I admire the guy. I disagree with him on a whole host of issues where he's too far to the right. Yet he stands for what he believes in, despite the fact that moving to the center would gain him so many votes. I have to respect that.
Contrast that with Donald Trump. He was about to endorse Gingrich, but Newt had one bad debate. Then he got behind Romney because he won Florida, despite Romney refusing to participate in Trump's publicity stunt of a debate. Now he's acting all confused after Santorum's trifecta last night. Douche!
Contrast that with Donald Trump. He was about to endorse Gingrich, but Newt had one bad debate. Then he got behind Romney because he won Florida, despite Romney refusing to participate in Trump's publicity stunt of a debate. Now he's acting all confused after Santorum's trifecta last night. Douche!
Before the 2006 elections the most obvious conservatives that looked like they were interested in a presidential run were Santorum & Allen of Virginia. They were both favorites of Hannity. George Allen was hurt badly by his 'macacca' comment & the fact that he hid his mother's Jewish heritage was beaten by Webb by about 1% and faded from the limelight. Santorum was completely dismissed by Pennsylvania and lost to Casey by 18%. Santorum was at the forfront
of the prolonged Terry Shiavo situation & was one of the last of the believers (along with Hannity) that Iraq did have nuclear weapons, they were sure they were hidden from the inspectors, probably they guessed in Syria,
Anyway, the guy for a long time had the presidency in mind. I gained some respect for him recently he's a good prosecutorial debater not shy about blasting his opponents effectively, but he's just too far right for the electorate
in the general election. I still think Romney, flawed as he may be has the best chance against BO, and Obama has to be defeated.
of the prolonged Terry Shiavo situation & was one of the last of the believers (along with Hannity) that Iraq did have nuclear weapons, they were sure they were hidden from the inspectors, probably they guessed in Syria,
Anyway, the guy for a long time had the presidency in mind. I gained some respect for him recently he's a good prosecutorial debater not shy about blasting his opponents effectively, but he's just too far right for the electorate
in the general election. I still think Romney, flawed as he may be has the best chance against BO, and Obama has to be defeated.
What I know about Santorum.
Before politics he was an attorney for 4 years. Most notable client… The World Wrestling Federation.
He was a Congressman for 4 years and a Senator for 12.
He was a supporter of Arlen Specter.
In 2002, Santorum called intelligent design "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."
In 2005, Santorum introduced the National Weather Service Duties Act which would have prohibited the National Weather Service from publishing weather data for free to the public.
He does not like homosexual acts.
He does not believe a right to privacy is part of the Constitution.
He used to love pork, now he does not.
As for his recent trifecta, I can only look at the States he won. Colorado, which is quickly becoming the California east of the Rockies. Minnesota, which gave us the likes of Jesse Ventura and Stuart Smalley. And last but not least Missouri which awarded no delegates.
So in conclusion, what we have he is another politician with no business experience trying to convince us he can cure the counties ills.
Didn’t we just try this 4 years ago?
Before politics he was an attorney for 4 years. Most notable client… The World Wrestling Federation.
He was a Congressman for 4 years and a Senator for 12.
He was a supporter of Arlen Specter.
In 2002, Santorum called intelligent design "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."
In 2005, Santorum introduced the National Weather Service Duties Act which would have prohibited the National Weather Service from publishing weather data for free to the public.
He does not like homosexual acts.
He does not believe a right to privacy is part of the Constitution.
He used to love pork, now he does not.
As for his recent trifecta, I can only look at the States he won. Colorado, which is quickly becoming the California east of the Rockies. Minnesota, which gave us the likes of Jesse Ventura and Stuart Smalley. And last but not least Missouri which awarded no delegates.
So in conclusion, what we have he is another politician with no business experience trying to convince us he can cure the counties ills.
Didn’t we just try this 4 years ago?
Libertarian Explains Why We Need Santorum Now Less Than Ever
Nick Gillespie | February 9, 2012
Via Instapundit comes this "Open Letter to GOP Primary Voters From a Libertarian," by Nate Nelson of United Liberty, about why former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) just ain't rocking in the free world when it comes to the Free Minds and Free Markets crowd.
