quality of upbringing ?

Further, why would you want to perpetuate such inaccurate stereotyping ?

I raised my family alone and as adults they are happy and secure college graduates who learned first hand how to be focused, resourceful and not to be restricted by what someone else thinks they should or should not do.

Children learn by example first and foremost.

@tawanda, I made no such assumptions nor did I say that women are better parents. You did not read my post very well. Hopefully you didn't teach your children reading comprehension. Lol!

Eileen,

That little remark was unnecessary and lessened whatever credibility you may have gained with your original post (which by the way, came across as a whole lot of bragging and very little substance).

Hopefully you didn't teach your kids reading comprehension either Spencer. Lol!

Jane,

This is exactly how I feel. The entire GOP primary has been one big campaign for the Democrat party.

here is a not-so-news flash:
yet another <groan> GOP debate scheduled for Feb. 22nd. Keep that evening open, folks. Watch the hungry and desperate candidates fight eachother for the few republican votes left in America.
You see, the GOP has managed to alienate nearly every voting block in existence, from teachers to unions and right onto minorities and as if that were not enough, they have turned their sites on women and women's healthcare. Not abortion but breast exams and contreceptive methods.
Huge huge mistake.

@Tawanda The Avenger:

Unfortunately for America, it matters not that the GOP has managed to alienate nearly every voting block in existence, they don't need to care as Citizens United gives them the right to just go ahead and purchase thpresidencycy, legally, and they have the money to do so from all their Billionaire buddies >:(

What is one of the top factors leading to divorce? Finances. A second spouse working helps in that regard. And it's not just necessary for people who want a McMansion or a Lexus either.

@Andy: I am not sure I ever heard Joe Namath or Hugh Hefner say " dads, put your marriages and chilren first.." .
On the contrary, they perpetuated a fantasy of entitlement which contributed to the real attack upon the family unit the Rick Santorums of the world love to invoke.

Gotta wonder how many abortions those 2 procured or doesn't that count.

Funny how they never talk about that. Not a peep, like it never happened. But then again, how would they fit it into their script about " sinful lusty godless feminazis "

Let's remember that women who work outside the home are also "raising their own children". Just as any men who work outside the home are. Raising a child does not mean that you need to be with them 24/7 and it does not mean that you cannot be employed and earning a paycheck.

@Jane Enviere, you are correct, I apologize if I sounded as if I indicated otherwise.

Really? Those states deny women health care? Oh, wait, you mean "health care", as in "reproductive health care", as in the opportunity to kill their unborn children.

As far as I am aware, no states deny women health care, as it is properly defined--care provided to maintain health, as opposed to care to prevent or break natural bodily functions or to kill living, unique human beings prior to birth.

Just to be clear. The Equal Rights Amendment failed because it needed three more states to ratify it (38 out of 50). The FIFTEEN states that DID NOT ratify it were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

It looks like you have a lot more states to avoid spending your leisure $ in besides Nebraska and South Dakota. Good luck on not spending in Illinois.

By the way, Virginia just ratified the ERA a few days ago. Better late than never (which is where Illinois stands).

Amen,the choice will be for our kids and grand kids future in America.One become Rome or two become the place our grandparents formed based on christianity , hard work and all the wars that were fought and won not the entiltlement society. A family is the strongest bond that any society can have. For people who bring up contraception in this election must have no record to run on ,and or just plain stupid to see what Barrack Hussein Obama has done to our country.You can tax the 1% at 100% and that will keep our government going for a whopping week .Such a sad way to pit us Americans against one another.

Tom: one of the best things about this country is its freedom of religion. There are more than Christians living here...

Mazel tov

Khatherine = If you can comprehend what i said based on christianity which our constitution was based on .Name one other religon in 1776 and i will agree.All walks of race and nationallity came here for a better life .They did not come here with their hands out for give me give me entitlement mentallity .They came here and worked for everything they had and not betold what to do other the rules of the law of the land and the CONSTITUTION. Freedom of religon is A God given right not a Government right which they can take it away at any time. All we need to do is win Florida,Ohio,and Pennsyvania and our country will be headed in the right direction.

Tom,

Our constitution was in no way based on Christianity. Are you honestly trying to say that in 1776, there were no other religions or are you just that poor at communicating a point?

You realize that Christianity isn't even the oldest religion, right?

Tom: Freedom of religion is a God given right not a government right? Seems like some people want the government to take away all religions other than Christianity.

Yes, we might want to consider licensing parents. This way we will know if they plan to spend more than the "necessary" amount of time with their children.

Would like to know if the author of this article has viewed your post and her thoughts.

What I find both amazing and disturbing is that in 2012, we are even engaging in this discussion.

What candidate Santorum should have done was to shoot down the subject by not even discussing the matter of what women should or should not do . By even engaging in any discussion, he essentially gave credibility to the idea that women need permission or approval.
Therein IMHO lies the problem.

The fact of the matter is that Obama isn't eligible to be president. His father was not an American citizen. See Scott v. Sandford, Minor v. Happersett, and The British Nationality Act of 1948. There is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. Wow, we are in trouble. Enjoy serfdom.

Mr. Medieval Oneter,

Your reference to the Dred Scott case is a little disturbing and irrelevant, since the 13th, and more importantly 14th amendments to the United States Constitution were ratified to overrule it (among other reasons). The Minor case concerned someone's legal right to vote and the state of Missouri trying to take that away. That doesn't sound like freedom to me either. I find it ironic considering your choices of court cases to reference that you also use the word "serf." I find it disturbing as well.

I'm unsure why you bring up the British Nationality Act of 1948 as it has nothing to do with our country (yes, I know what it is).

It is exactly the sort of rhetoric you spew that turns someone like me away from your sort of "conservative" politics.

If you're going to be a racist, have the guts to do it outright and not hide behind archaic court proceedings that have long since lost their jurisprudence.

My my Mr. Spencer, you must learn to control the urge to call people names after making hasty judgements. Perhaps you should gather more information besides that which you were taught to parrot by your government school teacher.

Be that as it may, these documents, and others they reference, make statements about citizenship. Precisely, natural born citizenship. This has nothing to do with the morality of slavery and herein lies the problem.
There is a pervasive psuedo-intellectualism hidden behind hubris that suckles like a babe to the teat of perverse political correctness that only cares about gaining moral superiority rather than actually knowing the truth of things. Everyone knows that non-racists are superior to racists in every way. Nice try. Better luck next time.

It has been all over the news, perhaps maybe not MSNBC, NBC, or ABC.

In North Carolina, there was a kid in lunch who had been deemed to have a nutritionally deficient lunch by some jerk in the cafeteria. They swapped out the poor kid's lunch with one of the disgusting school lunches and billed the parents for it.

This is an example of poor school policy that needs to be addressed at that school by those parents. It's a national story only in that it is interesting.

Many schools are monitoring lunches to ensure that each child is getting the necessary four food groups. In one instance, a child's turkey sandwich was thrown away and replaced with the school cafeterias chicken nuggets and the parents were charged for this "healthy" alternative (without their knowledge). The kids apple juice that Mom packed was pitched and replaced with milk.

Here's the full story.

Like I said, it sounds like it was some moron worker in the lunchroom not doing their job properly. The school can and likely will correct this themselves.

Yes, if this ridiculous happens to someone, they should absolutely take it up with the school board!

Oops. I meant to post a link to the story with all the details.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/homemade-lunch-replaced-with-cafeteria-nuggets.html

Eileen: I read the article and yes it says the person from the school in charge of the lunch room that day made the determination about the nutritious value of the child's lunch. "While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what disqualified the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem." Therfore, school issue, not government issue.

Now you know how some of us feel about our current president.

Bob,

I'm pretty sure I can tell how many of you feel about our current president, since many of you take every opportunity to tell the rest of us, even when an article has nothing to do with him.

At any rate, if Santorum is the best thing the GOP can come up with right now, you have four more years of Obama to look forward to, since Santorum is simply not a viable candidate.

Spencer,

I don't know about that--the President has been shooting himself in the foot pretty well, lately.

Bob,

Then for your sake I'm hoping for an Obama Vs. Santorum presidential race. =D

When I see Rick Santorum, I am reminded of the saying :

" When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a bible and waving the flag.."

I throw up in my mouth a little every time I hear the teleprompter in chief speak!

Take a look at my name. There's my picture too in case you ever run into me at one of the local bars and feel like calling me out for my political beliefs.

