I really hope the Republicans nominate Santorum

[bradhusker]

NEXT,
Justice Ginsburg has said that torture under ANY circumstance makes us like our enemy.

WHAT THE FUCK? Let me again pause, while you take your jaw off the floor.

SO, according to Justice Ginsburg, we have a terrorist in custody, who is the only one capable of dis-arming a bomb, that will kill a million or more in one of our great cities. Keep in mind, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of women and children and infants.

Even in 24 that bomb still went off.

NOT SO, Keifer sutherland NEVER EVER failed his country. And Im pretty sure that David Caruso would also NEVER fail his country.

[BSmack]

Even in 24 that bomb still went off.

NOT SO, Keifer sutherland NEVER EVER failed his country. And Im pretty sure that David Caruso would also NEVER fail his country.

[Van]

It was just Valencia. Other than a few orange trees and seventy-four Starbucks locations blown to smithereens, Magic Mountain was likely the only real casualty of that blast.

[bradhusker]

It was just Valencia. Other than a few orange trees and seventy-four Starbucks locations blown to smithereens, Magic Mountain was likely the only real casualty of that blast.

Exactly, besides, I was concerned with a major dirty bomb over a city like New York, Chicago or LA.
Poisonning the air over a city of millions would be devastating, to say the least.
SO, which one of you liberal retardss would find it offensive to apply some basic torture to the muslim perp who has knowledge of such mass murder? I'd like a formal list of the wacko libs on this board who would harbour such child killers.

As for the method of torture? I refer to the major motion picture, "TAKEN", where Liam Neason's virgin teenage daughter is kidnapped over in France, Liam is CIA special forces assassin, so unbeknownest to the muslims, BIG MISTAKE, HUGE mis-calculation on their part,
ANYHOW, Liam eventually tracks down the muslims, and the ONLY way he can get his daughter back alive, is with a little good old fashioned torture.
SO, he straps him to a chair, wets him down a bit, and throws some electricity thru his body. NOW, just between you and me? THIS WORKS. He gets the vital info needed to get his daughter back alive. AND, the icing on the cake? The filthy muslim child rapist gets electrocuted, meaning that he cant hurt any more children.

SO again, I ask, which liberal wackos on this board dis-approve of this kind of torture. I want a list with names.
How can a liberal cocksucker live with the notion of protecting child rapists?

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Weren't you clamoring for weeks over wanting to protect a certain child rapist enabler?

Go dive into a sea of plugged in toasters, asshole.

[Mikey]

Exactly, besides, I was concerned with a major dirty bomb over a city like New York, Chicago or LA.
Poisonning the air over a city of millions would be devastating, to say the least.

Those cities are mostly filled with fags, child rapists, community organizers and other whacko libs. So, why would you care anyway?

[Dinsdale]

There's still a person out there who believes in the myth of the logistically impossible "dirty bomb"?

Wonders never cease.

[Van]

"fags, child rapists, community organizers"

[bradhusker]

"fags, child rapists, community organizers"

All 3 are cut from the same cloth.

[bradhusker]

Weren't you clamoring for weeks over wanting to protect a certain child rapist enabler?

Go dive into a sea of plugged in toasters, asshole.

If you are putting Joe Pa in that category, YOU are in need of serious mental counseling.

[LTS TRN 2]

To suggest that the GOP has lurched to the right in recent years is quite an understatement. That "Mixfroth" Santorum is leading the pack pretty much says it all. But...let's take a look at a GOP president who would be branded a Socialist/Communist/Secularist by the whole whooping chorus of the Tea Baggers and similar demented detritus to which the current GOP candidates must appeal. And that was Nixon. Here is a section from a NY Times article. Consider it.



In popular imagination, Nixon remains nothing but a great goblin — scowling bomber of Southeast Asia, panderer to fear and racism, paranoid anti-Semite, dispatcher of burglars — but the truth is, he governed further to the left than any president who followed him. The overreaching Euro-socialist nanny state that today’s Republicans despise? That blossomed in the Nixon administration.