Some snippets:
Nick Gillespie | February 9, 2012
Via Instapundit comes this "Open Letter to GOP Primary Voters From a Libertarian," by Nate Nelson of United Liberty, about why former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) just ain't rocking in the free world when it comes to the Free Minds and Free Markets crowd.
Some snippets:
Santorum’s record in the U.S. Senate reveals consistent opposition to the principles of limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty. That’s why libertarians can’t support him now or in the general election and why you shouldn’t either....
Rick Santorum was happy to vote in favor of Medicare Part D along with other big government establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate....[r]educing the role of the federal government in American children’s education wasn’t on Rick Santorum’s agenda in the U.S. Senate. Santorum voted for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, described by the Associated Press as “a symbol to many of federal overreach and Congress’ inability to fix something that’s clearly flawed.” Nothing says big government GOP establishment like voting for an expansion of federal education policy backed by Bush and coauthored by the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).
Santorum has also been a consistent opponent of individual liberty....In October 2011, Santorum went on the record about “the dangers of contraception in this country,” arguing that birth control is “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” These far outside the mainstream views may be excusable if they were just his personal opinions, but they’re not. Santorum told ABC News’ Jake Tapper late last year that he opposed Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that overturned state bans on discussing birth control with and providing it to married couples. President Santorum would favor letting states dictate what legally married heterosexual couples can and can’t do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. How’s that for big government?...
Santorum has made a litany of proposals that are questionable at best from a constitutionalist point of view. He wants to use taxpayer dollars to support adoptions; “to incentivize the states to promote parental choice and quality educational options”; to create a public-private partnership between the Department of Health and Human Services and private organizations “for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood”; to reinstate “2008-level funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education Program”...
If Rick Santorum was in fact "Tea Party before there was a Tea Party" (as he likes to say), then let this cup pass the country's lips.Rick Santorum was happy to vote in favor of Medicare Part D along with other big government establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate....[r]educing the role of the federal government in American children’s education wasn’t on Rick Santorum’s agenda in the U.S. Senate. Santorum voted for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, described by the Associated Press as “a symbol to many of federal overreach and Congress’ inability to fix something that’s clearly flawed.” Nothing says big government GOP establishment like voting for an expansion of federal education policy backed by Bush and coauthored by the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).
Santorum has also been a consistent opponent of individual liberty....In October 2011, Santorum went on the record about “the dangers of contraception in this country,” arguing that birth control is “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” These far outside the mainstream views may be excusable if they were just his personal opinions, but they’re not. Santorum told ABC News’ Jake Tapper late last year that he opposed Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that overturned state bans on discussing birth control with and providing it to married couples. President Santorum would favor letting states dictate what legally married heterosexual couples can and can’t do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. How’s that for big government?...
Santorum has made a litany of proposals that are questionable at best from a constitutionalist point of view. He wants to use taxpayer dollars to support adoptions; “to incentivize the states to promote parental choice and quality educational options”; to create a public-private partnership between the Department of Health and Human Services and private organizations “for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood”; to reinstate “2008-level funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education Program”...
Over at the Daily Caller, Cato's John Samples tucks his tongue in his cheek like Santo eating an ice cream and makes the libertarian case for a Santorum nomination. It would, suggests Sample, create such a massive electoral loss that it might "open the door for a different kind of GOP...a party of free markets, moral pluralism, and realism in foreign affairs."
Definition of Intelligent Design
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
See New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design.
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
CPAC Prays For Frothy Mix
God has known who will win the 2012 election since he decided at the dawn of time itself. But just in case everything we believe about religion is untrue, let's pray for God to pick our guy right now.
Labels: 2012 elections, CPAC, Rick Santorum
God has known who will win the 2012 election since he decided at the dawn of time itself. But just in case everything we believe about religion is untrue, let's pray for God to pick our guy right now.
Labels: 2012 elections, CPAC, Rick Santorum