The Treaty of Tripoli! Good call Mike!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Thanks Grandpa. Everyone seems to cite the Constitution these days. I'll admit it is something I haven't but do plan to read.

Hi Katherine, if you are interested in the constitution, here is a good resource, a free online course: https://www.hillsdaleoffer.com/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=13&custom_16=OCC&custom_31=HIP7NAPX&custom_32=E007H. I am doing this course, it's great!

@Grandpamike: Perhaps you should pay closer attentions to my actual statements, and not react automatically to certain words. My comments on contraceptives were purely on whether they should qualify as "health care", in regards to the current government mandate that they should be, and that everyone paying for health insurance should bear part of the cost. Since that is a matter of public policy, I am certainly within my rights to make statements about it.

I do not advocate the denial of contraceptives to anyone. I do believe that some have abortifacient qualities, and that women should be made aware of those possibilities, in the interest of informed "choice".

Once pregnancy occurs, it's not simply "her" body. There is another person involved. One of the reasons we have so much violence and murder in this country is because our political and legal institutions justify murder as a legitimate way to solve problems.

Medieval Oneter posted:<snip>
Once pregnancy occurs, it's not simply "her" body. There is another person involved. One of the reasons we have so much violence and murder in this country is because our political and legal institutions justify murder as a legitimate way to solve problems
~~~
and the invasion and takeover of a sovereign nation for it's oil and minerals doesn't count ?
how about a little consistency when it comes to the sacredness and value of life ?
life doesn't begin at conception and end at birth.

@Grandpamike: Since I had already made the following statement earlier to Patricia, I didn't see the need to repeat it. Apparently you aren't keeping up....

"Second, when contraceptives are prescribed for medical reasons, then they should be covered by health insurance. I know several relatives for which this was necessary. However, when they are prescribed to interfere with a bodily function for the convenience of being able to have sex whenever one wants, they should be covered "out-of-pocket", like condoms and other birth control."

@BobLeMay who posted <snip>..However, when they are prescribed to interfere with a bodily function for the convenience of being able to have sex whenever one wants, they should be covered "out-of-pocket", like condoms and other birth control."
~~~
and viagra ?

In your use of the word "dam" it is correctly spelled with an N at the end. The same letter that begins the word neanderthal.

I think "us bloggers" (laughable since I don't think you understand what "blogger" means) are adapting the best we can in many different ways.

Good for you that someone cooks for you, takes care of the children, and serves as your personal waitress! That is so awesome that you and your wife get along well enough that that is tolerated by her (it probably isn't, but it doesn't sound like you care).

The fact is your "Leave it to Beaver" scenario never really existed and certainly doesn't now.

Tonight, after I'm done cooking dinner and washing dishes (single father raising my daughter on my own), perhaps I'll get my own beer.

Ms. Gallagher, you are my hero! There is a reason God created woman after man - Adam was the rough draft and God said "Whoa! I need to improve this model."

Ron, YOU are off topic. The topic is Santorum's subjugation of women.

Radical femists do not promote heavily or otherwise sex without consequences. What makes you think this?

Medeival Onetar posted <snip>
Radical feminists heavily promote sex without consequences.
~~~~~
Really ? sounds to me more like an irresponsible comment heavy with misogynist logic.
Why are you not directing your moral outrage at High Hefner or Newt Gingrich ?
Why not have a heart to heart talk with teaparty darling Rep. Joe Walsh who has failed to support the children be begot with his lawful wife; after all, didn't Joe get an award from a conservative pro-family group ? This doesn't seem very "pro-family " to me anyway but then I must be one of those radical feminazis out to destroy the family unit, unlike pro-family Joe.
What I would like to know is when the GOP will begin giving away chastity belts for campaign donations?

@Katherine: What is the normative purpose of using contraceptives, RU486, and unfettered access to abortion? Ever read NOW's position papers on abortion and reproductive rights? The whole purpose of having access to contraceptives, abortifacients, and elective abortion is to avoid pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood. They certainly aren't promoting abstinence.

@Julie: You left out a critical phrase from my original statement to set up a rant about something else. How original.

It all began with the framing of EVE. Adam could of just said NO!..... "No Eve, we're not supposed to eat from that tree, remember?" But because EVE was naked, Adam didn't stand a chance....he was mesmerized by her boobs......"Yes master, anything you say master"

From that point on, ALL women got a bad rap, so most religions do their best to oppress women. GOD FORBID any men have to take anresponsibilityiy for THEIR actions!

Funny how all these years it's been the rule that females should wait to have sex until they are married, but the males should be "sowing their wild oats" as much as possible. Females were told by their Mothers "Don't give it up, no matter what, because the old saying goes.....why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?....if you have sex with them before you get married, they won't marry you"

Personally, I'm ECSTATIC that women finally started to ignore that crap. In fact, I have two daughters and I would NEVER instruct them that they should wait for marriage to have sex. The whole idea ispreposterousterous! There are THOUSANDS of cases of unhappy, sexually unsatisfied women stuck in life-long marriages in the 40's 50's and even 60's because they were told to wait and on top of that told they MUST STAY (no divorce). Maybe the divorce rate would not be what it is if people checked if they were sexually compatible BEFORE getting married.

SO, I tell MY daughters "Why buy the whole pig when you can get the sausage for free"

If you want to practice your superstition in your private life, that is fine. Nobody, not a single person here, is stopping you from doing that.

However, at no point will it be acceptable for you to hold back the rest of the country because your superstitions are being overruled by reality. Nobody is 'forcing' you to do anything, the only thing being 'mandated' is that you must have the option to get birth control at YOUR discretion. In fact, planned parenthood does offer pamphlets on adoption, at your request. If you don't want it, you don't have to have it. And if you don't ask about it, you wouldn't even know it was there, just like the birth control manufactured 'controversy' That is where your argument ends, because at no point do you get to tell someone else what options they should have available to them. You only have the freedom to decide what YOU have available or not, not others.

Don't like a health insurance plan that allows this? Good for you, now take responsibility for your own beliefs and handle the situation like an adult. Go out and self-insure yourself and your family, or find a company that meets your needs. There are companies that are willing to sell you exactly what you want. Your beliefs come with some very real medical realities, which will cause your premiums to be higher to spread this risk to all policy holders. You will actually have to pay out of your own pocket to support what you believe, and stop expecting everyone else to.

Tim said: "Nobody is 'forcing' you to do anything, the only thing being 'mandated' is that you must have the option to get birth control at YOUR discretion." Wrong. The government is mandating that birth control be a covered expense for all insurance plans, which will both increase the cost of the insurance and force those of us opposed to it to subsidize it. We can not opt out or find another insurance plan. The controversy was manufactured by the President, who had promised Cardinal-designate Dolan in November that a suitable conscience objection clause would be forthcoming.

@Bob LeMay:
I do not like my tax dollars going to subsidize big oil and the nuclear industry. I object on moral grounds to the subsidizing of a military-industrial war machine.
Additionally, there is a separation of church and state in the constitution for a very good reason. You may practice your beliefs, as contradictory as they seem, to your hearts content but I object to any religion's belief being forced upon me.
The Scientology religion does not recognise autism as a bona fide disorder. According to your thinking, they would not have to cover their employees with autistic kids. Likewise, Christian Scientists believe a proper diet will cure most everything. Should their views prevail ?

Seems logical that covering birth control would REDUCE a lot of costs that would otherwise be incurred by the insurance company/individuals later on, so there shouldn't even be a "controversy".

@Dave L who posted <snip> President Obama has taken more rights away from the citizens of the United States than any other president in history. His health care law has created mandates that is against all religions<end snip>
~~~
examples please.
exactly what rights has Obama taken away from you, "more than any other president in history. "

Also, please explain how healthcare reform is against all religions.

@Oswego mom 2011 who posted <snipped>

Amen to you Dave! You said it all and quite clearly as well. The whole thing was and is put out there to distract from the real issues in the coming election
<end snip >

The real issues includes a takeover of our government and society by regressives with chronic amnesia and low IQ's who are little more than willing tools of the corporate fascist 1%. They use religion and peddle fear to the gullible, engage in class warfare against their suffering neighbors and call themselves "christians" when their actions and words bear little if any resembalance to the gospel.

Well, technically isn't it "You may deceive all of the people part of the time, and part..."

My apologies in advance if I missed an inside joke! It's a great saying though!

That said, this conversation is a little too wild for me... Back to tamer pastures.

You actually did get it wrong Oswego Mom 2011.

