Right, but if he gets the nomination he won't be elected President. I don't think anyone would for the GOP - not with the uptick we're having. And again, i don't know if he's homophobic. He's had openly gay staff members who are still out there stumping for him. Most notably the face of the Comcast news Network.

As I've said, he's wrong, but that doesn't make him evil.

Some of us have jobs and can't be traipsing all over the internet. I come here during lulls. I've got 40 other sites I need to cram into the small spaces. I'm also aware of his problems. I'm asking again who you'd vote for that meets my criteria. Because let me tell you something, you let Romney get the nomination you might as well have voted for Warren G. Harding.

I doubt Ron knew who they were. They probably just wanted a pic with him.

He opposes the civil rights act because he feels it violates the constitution. He's not against the motives behind it and has stated that.

I'm not here to persuade anyone that a candidate of my choosing is any better than any other candidate, I'm simply pointing out the holes in your opinions and exposing the flawed reasoning behind them. If you "have a job" and are so busy, then perhaps you shouldn't be mouthing off about things you obviously haven't devoted much time or thought to.

As far as I'm concerned, despite the facts that Ron Paul would overturn Roe V Wade, is a religious fundie who says "through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view", thinks global warming is a "hoax", strictly opposes medicare and medicaid.... this little gem is the nail in the coffin to Ron Paul's un-electable craziness: http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/1...icitation2.pdf

And here's a nice little site on just how much of a two-faced sack of crap Romney is, and how he will say anything to get into office: http://stopromneyspiousbaloney.com/

I'm just going to wager I know more about the current state of american politics than you do. If you want to put your mouth on the line, I'm happy to have a conversation in another thread if you'd like. I'm aware of the problems with all of the candidates. If Huntsman pulls out 20% or higher tonight, he'll get my vote, but speaking as someone who's been represented by Mitt Romney before, I'm not planning to see him take the nomination.

I don't know what you're here to do, but it seems like you're here to attack me because you think my vote for a Republican Candidate is "bad". I'm sorry you're offended but theres no reason to freak out because of my opinion.

I don't know why anyone is getting so bent out of shape over politics. It's pointless to get pissed over politics. Garbage human beings, who are only out for themselves are just the sort of people that human beings are led by. To think that it's possible to change that is naive. Embrace the futility of politics and just watch with detached amusement like I do.

I don't know why I bother arguing with you, it has played out the same way in the past as it is now

> I point out some logical inconsistency (calling Santorum the least dishonorable of the candidates) in your statements, back it up with evidence
> You fall back to generalized statements that don't address the particular objection at hand, usually resorting to comments that are thinly-veiled personal attacks ("I have a job", "I know more than you about politics"... seriously, of what use is it to say things like this?)

As for cavorting off to another thread, what's the point? Why can't you just do it here? Show me I'm wrong, and that Santorum is "not dishonorable" as you earlier claimed.

Well, my priorities are:

1) Stopping immigration (and deporting the illegals, obviously)
2) Economic Protectionism
3) Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy
4) Decreasing Federal Regulation

...and no candidate values #2, Paul works for #3, Bachmann was strongest for #1 and Gingrich has liberal views on this subject, all will do #4 to varying degrees but Gingrich is the only one who's actually done it substantially in the past....

Eh. A Bachmann/Paul ticket was my dream. Hunstman/Paul wouldn't be a bad ticket.

Erm, consider your source. Of course a site which links tries to paint the push for Gay Marriage as an extension of the Civil Rights movement would call Santorum corrupt.

Anyways, allegations of corruption =/= corruption. He has not been found guilty of any of these charges.

So, you're for turning California, Texas, and half the rest of the country into a battle ground then?

Ignoring the site's agenda, if you look at the actual entity that published the report and the report itself, it becomes hard to discredit. And I don't think it's realistic to reject the tag of "corrupt" solely because someone hasn't actually been convicted of a crime; looking at the acts themselves should be enough.