Spending on social services doubled, and military budgets actually decreased. He oversaw the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. His administration was the first to encourage and enable American Indian tribal autonomy. He quadrupled the staff of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, almost tripled federal outlays for civil rights and began affirmative action in federal hiring. He supported the Equal Rights Amendment and signed Title IX, the law granting equality to female student athletes. One of his Supreme Court appointees wrote the Roe v. Wade decision.

Nixon made Social Security cost-of-living increases automatic, expanded food stamps and started Supplemental Security Income for the disabled and elderly poor. It helped, of course, that Democrats controlled the House and Senate. But it was the president, not Congress, who proposed a universal health insurance plan and a transformation of welfare that would have set a guaranteed minimum income and allowed men to remain with their welfare-recipient families. It was Nixon who radically intervened in the free market by imposing wage and price controls, launched détente with the Soviets, normalized relations with Mao’s China and let the Communists win in Vietnam.

And, for good measure, the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts grew sixfold, by far the biggest increase by any president.


Who knew that Tricky Dick was in fact sane and patriotic beneath his odious image? His great downfall, of course was to allow the international war criminal Henry Kissinger such sweeping power, etc.

Carry on, enlightened a bit..

WW

[Derron]

There's still a person out there who believes in the myth of the logistically impossible "dirty bomb"?

Wonders never cease.

Denial of the laws of physics is a mainstay of the liberal mindset.

[bradhusker]

To suggest that the GOP has lurched to the right in recent years is quite an understatement. That "Mixfroth" Santorum is leading the pack pretty much says it all. But...let's take a look at a GOP president who would be branded a Socialist/Communist/Secularist by the whole whooping chorus of the Tea Baggers and similar demented detritus to which the current GOP candidates must appeal. And that was Nixon. Here is a section from a NY Times article. Consider it.



In popular imagination, Nixon remains nothing but a great goblin — scowling bomber of Southeast Asia, panderer to fear and racism, paranoid anti-Semite, dispatcher of burglars — but the truth is, he governed further to the left than any president who followed him. The overreaching Euro-socialist nanny state that today’s Republicans despise? That blossomed in the Nixon administration.

Spending on social services doubled, and military budgets actually decreased. He oversaw the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. His administration was the first to encourage and enable American Indian tribal autonomy. He quadrupled the staff of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, almost tripled federal outlays for civil rights and began affirmative action in federal hiring. He supported the Equal Rights Amendment and signed Title IX, the law granting equality to female student athletes. One of his Supreme Court appointees wrote the Roe v. Wade decision.

Nixon made Social Security cost-of-living increases automatic, expanded food stamps and started Supplemental Security Income for the disabled and elderly poor. It helped, of course, that Democrats controlled the House and Senate. But it was the president, not Congress, who proposed a universal health insurance plan and a transformation of welfare that would have set a guaranteed minimum income and allowed men to remain with their welfare-recipient families. It was Nixon who radically intervened in the free market by imposing wage and price controls, launched détente with the Soviets, normalized relations with Mao’s China and let the Communists win in Vietnam.

And, for good measure, the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts grew sixfold, by far the biggest increase by any president.


Who knew that Tricky Dick was in fact sane and patriotic beneath his odious image? His great downfall, of course was to allow the international war criminal Henry Kissinger such sweeping power, etc.

Carry on, enlightened a bit..

WW

Nice try LTS, but Nixon is nowhere near the lying and cover up of the Obama and Holder corruption.
Nixon was a 3rd rate burglary at a hotel. Holder armed the most violent criminals imagineable, and one of our border agents was killed as a result.

If you ask me? Not even close, what Nixon did was nothing next to the Holder scandal.

Next, you prop up santorum? Nice try, but santorum is a JOKE.
Mitt Romney is light years ahead of Obama in every sin gle category. In a debate, Romeny will make Obama look like a middle schooler. Without a telepromptor, Obama is a fish without water.
Romney is the leader who will successfully defeat Obama in november.

[Van]

If you ask me?

When has that ever happened?

[bradhusker]

If you ask me?

When has that ever happened?