The quote is as follows:

"You may deceive all the people part of the time, and part of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time."

I'm looking into buying one of those Santorum-logo sweater vests right now!
Hopefully the fabric is soft enough that after the conventions, I can just use it to buff the car.
(If the material is as soft as Rick's moral fiber, my car is gonna shine!! :) )

Ray,
Given Santorum's political record, it will probably be made out of a toxic material made in some third world country by 10 year olds, so you might want to wear a t-shirt under it and definitely don't use it on your car.

I'm sure you both would look lovely in a sweater vest, no?

@Ron Burgandy who posted <snipped> .the big bad conservatives who have controled DuPage County since its inception. <end snip>
~~~
with emphasis on the word "controled" ( I think you spelt it rong ) CONTROLLED.
why the need to control ? sounds to me like you do not respect democracy.

message to Ron: time to call the movers! we're here and we vote and if you have any doubt, check the results of the 2009 elections for Naperville and other parts of DuPage. Now, where shall Ron move to ? hmmmmm. here's a few suggestions:

Wasilla, Alaska: home of Sarah Palin. or perhaps anywhere in South Carolina. If you need help packing, I am here.

Report: Illinois third-most corrupt state in nation.
http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x962235418/Report-Chicago-has-most-public-corruption-in-nation

Yes-it is a (corrupt) Democratic state and where exactly did Obama come from?

As soon as the market for me ripping you libs off and making my millions is over I will move on to the next state!! Your all so easy to fool into a sale. Suckers!!!

Mitt paid 15% - the going rate on capital gains.The reason that Mitt, John Kerry, the Kennedys, Biden, Pelosi, Reid all pay such low taxes is because when politicians create a new tax they put in loopholes for their friends and themselves. Both parties do this, especially at the state level.

O2012, You are absolutely correct. Illinois is a Democatic state. That's why we're in so much trouble. We have clueless politicians like Quinn who mindlessly continue to hand out freebies to buy votes driving our state further and further into debt. With all of the taxes, fees, regulations, and more taxes, Illinois has become one of the worst states in the union to do business in. If the the Democrats remain in control, it won't be too long before the "takers" eventually out number the "makers" and then we will go bankrupt. The same will happen to our country as a whole if the Chicago Democrats (i.e. Obama) remains in power.

I know it wasn't me. Afterall, I didn't say he was BORN in (corrupt) Illinois, he's FROM (corrupt) Illinois.
Besides, from what I've been told, he wasn't actually born (in the traditional sense of the word) ...he was simply sent from heaven. Maybe I heard wrong.
But how about that evil Rick Santorum? Where was he born? Oh wait, that whole birth control thing. Nevermind.

The author did not identify the particular statement she is writing about, but assuming it is the same one recorded on the YouTube video you referenced, I have to agree that the actual statements, and the tenor of those statements, were considerably less extreme that many of the posters have depicted here. I am not a Santorum supporter by any stretch, but an honest discussion would shed a lot more light on things than some of the vitriol that is being spewed here.

I lifted the quote from his book. That had nothing to do with his subsequent interviews. You are all correct, Eileen, Dave an My Opinion -- as a journalist, I have to go to the original source of the crap, and not the subsequent backpedaled crap.

Seriously, did Erin just quote herself below as "a journalist"? How hysterical. Erin, you are no journalist.

Evolution.

@Bob Jonas: It appears that you are a fan of the Fox News KoolAid cocktail.

@Bob Jonas: I never said that I raised my daughters to be "wild and free".....is that what you got out of that? My daughters are intelligent, logical thinkers and morally responsible. When I was a teenager, I went to school with a few girls who had strict, religious parents and who were taught that they should wait for sex until they are married. One of 'em was even my best friend. Can you guess which girls used abortion as birth control before they were even 16 years old? Can you guess which girls were considered the biggest sluts? Sure, it wasn't ALL the girls who were taught such things that had those results, but I did notice that most of the "troubled" girls came from that strict, religious upbringing.

Yeah, the old saying - "bad girls don't get pregnant, good girls do".

The bad girls know how not to, they "do it" all the time. The good girls get caught up in a moment of weakness ( with a smooth talking guy - aka "Paradise by the Dashboard Lights" - Meatloaf) and are unprepared.

@my opinion posted <snipped>

Yeah, the old saying - "bad girls don't get pregnant, good girls do".
The bad girls know how not to, they "do it" all the time. The good girls get caught up in a moment of weakness and are unprepared. < end snip>
~~~~
those naughty lustful " bad girls " who just want to do it all the time, leading the poor unsuspecting hormone-fueled man right down the road to perdition with their bad girl lustful ways, leaving in their wake bankrupcies, corporate takeovers, a housing meltdown and an oil disaster in the Gulf Of Mexico.

Obviously! :-)

Unfortunately, the only way the FAUX-news sheeple will ever become informed is when they stop baa baa baa-ing all they hear from FAUX news and change the channel.

I am absolutely baffled as to why ANYONE who is NOT a Wealthy business owner, trust-fund baby or wall-street bankster would vote for the Republitards. Get a CLUE sheeple! The Republitards DO NOT and WILL NOT EVER have YOUR best interests at heart!

Angelique, I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you only watch MSNBC? aka- The Obama Channel? What makes you think Democrats have your best interest at heart? They, too, want to control what we all say, do, think etc. Don't you see, both parties are corrupt and that is the problem? What is it that you want? More government intrusion into your personal life? If that's what you want, there's plenty of liberal progressives on both sides of the aisle that'll be glad to dictate your life to you. The only difference is one party shoves it down our throats faster than the other. Most politicians don't have anyone's interest at heart, but their own. You, get a clue.

So, why do you think Republicans are uneducated? My paternal grandfather was a yellow-dog Democrat and a high school graduate. Since he was a less-than-successful farmer, and he came to the conclusion that education was a waste of time.

Furthermore, he thought college was simply a tool for the GOP to create more voters. After all, every Republican he knew had far more money than he did, as well as one or more college degrees.

Never mind the fact that his favorite president, FDR, had a Bachelor's degree from Harvard and attended Columbia Law School.

So, when did the GOP go from being the party of the wealthy educated class to the party of the uneducated? I know a lot of Republicans, and they all have college degrees. A fair number have graduate degrees.

So, you might want to rethink your statement about education and Republicans.

**"What is it that you want? More government intrusion into your personal life?"**
-- A good example of "government intrusion" would be Santorum - if he were, hypothetically, in power - telling a woman who was raped and impregnated that she must go ahead, see that pregnancy through, make the best of it and live with it.

Humm....lets see. About 200,000 people watch PMSNBC on a good day, while 2-3 million watch Faux news daily. Why? The same reason "Liberal" (opps sorry, I mean progressive) radio fails. Would you want to listen to "we have to raise taxes" or the "government needs to run your life" for hours on end each day? Plus nobody can stand Ed Schultz or Rachel MADCow, with all their witty "progressive humor". Oh yeah, thats right those Liberals are just so much smarter than us, they know whats best for all of us.

Roseann, I am not Democrat, either, in fact I wholeheartedly agree with Brad Drake (his post is below 10:34 am on Friday, February 17, 2012) I would LOVE nothing more than to have a president elected that has nothing to do with this two-party system. I agree, they are BOTH corrupt. My Husband is Dem, My Parents - Repub and since age 18 I've never agreed with most of what EITHER party stands for.....they care only about their wealthy corporate buddies. I voted for Ralph Nader in this past election and I was able to encourage hundreds of friends and family to vote for him as well. Ralph Nader was/is what our country desperately needs, yet his message could not be heard because he was not in the pockets of the media moguls.

However, of the two parties, I truly feel that the Republicons are much more damaging to anybody that is NOT wealthy.........they are trying their damnedest to eliminate the middle class, make the poor even more poor, and the wealthy even more wealthy......and they, too, are "up in everyone's personal business", wanting to control us as well, probably even MORE so than the Democrats.

O2012, it's understandable that you are bitter because you lost you job. It's sad that anyone must lose their job. However, the fact is that, in the worst of the Bush years, 94% of Americans were still gainfully employed. Sure, it got a bit worse after Obama began to implement his policies, but even now, 91% to 92% of Americans are still working.

Face it. Unless they fired you directly, it was neither Bush nor Obama who caused you to lose your job. Stop wasting your energy on nonproductive things like blame and envy. Get out there and show the world that you have marketable skills and you will find a good job.

