QUICK LINKS
Santorum Invitation
Gary Randall is co-hosting a luncheon for Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. As you know, Sen. Santorum (R-PA), is one of us and has a strong allegiance with people of faith.
If you would like to attend, you are invited. Please use the link below to view the invitation in pdf format and register for this event.
Sen. Rick Santorum Invitation
__________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add this blog to your email inbox.
16 Comments:
Daniel's Broiler "Fresh Sheet" :
www.SantorumExposed.com
It's not surprising he's campaigning in WA, the people of PA have had enough embarrassment and are removing him from office in Nov.
ewww. Does he really have a strong relation with people of faith or is he just riding on the current republican agenda and taking advantage of people of faith by promising to take up faith based initiatives but not following through.
If you go, you could ask him how Jack Abramoff is doing in jail.
Why do you people come on here to be mean, shallow and antagonist? That is the kind of thing that mean jr. high girls do. I heard you are even hostile to ex-gays. Grow up. Adults learn deal with people who don't agree with them.
And as an aside, if only 35% of WA supports gay marriage, then think how much lower that is in more conservative states. Sorry--but most of America happens to disagree with you. Yet you pour your hate and energy into this web site. That is really sad.
I went to www.SantorumExposed.com
Why would you take up your time reading that? It is not exactly of the highest intellectual caliber. Who is Daniel? Who is the L___ Group who sponsors the site(no one I've ever heard of and didn't want to waste my time going back to get the name right)? At least give me someone noteworthy.
The blog I read--noted he had a flat tire. ok and your point is??? The comments were offensive and cruel.
There is a saying "garbage in, garbage out". I now have some insight as to why some of you are so angry and hateful.
the "santorum exposed" website is an insult to intelligence. what a bunch of insignificant, childish nonsense.
WHY IS IT NESSASARY TO ABUSE OR RUN A GOOD MAN DOWN BECAUSE HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU. HIS RECORD STANDS FOR ITSELF. AND I BELIEVE HE STANDS FOR THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THAT STILL BELIEVE IN THIS GREAT NATION. YES I THINK IT IS WORTH STANDING UP AND FIGHTING FOR, BE THANKFUL THAT YOU HAVE A GOOD MAN THAT WILL. OLD & WISE
my my my... all caps... you needn't yell...
Yes, his record does stand for itself. A record of hypocrisy. It's all public record - his statements and his actions. This is why he is trailing in the polls in his home state.
Like you, I believe in this nation. However, I believe in the version conceived by the founders, rather than the neocons.
12:10 AM what do you perceive the difference to be between "founders version" and that of the "neocons"?
Are you serious? Your question implies that you don't see a difference.
For starters, the founders were pretty big on equality and applying constitutional protections to everyone. They also believed in a balance of power in government. They believed that the law applied equally to everyone - including the President. The gave Congress the responsibility of oversight and expected them to do it. Should I go on?
No, my question is asking about your perceptions. You have answered the question about the "fouders version".
Now how about your perception of "neocons".
What's up with you liberals? It was a simple question, but you can't seem to grasp the question and then fail to answer it.
What's up with you cons, I hoped you could carry a thought to it's logical conclusion. Ok, I'll spell it out for you...
Founders: Equality and constitutional protections for everyone.
Neocons: Special classes and the ability to waive constitutional protections at will if you claim they are an 'enemy combatant' - even if they are a citizen.
Founders: 3 Co-equal branches of government.
Neocons: The unitary executive - do I really need to explain this? I will if you don't get it.
Founders: the law applies to everyone.
Neocons: unless you are the president and you make a signing statement to the contrary.
Founders: Congress shall have responsibility of oversight, including the executive branch.
Neocons: no investigations that might be embarrassing. Even if the ABA concludes that laws have been broken.
Do you follow the news?
I do follow the news quite closely. In fact I follow several news sources. Thank you for asking.
Or were you trying to be insulting by asking if I follow the news? Simply because I ask you a question?
Lets talk about your perceptions of what you call "Neocon".
"Founders: Equality and constitutional protections for everyone.
Neocons: Special classes and the ability to waive constitutional protections at will if you claim they are an 'enemy combatant' - even if they are a citizen."
*******I just read a really good article on this one. It was in a WSBA (Washington State Bar Association) publication called De Novo. It is a far more complex issue than what you describe above and this forum doesn't provide the space to adequately address it. I'm not sure what you are labeling "special classes".
"Founders: 3 Co-equal branches of government.
Neocons: The unitary executive - do I really need to explain this? I will if you don't get it."
*******If you are referring to Bush, he wasn't out there acting all alone. He had a lot of legal counsel and the lower courts had supported him along the way. With all due respect, I don't think you have all the facts nor understand the complexity of the situation. The mainstream media hasn't been very good about addressing them.
Founders: the law applies to everyone.
Neocons: unless you are the president and you make a signing statement to the contrary.
*******These are two separate issues. Several Presidents have used signing statements including Clinton. Bush has used more. But many of them are simply a note about his agreement only if it satisfies the Constitution.
*******Conservatives also believe that the law applies to everyone. So does Bush.
"Founders: Congress shall have responsibility of oversight, including the executive branch.
Neocons: no investigations that might be embarrassing. Even if the ABA concludes that laws have been broken. "
*******What laws has the ABA concluded were broken? They disagree with the # of signing statements but they never disagreed with the signing statements until now. Why was it ok for Clinton but not Bush? While they stated that they disagree, what laws have they concluded were broken? None. If you mean they believe the constitutional protections were circumvented (which is what they said--they did not say that "laws were broken"), then that is an entirely different matter.
"no investigations that might be embarrassing" that is simply liberal bias.
So we go down the line defending these guys on ticky tack legal interpretations. That's how it always is. It's too bad their behavior generally warrants discussions of absolute legality vs right or wrong behavior. Whatever happened to restoring honor to the Whitehouse? This why over 60% of America has had it with this regime. I can't wait for November and the dems getting supoena power. We'll find out if the investigations are embarrassing or just downright scary.
You know what? In the end liberal vs. conservative really isn't what is important. We are all fortunate enough to be Americans and we are all in this together. When tragedy strikes we forge ahead together. That is what is important.
Post a Comment
<< Home