When? well it would serve you well to ask me questions at tbe rate of at least 1 per day. Because, in case u havent noticed, im a borderline genius with tremendous insights.

[Carson]

...and he's an excellent driver.

Yeah.

Definitely.

[bradhusker]

Brad if you would provide a link or a cite to what you're referring to, that would be appreciated. Who knows, I may disagree with her as well. But I'd like to read her actual words, as you have done.

Jsc, in this day and age of the internet, Her left wing crazy notions are at your fingertips.
THEREFORE, I deny you the pleasure of your request.

If you are that lazy to find her sick and crazy leftist musings, THEN so be it.

BUT, I will take it at face value that you agree with her wacko disturbed left wing ideas.

Co-ed prisons? No torture, even if it means your daughter will be raped and killed?

And, keep in mind, this is just a mere sample of her sick distorted leftist ideaology, once you get into the real meat of her sickness, you SHUDDER at the thought of Obama appointing others like her.

And thats what this is really about, Obama appointing sick disturbed leftists to the highest court in the land.

[The Seer]

Well since your boy Obongo is one of the biggest lying mother fuckers to ever get elected, and has got us deeper in debt than all other Presidents combined, then anything that is the opposite of what he promises, does or gets done is probably a good start.

Liar.

"3rd grade".....

[Screw_Michigan]

I get paid to write......

Wow. So does Screwball, supposedly. T1B's literary heavyweights.

I get paid for what I know, not for writing per se, dicklick.

[Dinsdale]

I get paid for what I know, not for writing per se, dicklick.

That's probably a good thing, since you couldn't even get through a sentence in your defense without fucking it up.

[Tom In VA]

Touche

[Mikey]

Santorum and "phony theology"...

The greening of faith
Santorum is at odds with his own church on environmental issues.
By Larry B. Stammer

February 27, 2012


It has long been a maxim that mixing religion and politics can spell trouble. So when Rick Santorum told a partisan crowd in Columbus, Ohio, recently that President Obama's worldview was based on a "phony theology" that drives "radical environmentalists," he must have known his comments would reverberate far beyond his conservative political base.

Santorum was speaking of efforts to forestall the worst effects of climate change through controls on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, and policies aimed at encouraging the development of renewable sources of energy. Obama, he said, was putting the Earth before the needs of humans. "It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology." That theology, he said, was not "based on the Bible." At another point, he rejected as unproven the findings of the vast majority of the world's reputable scientists that humans are accelerating climate change. Climate change, he claimed, is not about "climate science" but "political science."

Santorum can't be blamed for wanting to throw a little red meat to conservatives as he seeks to maintain his momentum in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. But he is as wrong on his theology as he is on the science.

Certainly there are people of faith who don't consider environmentalism a part of their religion. But there are also many environmentalists who see their activism as deeply rooted in Scripture and faith traditions. Threats to the natural world at times implicitly involve issues with which religion has long grappled, among them materialism, social and economic justice, and love of God and neighbor. Indeed, it is not a little ironic that Santorum, a devout Roman Catholic, is at odds with Pope Benedict XVI and the nation's Roman Catholic bishops who view climate change with alarm. They have repeatedly called on the government to address it as a matter of prudence, and to aid poor nations and people who are least responsible for climate change and least able to cope with its consequences.

"At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures," the U.S. bishops wrote. "It is about the future of God's creation and the one human family. It is about protecting both 'the human environment' and the natural environment. It is about our human stewardship of God's creation and our responsibility to those who come after us."

The Catholic Church is not alone in this view. Many mainline Protestant groups, Eastern Orthodoxy and various streams of Judaism are also actively engaged in conservation issues. Eastern Orthodoxy's Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has called environmental abuse a "sin." And cliches about evangelicals to the contrary, many are making "creation care," as they call it, a moral imperative.

A group of evangelical Protestants worked successfully to oppose the watering down of the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and mounted a headline-catching campaign several years ago for higher-mileage cars by asking, "What Would Jesus Drive?" In West Virginia, where coal mining is a major employer and the bedrock of the state's economy, religious folk have called for new regulations to protect streams and hollows from mountaintop coal mining. In Texas, where big oil ordinarily reigns supreme, congregants have campaigned for greenhouse gas reductions from the state's refineries.