@independence666 who posted <snip>Face it. Unless they fired you directly, it was neither Bush nor Obama who caused you to lose your job. Stop wasting your energy on nonproductive things like blame and envy. Get out there and show the world that you have marketable skills and you will find a good job.
~~~
yeah, sure you will. Try being unemployed and over 50 or unwell or unemployed for a length of time or have credit issues as a result of being unemployed or a person of color.

Tawanda posted, "yeah, sure you will. Try being unemployed and over 50 or unwell or unemployed for a length of time or have credit issues as a result of being unemployed or a person of color." Everyone seems to be a victim in this country today. Folks claim they can't find a job because they are too old, too black, too sick, too poor, too much in debt, too addicted to drugs, etc. I believe that the main problem is that many people would rather sit around whining than going out there to do the hard work required to become gainfully employed. It certainly much easier to wait for the nanny state to save you from this cruel world isn't it?

Since your not busy, can you run over to Kenyan and and get some running water for Obama's brother who lives in a hut. I guess Big O just doesn't care about his brother. Probably because he's black.

Wait a second... So people disliked Obama because he's not white.... But they liked Herman Cain because... He's white?

I don't know if it works quite like that. But I can understand there are people on two sides of a political spectrum that disagree.

@Avenger That is such an old talking point even the campaign gave that up long ago.

Tawanda,

My dislike for Barack Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin. If Condeleeza Rice ran for president, I would not only vote for her, but I would ring doorbells, make phone call, and stuff envelopes.

My first problem with Mr. Obama is that he is beholden to the Chicago Democrat Machine. If you are independent of the Machine, you don't have David Axlerod as your campaign manager and White House advisor.

Mr. Obama talks about honest, open government. Yet, he endorsed Rod Blagojevich for reelection in 2006, despite the fact that everyone knew that the Feds were investigating Blago. It wasn't a matter of if there would be an indictment but when.

I also don't care for Mr. Obama, because he's trying to revive the economy using Keynsian economics. I majored in economics, and many feel that Milton Friedm and the monetarists successfully disproved Keynes theories.

As for the birther issue, the problem I have isn't with whether the President was or wasn't born in Hawaii. It's why he used every legal tactic to avoid having the original birth certificate released. As my maternal grandfather used to say, you can be right, or you can be President. Yes, people should have taken the President's word. But, rather than waste time in court, he could have just released the certificate and been done with it.

@Tawanda: I Know & I agree.
*sigh*
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.

@ Tawanda - So by your rational, is it safe to say non-whites have closed minds due to their lack of support of non-white Republicans over the past 60 years?

Tawanda, whether he's black, white, red yellow or purple has absolutely nothing to do with the job Mr. Obama has done as President. The bottom line is that he is one of the worst we've ever had. He promised that, if elected, he would turn the economy around. However, once the American public voted him into office, he promptly incresed our debt and made things far worse than they were. I especially feel bad for the younger folks who will be paying his debts for the rest of their lives. History will not treat him kindly.

Why does Obama refuse to help his brother, who lives in a dirt hut,with no running water,or toliet. Lives on 12.00 a year and Obama won't even send him a few bucks. How evil is this man Obama. Explain his dark heart to me, and if he can watch his brother live like a dog, surely he can watch all of us live like dogs.

Well said.

lol! Unsubscribe. I know what you mean ;)

bub BYE

I suspect I know the answer.

This is a popular quote to ;ift from other bloggers. There are literally dozens of blog entries that show up in Google that sound much like Erin's rant. Many of them admit that they didn't read the book because they were outraged by this particular quote.

@Roseann---> go to planned parenthood and get your free birth control pills. just make sure you follow the directions and not place one between your knees, like Santorum's gazillionaire donor did " way back then "

@Avenger go #occupy something, like a barstool and take a chill pill while you're at it. Have a lovely weekend! ;)

Just give us all our dang free chill pills and barstools already !

Correction: If things keep going the way the are, the biggest loser will be the American people. I don't think any of the politicians running on either side have what it takes to save this sinking ship. We have become a hopelessly divided country on the road to ruin.

Dave- You ARE the father! Oops- wait, no, that's Maury? Unless, of course, your name is Luke. Whatever. Obviously, you're beyond this community discussion.

@ Tawanda - It bothers me when bloggers make silly statements to shroud facts in pursuit of personal political agendas...

Obama is the first President elected to have a brother living in a hut. And with all of Obama's millions he can't spare a dime for his brother, how evil is this man Obama, talk about the greedy rich, his poor brother has no running water,no toliet and Obama eats caviar. Wow! How evil are liberals really. Who could vote for a man that leaves his brother in a 8X10ft hut. Wont be long and we will all be heating are homes with camel dung.

@Lee Andreatta: you *forgot* to mention the Cuban Missle Crisis, The Blizzard Of 1967 and the floridation of water as possible culprits. I am sure if you try hard enough you can find some way in which to assign blame to women for these events.

Besides, where were all the dads while their families and society were imploding ?

@Tawanda - I only deal in things that can reasonably be proven. No one is blaming women, only feminism which this article was about... Are you disputing the data or did you forget the initial point of the article in pursuit of demagoguing my point?

While society was imploding, dad's were out in the work force, the same place where they have been for thousands of years.

Ben, Santorum is correct. Compulsory schooling is a relatively new construct (around 150 years old). Private education is older, was and is more successful, and was local. Parents DID have more control over their kids' education. And, as a conservative, I believe kids benefit from having a fulltime SAH parent. Most of the working moms I know would rather be home with their kids. Homeschooling is not for everyone, but I like that Santorum is one. He will protect our homeschooling rights, unlike other big goverment nominees. But, RP also appeals to me, as I have a libertarian streak. In the end, Santorum (and RP) are concerned with choice in education, not the one-size-fits-all attempt we are paying throught the nose for which is failing miserably.

Ben - There's nothing extreme about equality for women, but that's not what feminism is... Feel free to "quote" Santorum and say he's a radical, but if you don't see radicalism in feminism, you're blind...

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." Catherine MacKinnon
"If women are supposed to be less rational and more emotional at the beginning of our menstrual cycle when the female hormone is at its lowest level, then why isn't it logical to say that, in those few days, women behave the most like the way men behave all month long?" Gloria Steinem
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." Andrea Dworkin
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference." Susan Griffin
"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." Sheila Jeffrys
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." Robin Morgan

Vote republican ? get real. Even the republicans have defected. All that remains are the 1% and the knuckle-dragging imbreds who want to take this country backward to a place and time which was very good for only them and them, alone.
No, I will not vote republican, except for Judy Barr Topinka. She is a good republican.

Brad Drake, I couldn't agree more! I think that the ONLY way this two-party system can be broken up is if we remove money from elections. That is what everyone needs to work together to change, as soon as possible!

I could not agree more !

Why is everyone sticking stuff in their pipes and smoking it? Is that legal?

@Jina: you are better than a woman with a career. don;t know where you got the idea you were being attacked. I raised my family alone and worked, sometimes 2 jobs. Many married women are essentially doing the same thing. As women, we need to lift eachother up and not fight. Being a mom is an honorable position not suited for all women including many stay @ home moms; likewise, a mom who works is not an evil person who neglects her kids, either.

Shut up. That makes too much sense.

danm that fancy nancy pelosi

Funny, I kind of feel the same way about tax breaks for corporations, bailing out industries that were fiscally irresponsible in the first place and all the rest who, what is it again..."....run to ther (sic) goverment (sic) and demand that they make it right..." all for "...makeing (sic) choices on the backs of other people." Like you said, go figure.

sounds more like the Wall Street Banksters than anything.

Roseann, have you wondered why the GOP can't find anyone of substance and sanity to run against Obama ?

Obama 2012 - Have you ever wondered why dems waste so much time to regulate everything but women vaginas? Have you ever wondered why dems are only concerned government jobs? Have you ever wondered why the Senate is half the chamber of Congress controlled by the dems. Have you ever wondered why dems supported Wall Street bailouts? Have you ever wondered why you forgot to take your meds today because you make no sense?

@Lee Andreatta who posted <snip>
Have you ever wondered why dems waste so much time to regulate everything but women vaginas?
~~~
what business do any of you have regulating women's vaginas in the first place ?

surely, even you jobs creators can find a few jobs to create besides a federal vagina registry. sheeh, talk about government intrusion and an expansion of powers and, by the way, speaking of "expansion" why are viagra and penis pumps covered by insurance ?

