's Bulletin Board Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

»'s Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Santorum Backs Away From JFK ‘Throw Up’ Remark: » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.


Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused   BadOne  
Good Luck   More Crap   Wall Bang   Were Up   Were Down    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?

Disable Graemlins in this post.


T O P I C     R E V I E W
raybond  - posted
Santorum Backs Away From JFK ‘Throw Up’ Remark: ‘I Wish I Had That Particular Line Back’

By Igor Volsky on Feb 28, 2012 at 11:05 am

Rick Santorum backed away from his claim that President John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech about the separation of church and state makes him want to “throw up” during an appearance on the Laura Ingraham radio show this morning. “I wish I had that particular line back,” Santorum told Ingraham, while insisting that the nation’s religious freedoms are being threatened by the Obama administration:

SANTORUM: [A]nd if you read President Kennedy’s text, while there were certainly some very important things and good things he said in that, there were some things that triggered in my opinion the privatization of faith and I think that’s a bad thing. I think we need to have a free exercise of religion in this country and it’s important for those First Amendment freedoms to be alive and well in America and I think they are threatened here in America as we’ve seen by President Obama, not by Rick Santorum.


Santorum has taken a lot of heat for mischaracterizing Kennedy’s statements and claiming, “I don’t believe in an America where the separation between church and state is absolute.”

Asked about Santorum’s remarks during his press conference this morning, Mitt Romney said, “I respect President Kennedy and his expression of his own views. And I felt that his speech was an indication of those views. My speech was an indication of views that were somewhat different. Religion certainly has a place in the public square.”

Indeed, rather trying to stomp religion out of public life, Kennedy sought to encourage Americans to abandon divisive religious rhetoric. “I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end — where all men and all churches are treated equally — where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice — where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind — where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the law and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their work in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood,” he said. “I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me,” Kennedy added.

A recent poll found that 67 percent of Americans believe that there is a clear separation of church and state, while only 28 percent disagree with the sentiment.

[Were Down]
CashCowMoo  - posted
Thats news? How about this sick event:

Bradley Manning Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize 631996.html

Can you all remind me what merited Obama to win the prize?
glassman  - posted

Can you all remind me what merited Obama to win the prize?

OMG cash. you are so hardheaded sometimes. that peace Prize was an award to the American People for finally making one of the biggest steps ever toward having a post-racist society.

as to Bradley Manning? he apparently punched a female in the face, besides whatever intel it is he has dumped... if it's true that he punched a woman in the face? then teh Noble committee is in the wrong lane... however, we all know that when you become whistleblower, things like th truth become hard to find... he prolly belongs in jail, but he does deserve a trial...

even the Rosenbergs got trial and everything they got they deserved,

In 1953, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were the first American civilians executed under Section 2 of the Espionage Act. Charges related to passing atomic bomb secrets to Russian agents (the data came from Ethel’s brother, who worked on the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos). Their legal prosecution was the “Trial of the Century” (prior to O.J., at least), and many felt the couple were unfairly convicted. However, recently declassified cables from the Soviet Union’s VENONA project, now support testimony that Julius was, indeed, a courier and recruiter for the USSR. In fact, Morton Sobell, who was tried along with the Rosenbergs (and served 17 years in prison), admitted in 2008 that yes, he was a spy, and that Julius Rosenberg handed atomic bomb information to the Soviets.
CashCowMoo  - posted
glass, im sure he achieved that a long time ago. A Nobel prize though? Obama, Al Gore, Brad Manning see how this COULD be skewed?

Mother Theresa, now that is a nobel peace prize winner.
jordanreed  - posted
ever read about the kindly ol Mother?...this is direct from wikipedia so take it for what its worth....