In the halls of Congress and state legislatures, "faith-full" environmentalists are talking to lawmakers about the moral implications of environmental damage. Rabbis have mounted a campaign to save the California redwoods, and just last week the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life embarked on a national campaign to cut energy use within the Jewish community by 14% in the next two years.

That is not to say, of course, that all church- and synagogue-goers are moved by their faith to take environmental action. In 2010, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that, while solid majorities in all major religious traditions favor stronger environmental laws and regulation, only 6% of religious Americans said their faith was the biggest influence in their support for tougher regulations.

And taking up the environmental cause has occasionally been controversial within American evangelicalism. Religious conservatives have argued that the greening of faith could divert attention from "the great moral issues of the day," which they identified as abortion, gay marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence. But they may have already lost that battle. A Pew poll last year found that 36% of evangelicals say that working to protect the environment is essential to being a good evangelical.

The greening of faith is not about turning churches into branches of the Sierra Club or about requiring people of faith to be partisan. It is about applying religious beliefs in a world confronted by unprecedented threats to the created order. Phony theology has nothing to do with it.

[Goober McTuber]

I get paid to write......

Wow. So does Screwball, supposedly. T1B's literary heavyweights.

I get paid for what I know

So you’re totally unemployable, then?

[Diego in Seattle]

Not that Santorum ever had his popularity, but Santorum is quickly devolving into a northern Ross Perot.

[mvscal]

Not that Santorum ever had his popularity, but Santorum is quickly devolving into a northern Ross Perot.

What? Is he running as a third party candidate or something?

[Diego in Seattle]

Not that Santorum ever had his popularity, but Santorum is quickly devolving into a northern Ross Perot.

What? Is he running as a third party candidate or something?

Not yet, but as his crackpot factor increases his delusions might include electability on a 3th party ticket.

[mvscal]

Not that Santorum ever had his popularity, but Santorum is quickly devolving into a northern Ross Perot.

What? Is he running as a third party candidate or something?

Not yet, but as his crackpot factor increases his delusions might include electability on a 3th party ticket.

Do you tell yourself that while jerking off small boys?

[bradhusker]

Jsc, in this day and age of the internet, Her left wing crazy notions are at your fingertips.
THEREFORE, I deny you the pleasure of your request.

I can do many things, but reading your mind is not one of them.

Yes, as a lawyer, I know how to look up SCOTUS opinions. But I still don't know what you've read unless you tell me.

Unless, of course, you're talking out of your ass and simply making shit up. You wouldn't do that, would you?

So, you honestly think I am making shit up?
This isnt rocket science here. Ruth Ginsberg is very very far to the left. ANYONE who has read her writings knows this. That is unless you are a lying piece of shit liberal.

Jsc, I Dont have to lie here, I am FACTUAL when I say that she is very extreme in her left wing views.
NOW, Thats not rocket science. Its pretty much common factual knowledge.

BUT, here is the thing, Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that you really did not know that she was a far left extreme liberal nutjob?

Because if that is indeed the case, then you must have been under a rock the past 20 years.

[BSmack]

And now Santorum has come out against college education as elitist. What a fucking tool.

[Mikey]

And now Santorum has come out against college education as elitist. What a fucking tool.

Welcome to life.

[smackaholic]

And now Santorum has come out against college education as elitist. What a fucking tool.

Not even close to what he said, dumbass.

What he said was that the idea that everyone should go to college is elitist.

Personally, I don't give a fukk what they think every one should do. Where I have a problem is with fukks that think it is our collective duty to pay for it.

College is great.

Wanna go?

Good.

Just don't ask the guy that goes to trade school and becomes an HVAC tech to pay for it. BTW, that dude, if he has half a brain and a little work ethic, will be able to buy and sell most college gtrads by the time he's thirty.

The libs love to point to the euros and say we need to do it that way. But, they don't seem to want to do it when it comes to encouraging apprenticeship programs, where the euros kick our asses.