@LeeAndreatta:
Have you ever wondered how any logical and sane person could even try to pin the bankster bailouts on the dems when in fact it was GWB and Hank Paulson, former Goldman Sachs ( " sacks o' gold ) bigwig apointee as head of US Treasury who in fact bailed out the banks ?

@Tawanda - The Federal government has business what so ever regulating such things... I agree with you on this as it should be a states issue. What business do dems have wanting to regulate everything else (health care, housing markets, wall street etc)?

@Tawanda - Have you ever wondered how someone who posts on these boards about such topics does not know Wall Street supports by a 5-1 margin democrats over the past 30 years? It doesn't matter who is the occupant of the White House, Wall Street buys and sells democrats while energy and manufacturing buys and sells republicans. Not surprised you'd try to misinform on that though since Wall Street is filled with such scum bags.

Seriously, you are more disiniformed and confused than most....you should go lie down before you hurt yourself. Furthermore, oh nevermind......I'm not even going to bother......it'd just be a lost cause AND you've already threatened to "go on all night"......we'll let you save that for the missus. mmmmk?

you *forgot* to mention Saul Alinsky's radical book on community organizing, page 8

Mike Hunt? Really? Your choice of alias only reflects on the maturity of your intellect and comments. Obama detractors like yourself need to make up your mind. Is Obama a radical christian disciple of Reverend Wright, a secret Muslim, or an atheistic communist who is waging war on religious liberties? Seems to me it would be difficult to be all three. On a separate note has anyone else noticed the the alias known as "Ron Burgundy" (Will Ferrell character name from Anchor Man) was created on the same day that Chad E. Walz was banned from this site? It will be interesting to see if he will eventually suffer a similar fate.

@Joseph Sharp: under America's current tax laws, the very wealthy are being subsidized and this is wrong and we cannot afford this. Why are we passing special tax rules that apply only to benefit the very wealthy ? Even the very wealthy question this, Bill Gates for example. It's simply preposturous and needs to end.

The tax codes need to be fair to everyone. Why is this such an unacceptable concept to you ?

@Tawanda - If the very wealthly are being subsidized, then who's paying all the taxes? Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are someone of the biggest welfare kings out there. Ask Warren Buffet how much money he made on the last bailout then you'll see why he supports proponents of a higher tax system.

@Independence666:

Nations and empires just do not suddenly and mysteriousely *disappear-end * unless a natural disaster or a pandemic occurs.
We have been on a slippery slope for awhile. Jobs outsourced, greed and corruption in government and violence everywhere.

Where have you been for the last 40+ years ? Obama didnt start any of this.

TtA, you are correct. Obama didn't start any of this but he did run under the banners of "hope" and "change", and the fact is that, after 3 years, he provided neither. The majority of Americans elected him because they really believed he could correct the problems. Instead, he's actually made things worse. This country is indeed on downside of the empire curve.

@Independence:
Likely, you did not vote for Obama for president in the first place, so IMO your protests ring hollow.
SInce we can agree that none of this began with Obama's election, my question for you is this:
where have you been hiding all these years ?

Tawanda, how in the world do you know who I voted for? What if I did, in fact, vote for Mr. Obama. Wouldn't that give me even more reason to be very disappointed with his failure to deliver what he promised. He appeared to be someone who would do things differently. He seemed to be someone who would transcend partisan politics. However, the hard reality is that he's just like the rest. He's just another typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say to get votes.

Independence666??? I always knew Liebertarianism was a form anti-christ thought. LOL, anyone who believes in not careing for your brother & only for oneself is going against the basic Christian tenant of being thy brother's keeper & caring about those of us less fortunate than ourselves & acutually going out of one's way to help one's neighbor. IJS

@Joseph Sharp: again, I will state a fact: under the current system, the very wealthy are being subsidized by nearly everyone else and this is wrong. Even those who benefit, Bill Gates for one, says it's wrong, but the republicons demand special laws to protect the wealth and inheritance of a select few and have essentially held America hostage to get their way...and you wonder why most Americans identify the republican party as the party for the super rich ?

If you believe as you apparently do, that the super rich should be subsidized with special laws ( Bush tax breaks ) because they are special people, a form of royalty, then I suggest you set up a foundation and make donations out of your own pocket.

@Tawanda - What party do Wall Street (firms, executives, etc) overwhelmingly contribute to?

@Lee: these "donations" must also end. this is for the good of America's remaining shread of democracy. the fact is, you work for who pays you. both parties are guilty.

@Tawanda - Do you really think we live in a "democracy"? I've seen you post that a few different times... We live in a Representative Republic.

Restoring the tax rates to the pre-Bush tax cuts for the super rich is a nice beginning. Ending taxpayer subsidies for rich and powerful energy cartel and closing the loopholes which permit the wealthiest corporations to avoid paying any federal taxes would also help. Stop making it attractive for US companies to outsource American jobs and providing incentives for American manufacturing jobs are also good ideas.
Also, putting and end to insider trading in congress and the "donations" aka bribes given legally to our elected representatives in order to influence their votes must also be addressed.
Our system is broken on many levels and the middle class has already been destroyed and it didn't happen the day Obama was sworn in, either.

Tawanda, the Bush tax cuts benefit the middle class, of which I am part of. They should be permanent. I am against all forms of excessive welfare, whether it's corporatism or the traditional welfare system. As a shareholder, I appreciate making a return on my investment; while I would like no outsourcing, government regulation had made America a hostile environment in which to be successful. Both parties have been complicit for years, I agree. BUT, Obama put us on the fast track to destruction. I don't appreciate a larger and larger portion of my family's income going to support the 50% of people who don't pay income tax. I believe the government does a poor job of helping the poor, eliminating poverty, improving education and protecting our borders. They do a spectacular job of getting involved in areas they have no Constitutional basis for and make a mess of generally everything they touch. It is our right to give charitably as we see fit; it is not our duty to hand over everything we work for to a bumbling, inefficient, corrupt governerment who's only concern is self-preservation.

"whose" sorry for the typo.

@Doremus Jessup: this is what happens when people listen to rightwing spin day in and day out. They become the useful idiots of the super wealthy and powerful who may have the money and lots of it but not the heart and soul of the voters. Those useful idiots regurgitate out anything they hear because it fits in so well with the rest of their core beliefs and values, such as:
the super wealthy are the job creators
women of color are welfare queens and reckless breeders
Obama is a Kenyan muslim, a communist and socialist who hates America
The womens movement destroyed the family and all of society's ills can be traced back to the womens movement
Men of color are terrorists

The useful idiots do the bidding of the super wealthy and powerful because the super wealthy and powerful need them to promote their not so hidden agenda and the useful idiots need an arena and microphone in order to spread their bigotry.

It's a marriage of convenience but one headed where most bad marriages go and that is right under the bus.

Yeah, and Obama is a Muslim in sheep clothing.

What a wacko. I don't care what (if any at all) religious affiliation someone has. It means zero to me when it comes to their ability to govern. That said, I also expect that he or she keep their religion out of government. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist or anyone in between -- I don't care how you identify. If you keep your religion out of your politics, we'll be fine.

It's very offensive when people use "Muslim" as a pejorative, which is what I'm seeing here. Heads would explode if people routinely sputtered about "Christians" the way that they do Muslims. I don't judge Christianity by a fringe minority, why would I Muslims? Or Jews? Or anyone else? It reveals so much more about an individual when they sink to such uneducated lows than it does the group they are attacking.

