Dude, if you want Gingrich bloopers...



Gingrich praised Obama for healthcare and (part of) the stimulus in '09.

I'm lumping you in with that crowd on this topic (and increasingly in the hyperventilating crowd in general). More specifically, you seem to be tilting from devil's advocate to troll. Said another way, you seem to be looking to start an argument rather than a discussion. e.g. :

Sorry, allow me to restate that:
"I would argue that Santorum didn't exactly mean what you said they said he said and you (/the angry left / angry secularists / hyperventilating bloggers) are projecting excess malice where there is none."

By repeating it and saying "the quote is accurate," you take some ownership of it in my opinion.


There is enough legitimate stuff to criticize and compliment the candidates for.

Dude...

This is not trolling. Here's a right wing article on him saying that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...ieR_story.html

Or are you telling me that the ------- WaPo is now in the leftist camp? 'Cause I've got more righty articles on it. You are the only source and/or person who has tried to argue that he said otherwise that I've met or read, anywhere. Yer argument about it being left-wing alarmism does not hold water if the right wing is also saying it.

(Ninjar edit)

Relevant to modern political practices?

1. You wrote (without attributing it to anyone, so I assume your thought), "Santorum is sickened that Kennedy said he would not impose his Catholic faith on Baptists."

What every editorial or article has said was some form of he was sickened by President Kennedy's speech. Santorum specifically said the idea of only the nonreligious having access to the "public square" made him want to throw up.

What he is saying is nonsense but it is different than what you said he said.

2. I did not say anything about left-wing alarmism. I said you need to lay off the angry left websites and hyperventilating blogs. That seems to be where you are going in order to source material to bring back here for the express purpose of generating arguments rather than discussions.

No, what I said was a direct quote from the article Gearhead posted, which is stated quite clearly in this thread.

Lolwut? Are you seriously referring to the links from a lol-leftist-nutjob site that I posted (And took all of 1 minute to google for in order to) to counter Brainy's post quoting a Republican talking point as a topic and using a lol-rightist-nutjob site as a source?

My links go all over the spectrum, Scrappy. If someone posts a ridiculous article quoting a political talking point, then yes, I'm going to post an equally ridiculous article from across the spectrum to demonstrate just how ridiculous the article is. I will admit that I laughed my ass off when people tried to call me on the leftist nutjobs when the OP's source came from rightist nutjobs though.

Or, perhaps, you are referring...to the article that Gearhead posted? I'm going through my posting history in politics right now, and scratching my head. ----, I've posted stuff from Heritage before looking at it.

P.S. Yes, yes you did say something about left-wing alarmism. Or, should I say the left wing hyperventilating crowd. It's the same damn thing Scrappy, and you know it.

facts in a story are not a republican talking point.


oh wait, if you're a liberal they are. I keep forgetting that part of the playbook.

Are you admitting that Krugman can have a point Brainy? 'Cause I remember an article I posted where because it was Krugman, no matter what the data or facts said, you said quite clearly that it was Krugman, hence it was false. This logic cuts both ways bro. You don't get to play that card only when it benefits you, and then try to say it's not valid when it doesn't benefit you.

Oh wait, if you are a conservative, if you repeat something enough, it becomes truth. Can we stop with the partisan tripe when we both know better than that about the other guy already Brainy?

NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


krugman is a keynesian; he's worse than a democrat. I understand exactly why people are democrats, mainly they are stupid, but i totally undertstand why they would be. But an economist subscribing in keynes is like you believing in god.



trorllrorlrolorltorltraotlralosafddlsllllltrollllo lololololololoaslfodsalfosalfosadlofda ls fg safdsavcxz

You are correct; I misread that.

However, I still have yet to see anywhere in which Santorum says he is sickened by the idea that Kennedy would not "impose his Catholic faith on" anyone. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just saying I haven't seen it and -

- and realizing I really don't care enough to continue to devote time to this particular conversation about Santorum and people just making ---- up or repeating ---- someone else made up.

If someone made it up, then both the left wing and right wing news sources are having a field day with it.

However, if you read the WaPo article at all, you'd know he said WITH RESPECT to Kennedy's speech...

So yes. Santorum did say Kennedy's speech did make him throw up, or sicken him.

(Edit) Or are you trying to argue against the use of similes, Scrappy? Similar to "But I DIDNT SAY LEFT WING ALARMISTS", when you said left wing hyperventilators?

^ That is what I feel like whenever I read this thread.

*le sigh*

He said the speech made him want to throw up, specifying that he interpreted the speech as somehow asserting that only the nonreligious should be in the "public square."

Santorum did not say that he was sickened by Kennedy's refusal to impose his Catholic religious views on Baptist ministers - at least not that I can see anywhere.

Scrappy, you DO understand Kennedy's speech was entirely about not imposing his faith on Baptists, right? Kennedy's speech was completely about imposing beliefs in the context of Santorum's quote.

I've already said that Santorum may not have meant it that way, but he did something he shouldn't have done and that was extremely boneheaded.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=16920600

Read Kennedy's speech. I'm not disputing that Santorum may not have meant what he said (Although what I *think* he meant to say is actually substantially worse....Much, much, much worse actually. Santorum represents the peak of religious nutjobbery that we need to GTFO of our government ASAP.), but what he said is fairly straightforward.

However, and in all seriousness, at this point I think your argument on Santorum has reached the level of the "But I didn't say leftist alarmists! I SAID LEFTIST HYPERVENTILATORS!!!!". Read JFK's speech, and you'll understand why.

Hell, just for you Scrappy.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/santorum-...many-colleges/

According to Santorum, higher education is a liberal indoctrination process.

This image is making its rounds on facebook. It seems ignorance is bliss...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net...19790653_n.jpg

We will have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of Kennedy's speech which would lead to a disagreement on Santorum's main point.

I'm just going to skip this one.

Hey guys, remember when gas was super cheap after having cratered due to one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression? Man, that was awesome.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=5nD

/Buzz Killington

Oh, yeah.....I remember.

Props for putting a picture in the picture/video thread.:ugh2:

Briebart died today.

Thumbs down.

:td:

Its funny that you bring up the higher-education indoctrination issue. My GF is at Rice in a PhD program and running as fast as she can to another college within the university because it is somewhat impossible to pass any course in the department as a capitalist.

Her previous university was more welcoming of differing opinions.