Sernding everyone to school to major in drinking business is not gonna cure our troubles. It will just add to the number of 27 year olds with BAs living in mom's basement.

[bradhusker]

And now Santorum has come out against college education as elitist. What a fucking tool.

YOU ARE A DUMBFUCK. He said that everyone should have the "OPPORTUNITY", but that college will not be for everyone, some will want to learn trades like electrician, carpentry, etc.. etc..

ONLY A DUMB FAGGOTT like you would believe the liberal media.

Same thing when the liberal media took Mitt's comment out of context. "NOT caring for the very poor." WHEN in REALITY, Mitt Romney gives millions and millions to charities , while Joe Biden gives NOTHING.


Mitt prefaced it by saying that we have safety nets for the very very poor. the filth and maggotts of society who cant do for themselves, they get FREE help already.

Mitt will make sure those safety nets are firmly in place for the cockroaches of society. YOU know?
The filthy disgusting maggotts who claim to be in poverty, YET, they can show up at the FLORIDA MALL the other night at midnight to buy a pair of sneakers for 250 bucks???

I am glad the S W A T teams showed up to spray mace in those filthy vermin's faces, and tase those pieces of human garbage.
SO, as I understand it, they get food stamps, free medical care, free this, and free that, YET, somehow they can afford to spend 250 bucks on a pair of sneakers?

Impeach that monkey immediately for allowing an environment where the very poor can pay 250 bucks for a pair of sneakers.

[Goober McTuber]

Of the "4 great candidates" only one is remotely close to being qualified to be the President, and that is Romney. However, considering recent SCOTUS cases, I want Obama to make the next appointments.

There's a fifth great candidate waiting in the wings:

[Terry in Crapchester]

Santorum isn't perfect, but he's a HELL of a lot better than the box of brown shit that's in the WH right now...

I'm pretty sure Obama never said he wanted to throw up after listening to JFK's speech about separation of church and state.

[mvscal]

Santorum isn't perfect, but he's a HELL of a lot better than the box of brown shit that's in the WH right now...

I'm pretty sure Obama never said he wanted to throw up after listening to JFK's speech about separation of church and state.

I'm pretty sure he saves his vomit for the rest of the Constitution.

[bradhusker]

On a sidenote, Rush Limbaugh is correct in saying that if we have to pay for that young coed law students contraceptives, then we should also be given a video of her having hot sex as well,
ANY law student who says she cant afford to buy condoms, is a SLUT, a WHORE, a cocksucker.
I propose, that if we as taxpayers, MUST fund her contraceptives, then its logical to get a video of her slurping up jizz, and taking one in the pink and two in the stink.

Bravo Rush for talking common sense here.

These slutty law students are slurping up cock every night, and then demand that we the taxpayers fund their sexcapades? OK, im quite OK with that, BUT, you are damm sure gonna throw in a nice video for me. Fuckin liberal left wing cunts.

[Diego in Seattle]

Gee, I wonder how Santorum would feel about the creation of such videos.

[bradhusker]

it sounds like brad is against college women having sex, which would be the gayest take ever written on this board

Kc, you've got me ALL wrong my dimwitted friend. I LOVE NUBILE college coeds!!! HOWEVER, if I must pay for their condoms, then I had better get a video for my hard-earned tax dollars, Make sense?

So, let me get this straight, Hot sexy law students cannot afford condoms, so they appear before congress all teary eyed?

Then, the kyke dyke leftist Obama administration facists paint republicans as not caring about women's health?

WHAT GIVES?

ALL Rush was saying is that if we must pay for them to have sex nightly on campus, provide them free condoms and lube, WHY not get a nice video of the sex acts as a bonus?
I dont see why the dyke femmo-nazis would have a problem with this.

If you cant afford to buy a pack of trojans, you are a loser.

[smackaholic]

I LOVE NUBILE college coeds!!!

mudshark.

[Mace]

it sounds like brad is against college women having sex, which would be the gayest take ever written on this board

In "reality", it's the college women that are against having sex with Brad. College men? Not so much.