David McLean posted:
Yeah, and Obama is a Muslim in sheep clothing.
~~~~
is that the best you can do ? why are you so afraid of muslims ? do you personally know any muslim people ? what difference would it make if Obama were a muslim anyway ?

If Mr. Obama is the President of the United States, he should start acting like it. To start, please ask him to quit bowing to foreign leaders and it's undignified for a President to do so...

is that any less *dignified* than George W Bush kissing and holding hands with the Saudi king ?

http://sayitaintsoalready.com/2009/04/15/george-bush-kisses-a-saudi-prince/

pucker up

No, which is why I didn't vote for him... Not presidential at all. Yet you still support Obama bowing like a slave to his Saudi master don't you?

Well said Joseph. This country is made up of "makers" and "takers". As soon as the "takers" outnumber the "makers" we will go belly-up. Hey, last one out turn the lights off.

Tawanda, your attacks are unfounded. No one wants anyone to starve. Government stinks at helping people. Charity should come from PEOPLE, not from institutions. There has always been hardship, and there always will be for some people. It's up to each of us to help, not to rely on the government. Do not stereotype by claiming your version of one person's viewpoint is everyone's from a particular group.

@Tawanda - How sad that you advocate the confiscation of private wealth (stealing) to spread the wealth. Stealing is wrong, but if the government does it to help the "poor" it's coveted as progressive. Gotta love the duplicity in that message.

Tawanda,
I am not even sure how to answer this ignorance! You are so off the mark, it's scary. I have NEVER received anything from anyone! I am gauging by your response that you most likely have. If I liked Socialism, I would move to Greece and reap the rewards of that great government..LOL. You are right about one thing...I would love to shut the door on entitlements...PERIOD. Reading your nonsense, I would say that we are only entitled to taxes! I don't want anyone to starve or struggle, unnecessarily. Perhaps that is the reason I donate food and clothes and furniture to organizations. I buy diapers, wipes and formula for mothers who need help with their babies. You really should not speak of things you know nothing about....otherwise, you are just allowing everyone here to see the real you. Your crap about "if I can't have it, then no one can" is laughable. Personally, if I can have it than so can they.....by working hard and saving just like me! There really isn't much else to it, if you ask me. I take care of myself and my family. I don't expect my neighbor, colleagues, friends, or other family members to be responsible for me. I have never WALKED AWAY from my home/mortgage, I don't spend near or above my means. I think about my future and that of my children. Stop slamming the republicans. I am an independent thinker and I vote that way. Neither party is my party. That is the way it should be....independence with a LEAN to the one party. Grow up!!

It is very difficult to take anything you post seriously when you continue to use pejoritive terms such as "Teabaggers". You obviously aren't interested in a real, productive conversation. Instead, you seem intent on shoving your worldview down everyone else's throats. No thanks.

@Jeff Crane who posted:<snipped>Governments obligation is to PROTECT its people, not to clothe them, feed them or support them. <end snip>
~~
so how's that police and fire protection working out for you?

gotta love those strict constitutionalists.

@Tawanda - Federalism or states rights allows states and local municipalities to plan for local issues such as fire and police protection. Take a look at the 10th Amendment. Gotta love people like yourself who haven't a clue what they're talking about regarding "strict constitutionalists"...

@Tawanda - I suppose you are referring to "promote the general welfare" when you say the government has a moral / legal obligation. That's relatively vague... How would one justify using that statement in light of modern programs, etc in light of the fact that most didn't exist during and in the century following the Constitution.

Keep in mind, when the government helps itself to its citizens money and disperses it as it sees fit... That's not helping those it was taken from, and doesn't the government have the same legal and moral obligation to those people?

The question is "when is enough?". You mentioned 39% earlier, but I get the feeling with the way that you discuss the subject that you'd like them to earn no more than anybody else(tax the rich into oblivion).

I've lived in quite a few countries, and despite some positives to the poor for extreme taxation, it brings some hardship as well. The real issue at hand... Is fixing the economy. A discussion of handouts to bankroll government programs won't fix the economy, it'll just subsidize a poorly run government.

Thats the real problem, our time needs to be spent on improving the economy. I'm a small business owner and don't make a fortune, so when things like my unemployment tax increases by 25% in one year ( with no lay offs) it makes it harder to maintain a business. There are millions of other SBOs just like me feeling that same pain.

@Tawanda - No, "the common good" shouldn't mean anything to us as it's socialistic dribble and located NOWHERE in The Constitution. Neither is anything about a "legal and moral obligation to help it's citizens". Also, where does it say anything about the government helping the poor in any of our founding documents? Declaration, Constitution, Federalist Papers, Monroe Doctrine? Please cite any paragraph or sentence that even remotely remotely suggests such silliness. The founders rightly understood the demagoguery (which you are quite good at) and precociousness inherent in such as philosophy as "for the common good" or what folks like Obama deem as "social justice". The Constitution and other documents were created to protect the people from government, not enable government to "help" anyone.

Governments obligation is to PROTECT its people, not to clothe them, feed them or support them. Communist China is the closest thing to the type of governing you are suggesting. Here in the states you could always join the Amish and live the lifestyle you desire.

Where did you read that in the Constitution? What we got our masses of lazy liberal numbnut robots, laying around producing more problems, and repaying back nothing. You like bab ysitting grown adults? What we have is a massive theft of taxpayer money.

@Lee Andreatta: where in the constitution does it mention seat belt laws, mandatory car insurance, police and fire depts., municipal waste/sanitary districts, homeowners associations, park districts and zoos, social security and medicare, health departments, department of agriculture and space exploration (NASA) ? What about public funded pensions, highways, tax subsidies for farmers and big oil, foreign aid and membership in NATO ? How about national flood insurance ?
Shall I continue ?

@David McLean:
If it's a massive theft of taxpayers money you are looking for, look to the east, to Wall Street and the taxpayer bank bailouts which have been estimated to be over 19 TRILLION dollars.
Any comment or would you rather stick to picking the low-hanging fruit ?

"...where in the constitution does it mention seat belt laws, mandatory car insurance, police and fire depts., municipal waste/sanitary districts, homeowners associations, park districts and zoos, social security and medicare, health departments, department of agriculture and space exploration (NASA) ? What about public funded pensions, highways, tax subsidies for farmers and big oil, foreign aid and membership in NATO ? How about national flood insurance ?"
Tawanda, you are making my point for me. The Constitution does not mention any of these infringement on individual rights. Let's eliminate or privitize all of them.

@Tawanda - First off I never made any claim any of these were in The Constitution. You did. I'll humor you though...

"seat belt laws, mandatory car insurance, police and fire depts., municipal waste/sanitary districts, homeowners associations, park districts and zoos" are all state or local laws, not mentioned in The Constitution.

"social security and medicare, health departments, department of agriculture, pensions, subsidies, foreign aid" I'd argue are ALL unconstitutional...

"space exploration (NASA)" can be classified as national defense and constitutional. Highways as well under defense or the interstate commerce clause...

Yet there's still no explanation for your silly little points about "common good" or a moral obligation to the poor actually being in The Constitution.

Please do go on...

@Christine:
I am not sure if now is the time to rewrite the constitution. Besides, any amendment is subject to a judge's opinion anyway.
The problem I have is with this strict interpretation with a timing that is curious to me.
Where have you folks been for the last 100 years and why cannot the constitutionalists seeme to get enough support with the public to make any difference politically ?
Instead of arguing with me, why not organize politically ?

"I am not sure if now is the time to rewrite the constitution. Besides, any amendment is subject to a judge's opinion anyway. The problem I have is with this strict interpretation with a timing that is curious to me. Where have you folks been for the last 100 years and why cannot the constitutionalists seeme to get enough support with the public to make any difference politically ? Instead of arguing with me, why not organize politically ?"
Tawanda, who mentioned rewriting the Constitution? It's fine the way it is. It's progressives who seem to have a problem understanding it and acting according to it. And why do you assume I am not politically active and don't make a difference? If you knew me IRL you could make that determination, but you don't. And as to police and fire departments, PRIVATIZE, PRIVATIZE, PRIVATIZE.

@Christine:

No, I do not know you but I respect you because you take a stand. You make up for all those uninvolved ignoramuses who cannot think independently. My philosophy with those I may not completely agree with is to find a common issue and go from there.
I think we can agree there is a lot that needs to change. You and I are both Americans who care in our own way. I am really not sure how any of this will matter, though.

Tawanda, most people are taking a stand. Sadly, it's on one side or the other. We watch pundits on television and adopt their views. No one is thinking for themselves anymore. People have drastically reduced personal charity because they think it's the government's responsibility. It is not. We are responsible. We must act to help others. Teach a man to fish instead of giving him free food.

@Christine: who posted <snipped>9:25 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
People have drastically reduced personal charity because they think it's the government's responsibility. It is not. We are responsible. We must act to help others. Teach a man to fish instead of giving him free food.
~~~
Most people are broke, so how can they be expected to feed, cloth and house others when they cannot even support themselves, and there is no sign of improvement. Things were manageable when the ratios were not so lop-sided. I think we should all try and help where we can to make a difference.

Tawanda, if everyone were broke the government would have no one to take from and redistribute money to. Yes, more people are unemployed, gas is high, food is high, utilities are high, everything has gone up and more people are unemployed. But, my point is that personal charity should still trump the government's entitlements. I would love to reduce the depth of the government's hand in my pocket and then give to people who really need it. And just how do we determine that? Withg ood old fashioned common sense, which is sorely lacking in our government.

It seems to me that most of the Sandack supporters claim Ron is not apart of the political establishment that we as citizens have endured for decades here in Illinois. How can this be true while he accepts donations from big corporations to influence legislation, many of which are out-of-state, and is supported by the same lobbying bodies that many in the political establishment are supported by. This is a gross indicator of how Ron will conduct himself as our representative. That is my take and believe many support that theory. It's more of the same. If you connect the dots, they lead to the same old suspects. Aside from our differences, this is something I have fought against long before I even moved into Downers Grove. Illinois politics is a cesspool of corruption and back room deals at the expense of the taxpayer. This is well documented. I'm sorry, but Ron is definitely on the wRONg track.

Man, if I see one more attempted thread hijacking with Cranian anti-Sandack posts, I think that will push me to vote for Ron outright, without even looking up any issues! I'd prefer just to go to his gotitinforsandackinapersonalway.org website and get info there, but I don't think I need to bother!

Why am I plagued with suspicion that the same person is posting messages using other names/aliases ?
Tawanda was not born last week. Try changing your writing style.

No - I just thought this thread was primarily for the purpose of bashing (or feebly trying to defend) the ultrakooky Rick Santorum!

Tawanda, your repeated use of insulting labels like "sheeple" only serves to show the rest of us your level of immaturity. To be a good debater you really should concentrate on getting your point across without trying to insult you opponents. Once the insults start to fly, it's obvious that the one doing the insulting has lost the argument.

@Independence666

Sheeple (a portmanteau of "sheep" and "people") is a term of disparagement in which people are likened to sheep, a herd animal. The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research. By doing so, they undermine their own individuality and may willingly give up their rights.

Usage: The label originated in the United States, possibly referring to British John Brunner's novel The Sheep Look Up, and designates people who tend to accept and take statements at face value, especially if it is cited in mainstream media.

Hmmm...I don't think Tawanda was insulting anyone, only stating fact. Also, from what I've read of her posts so far, she's obviously not lost any arguments.

Tawanda, helping the poor and clothing the naked is not socialism. The Bible clearly states that if you don't work, you don't eat. We will always have people who must be cared for and it is our responsibility to care for them. It is not the government's responsibility. The government takes away the opportunity for humility and generosity on the part of the giver and humility and gratefullness on the part of the receiver of charity. Nowhere in the Bible does it state the government should feed the poor and clothe the naked. The responsibility for that lies with the person you see in the mirror.

@Tawanda - In the bible, helping the poor and clothing the naked isn't socialism. It's a personal choice which helps lead to salvation of an individual soul... Quite different then an oppressive government confiscating wealth and then dolling out in a manner to keep folks poor and clothed just enough to keep voting a certain way... I find the left likes to make that inaccurate point about socialism and the New Testament in trying to justify theft to a central government. Joseph had to take a 9 month pregnant Mary to Bethlehem to pay the tax man. Ironic...

I can imagine Jesus having to wait until the Romans forced him at the tip of a spear to heal and feed the afflicted. In fact, the Romans could have instituted a health care law and multiplication of bread, fish and wine law forcing Jesus to heal and feed the multitudes... Jesus' hated of the Roman tax collector would be a great triangulation addition in the story as well.

Jesus did this all on his own and taught salvation would come to those who follow through PERSONAL deeds, not through some governmental agency acting as a surrogate to the individual.

Christine, the bible is not a buffet table where we pick what we like and ignore or discard what we either do not like or doesn't quite fit in with our personal ideology.

The bible says that anyone who hurts a child should have a millstone placed around their neck and thrown into the depths of the seas, and that we should visit those in prison. Should those madates be part of public policy ?

The bible clearly states that we should feed the hungry and cloth the naked and we the people are the government. If we the people can bail out the robber barons on Wall Street, we the people can help our own through these diffecult times.

I am certain God would approve of this message.

@Lee:
Your post is the reason why we have a separation of church and state in the constitution. I do not share your interpretation of scripture and while you are entitled to practice your beliefs, you have no right to force it upon this country.

I have a problem with church people aka church sheeple using scripture to prop up their political beliefs and deciding everyone else must belief as they do.

God is not a republican and the GOP is not the party of God.

In the middle east, they're called the taliban. Here in America, it seems we have our own taliban.

@Tawanda - Where in the Constitution does it mention the SEPARTATION of church and state in The Constitution? If you're referring to Thomas Jefferson's letter where he mentions this point, he was clearly pointing out how a national religion should not be established (like the Church of England at the time)... If you're referring to the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" what part of "prohibiting the free EXERCISE thereof" don't you get?

I'm not sure what Constitution you're reading, but you need to re-read if you're going to keep mentioning The United States Constitution's contents...

The same point should have been made about Obama as a college professor... Too late.

pot kettle=black.
Again, I am not here to debate. If it's a debate you want, go join a debate club.
To "debate" with you would be a waste of my time. Your mind is closed and narrow.

@Tawanda - It would be a waste of your time, because you're uninformed and would lose. My mind is always open to reason, never demagoguery which is the only form of rhetoric you engage in. Folks like you who claim to be open minded never let the facts get in the way... Demagogue - One who preaches doctrine they know to be untrue to hopeful idiots.

Yet you support Obama who is on record in supporting infanticide?

@Tawanda - I would never support Rick Santorm so it's not a denial or deflection. I'm not interested in his position because he'd NEVER get my vote.

Again, I ask you, why would you support Obama who voteed to kill a baby that survives an abortion late otherwise known as infanticide as well as late term abortions?

@Lee Andreatta:

Why are you not calling out David McLean on his extremist anti-life rant ?

Surely you must have an opinion on his post so why not share it or perhaps you agree with his views.

Furthermore, what make you think I should explain Obama's position on abortion ? Go to the white house web site and ask him yourself. You assume I am an Obama supporter and that I should explain how I can support Obama, considering his abortions views.
Let's assume that I am an Obama supporter, if even by default considering the parade of incompetents and crotch watchers on the right, and that I would need to somehow explain my support of Obama and my own anti-abortion views, which I will not conceal.
Life does not begin at penetration and end at birth. My views are in reality pro-life and not limited to anti-abortion, unlike you and most of the other regressives on the right. I believe our creator made each and everyone of us and as members of the family of God's creations, we must care for eachother. from conception until the end. Even the animal kingdom lives socially and cares for it's members and protects the vulnerable.
In the world of regressive logic, their concern ends at birth, and among some, like David McLean, those who do not agree with him should be aborted, and you do not call him out on this outrageous comment.

@Tawanda - Be consistent then. You don't want government to "watch a crotch", but want them to watch every other part of the human anatomy through the health care law?

Liberals who blindly support "reproductive rights" seem to have a very dangerous blind spot. Just take a look at where most of the "family planning" clinics are located in this country. If the folks in the poorer communities don't wake up to the fact that profiteers like Planned Patenthood are systematically killing off their young, they will eventually be wiped out completely.

It's called take there dignity away give a check and let them lay around and do nothing, because liberals don't think there smart enough to get a job. Liberals never tell you about the millions of blacks that have degrees and have careers. Shhhhhh! Tell them thier not capable. Vote Obama and get a raise on your welfare check. Open the border we need more voters.

@Ron Burgandy: the KKK also called themselves "christians " Go figure.

@Ron Burgandy:
A crotch watcher is someone, usually a republican, who spends too much time trying to regulate women's viginias and not enough time creating jobs, like they promised.

@Tawanda - I'm sure you can't wait for the rest of the "watchers" through Obama's health care law.

@David McLean:

Did you forget to take your meds today?

There is a difference between being anti-abortion and pro-life. Some anti-abortion men are actually anti-women and want to deny women the right to a sex life by denying access to contraceptives. America has seen them parade around their silly outmoded and sexist views of women and sex like it's 1612 instead of 2012. How dare they interfere on that which is none of their business and why are they not out creating jobs like they promised.
They're anti-abortion but also anti-birth control and consider women who are sexually robust as sluts. They love girls but fear women and rather than fix themselves of their own sexual insecurities, they seek to punish women. They lack consistancy in their views as well, supporting other types of killings such as capital punishment and acts of wars against muslim people resulting in needless death and violence. They also do not want social services for anyone, except themselves.

Pro-life means respecting other humans, including the unborn. Abortion repulses me and so does dealth row and acts of war against innocent people.

Not all republican conservatives are anti-abortion and not all liberal democrats are pro-choice. The regressives on the right just like to manipulate the church folks and detract from other issues facing America, like where are all the jobs they promised, while they slash and burn medicaid and food stamp funding.

@Angelique - One soul has had a chance at life and the other hasn't. Not sure why that concept is difficult to grasp...

@petee363:
the republicans are in fact, trying to deny contraceptives to women by helping the insurance industry uncover any potential loopholes in their requirements or outright inventing them in order to derail healthcare reform and deny women equal opportunities and equal protection. They are fooling no one but themselves and will pay a hefty price at the pols for this insult to all women of all political affiliations.

So why are viagra, penis pumps as well as vasectomies covered ?

I do not hear the regressives demanding an end to these proceedures exclusive to men or any sanctimonious wailing and droning on and on about how viagra and penis pumps violates someones religious beliefs.
The regressives on the right do not want women to have the right to sexual freedom or equal opportunities because they are threatened personally by this.

In the world of the rightwing regressives, women are still the property of men, to be assigned blame onto and to have their reproduction and sexuality controlled by men.

@petee363 who posted <snip> they are addressing the concerns of only those people who work for the catholic church, or any other religion that is opposed to contraceptives,
~~~
this is absolutely incorrect.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/video-sen-mitch-mcconnell-supports-banning-birth-control-coverage-any

@petee363,
It is not enough that the GOP has demanded exemptions for catholic employers to ban contraceptives from their employees insurance coverage ( but not viagra ) they now want to take their campaign to en entire new level by demanding any employer have the right to ban anything in their insurance plans if it's deemed to be " morally objectional " or conflicts with the employees religious beliefs. Keeping in mind that this is really about undermining healthcare reform, consider the very real scenarios and pandoras box being opened:
Christian Scientist employers can demand that only diet and supplements be used in place of normal accepted medical treatments. Jehovah Witnesses could refuse to pay for blood transfusions and the Church Of Scientology could drop autistic kids from their plans since they do not recognise autism as a bona fide disorder.
Just imagine the fallout, all because the GOP wants to derail healthcare reform and control women, instead of creating jobs like they said they would do.

@peteee363 who posted <snip>
nobody is for making birth control illegal, just not forcing anybody to pay for it, other then the person who wants it. what is wrong with that?
~~~
what business do you or anyone else have in deciding what insurance companies should or should not cover?
Isn't that interfering in the free market or are you trying to say that people should not have to pay an insurance premium if the proceedure or pharmaceitical covered conflicts with their own personal morality?

Isn't that forcing your beliefs upon others based upon your religion or morality?

One might think " why should I pay an insurance premium for treatments related to obesity and smoking " and I am morally offended that people choose an expensive and dirty habit which causes COPD and I am morally offended and should not have to pay for the weaknesses of others. Let them pay for their own nebulizer and oxygen tanks.
If anything, our government should be providing contraceptives free to all.

@Tawanda - Obama Care is all about what should be covered, who should be covered and why... It's a fraud.

Tawanda Avenger in response to your ad on Craigslist, blame the Republicans for unemployment, ha ha ha Obama ran on creating jobs, but managed to destroy 14.5 million jobs, 47 million on Link card, gas up 90% since he's in in the Orafice, house have lost 30% in value, millions of homes lost to foreclosure, families living in cars, what did we get from this moron? Free birth control,which isn't free policyholders pay for it,or tax payers. Wow what a pres he is, a total failure, come on Tawanda put the crack pipe down and tell us just what this moron has done positive for this country. Mr. Transparancey we can't even look at ther records were trillions of our taxpayer money went. Your so frickin out of your mind, I wish I could meet you. I'd make you see the light in a quickness. Moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Tawanda - Finally something we agree on...

@David McLean: Tawanda does not post on craigslist. I think you're tripping on your own hate-mongering. Get a grip and don't forget to take your meds.

@David McLean: your pathological hatred of Obama and complete ignorance on economics and how America got to the point of financial implosion means that you are truly the ultimate useful idiot of the right.
America's decline did not start the day Obama was elected. We have been on this path for decades. Where have you been hiding for the last 40+ years ?

So what has Obama done positive for America, you ask ? The beginning of real healthcare reform, something the GOP has fought tooth and nail against. While we have a long way to go, it's a start.

@peteee363 who posted <snip>

will you be saying that when the supreme court toss the whole law out?
<end snip>

~~~
I dont think that will happen. Lower courts have upheld most of the healthcare act so far.

Why is the US one of the only industrialized nations which does not have universal health care for it's citizens?

@Tawanda - Because we're the only country that protects its citizens from government forcing them to do anything through The Constitution and Bill of Rights. Most other industrialized countries have had several forms of government while we still have the same one in place since 1789.

Beware of what's popular at any given time as more often than not, those other industrialized countries come begging to us to bail them out.

@peteee363 - You're right on bro...

Tawanda, all I hear you saying is, "I want..." You want free healthcare, free contraceptives, free everything. Have you seen the countries who supply everything to their people? They're burning because it doesn't work. There aren't enough people making money compared to people receiving government benefits. Pay for your own food, cellphone, rent, car, healthcare. I've worked since I was 15 1/5. I've worked two jobs while putting myself through grad school. I'm embarrassed for you and the other takers. Take care of you and yours, and I'll do the same.

@Christine who posted:<snip> Christine
Tawanda, all I hear you saying is, "I want..." You want free healthcare, free contraceptives, free everything. <end snip>
~~~
excuse me but when did Tawanda say she wanted a free cell phone, contraceptives, rent or food ?
FYI, Tawanda works 2+ jobs and pays her own cell phone bill and no longer needs contraceptives.

She is curious, however, if you received any student grants or student loans while putting yourself thru school. Unless you were independently wealthy or your peeps had money and you lived at home while racking up student debt, somewhere along the line you were subsidized and if you still insist that you pulled this off on your own, I would love to read your story, so please share it as inspiration if nothing else.
How did you pay for your food, clothing, shelter, medical expenses, books, tuition, transportation, school supplies like a PC, your own cell phone bill, among other costs. Are you trying to say that you were completely financially independent ? I find this somewhat hard to believe unless you were an heiress or lottery winner.

@Christine:

What solutions or suggestions do you have for the sheer numbers of people over 50 who worked all their lives, paid their bills and paid into retirement funds, owned homes and suddenly got sick or lost their jobs and have found themselves homeless, broke and sick ?

What, in your opinion, should be done with all those people ? Should they be left to their own resources and placed in a catagory of useless eaters and takers, to be the target of ridiclue and scorn ?

@Lee Andreatta, who posted <snip>
@Tawanda - Because we're the only country that protects its citizens from government forcing them to do anything through The Constitution and Bill of Rights. Most other industrialized countries have had several forms of government while we still have the same one in place since 1789
~~~~
please explain seatbelt laws, automobile insurance laws, motorcycle helmet laws.

@Tawanda - Maybe you didn't see my response on Feb 20th to you: I'll repost:

"seat belt laws, mandatory car insurance, police and fire depts., municipal waste/sanitary districts, homeowners associations, park districts and zoos" are all state or local laws (10th Amendment), not mentioned in The Constitution.

"social security and medicare, health departments, department of agriculture, pensions, subsidies, foreign aid" I'd argue are ALL unconstitutional...

"space exploration (NASA)" can be classified as national defense and constitutional. Highways as well under defense or the interstate commerce clause...

Yet there's still no explanation for your silly little points about "common good" or a moral obligation to the poor actually being in The Constitution.

Preach it sister Johnson! Can I get an Amen???

Amen!

@Ron Burgandy:
Speaking of "fact" here's a few facts for you to study, the topic being " who are these leftist-libs you reference so much and think are DNC plants " here are a few hints:

we are the women of America whose virginia's you wish to regulate and whom you degrade, patronize and spiritually assault with your own interpretation of the bible.

we are the union workers whom you want to see unemployed while you claim to be jobs creators. we are the people whom you tried to deny unemployment benefits to.

we are the people whose drinking water is being poisoned due to fracking, an enviornmentally destructive means to get " safe clean domestic natural gas production" to benefit a few at the expense of many, invoking the "jobs creation" mantra while ignoring the documented hazards of fracking.

we are the moms and dads of America ( and DuPage County) watching the future of our children circle the drain because the GOP is holding everyone hostage until they can get special tax benefits for the very rich.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here, Ron ?

@Ame Bible:
kinda reminds me of those signs at the "pee tardy hateriot" rallys:

Keep your hands off MY [entitlements} go after those other folks..you know.."those " folks.