Towards the end of her life, Mother Teresa attracted some negative attention in the Western media. The journalist Christopher Hitchens was one of her most active critics. He was commissioned to co-write and narrate the documentary Hell's Angel about her for the British Channel 4 after Aroup Chatterjee encouraged the making of such a programme, although Chatterjee was unhappy with the "sensationalist approach" of the final product.[58] Hitchens expanded his criticism in a 1995 book, The Missionary Position.[76]
Chatterjee writes that while she was alive Mother Teresa and her official biographers refused to collaborate with his own investigations and that she failed to defend herself against critical coverage in the Western press. He gives as examples a report in The Guardian in Britain whose "stringent (and quite detailed) attack on conditions in her orphanages ... [include] charges of gross neglect and physical and emotional abuse",[77] and another documentary Mother Teresa: Time for Change? broadcast in several European countries.[58]
The German magazine Stern published a critical article on the first anniversary of Mother Teresa's death. This concerned allegations regarding financial matters and the spending of donations. The medical press has also published criticism of her, arising from very different outlooks and priorities on patients' needs.[68] Other critics include Tariq Ali of the New Left Review and the Irish investigative journalist Donal MacIntyre.[76]
She has also been criticized for her view on suffering. She felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus.[78] Sanal Edamaruku, President of Rationalist International, criticised the failure to give painkillers, writing that in her Homes for the Dying, one could "hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers are even in hard cases not given. According to Mother Teresa's philosophy, it is 'the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ'."[79]
The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press. The Lancet and the British Medical Journal reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an approach to illness and suffering that precluded the use of many elements of modern medical care, such as systematic diagnosis.[68] Dr. Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, described the medical care as "haphazard", as volunteers without medical knowledge had to take decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors. He observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment. Dr. Fox makes it a point to contrast hospice, on the one hand, with what he calls "Mother Teresa's Care for the Dying" on the other hand; noting that, while hospice emphasizes minimizing suffering with professional medical care and attention to expressed needs and wishes of the patient, her approach does not.[80]
Colette Livermore, a former Missionary of Charity, describes her reasons for leaving the order in her book Hope Endures: Leaving Mother Teresa, Losing Faith, and Searching for Meaning. Livermore found what she called Mother Teresa's "theology of suffering" to be flawed, despite being a good and courageous person. Though Mother Teresa instructed her followers on the importance of spreading the Gospel through actions rather than theological lessons, Livermore could not reconcile this with some of the practices of the organization. Examples she gives include unnecessarily refusing to help the needy when they approached the nuns at the wrong time according to the prescribed schedule, discouraging nuns from seeking medical training to deal with the illnesses they encountered (with the justification that God empowers the weak and ignorant), and imposition of "unjust" punishments, such as being transferred away from friends. Livermore says that the Missionaries of Charity "infantilized" its nuns by prohibiting the reading of secular books and newspapers, and emphasizing obedience over independent thinking and problem-solving.[81]
Christopher Hitchens and the German magazine Stern have said Mother Teresa did not focus donated money on alleviating poverty or improving the conditions of her hospices, but on opening new convents and increasing missionary work.[82] Mother Teresa accepted donations from the autocratic and corrupt Duvalier family in Haiti and openly praised them. She also accepted 1.4 million dollars from Charles Keating, involved in the fraud and corruption scheme known as the Keating Five scandal and supported him before and after his arrest. The Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles, Paul Turley, wrote to Mother Teresa asking her to return the donated money to the people Keating had stolen from, one of whom was "a poor carpenter". The donated money was not accounted for, and Turley did not receive a reply.[83]
glassman  - posted
Originally posted by CashCowMoo:
glass, im sure he achieved that a long time ago. A Nobel prize though? Obama, Al Gore, Brad Manning see how this COULD be skewed?

Mother Theresa, now that is a nobel peace prize winner.

sorry cash. the Nobel Prize is Privately funded commission. you and i don't get a Vote we just get our opinion.

Nobel was the inventor of dynamite. it made him one of the richest people ever to walk the earrth and he created the committee.

as an avid science fiction/fact reader? i am aware of many mistakes they made in awarding prizes. some of them are atrocious....

watson and crick? they didn't really discover the shape of the DNA molecule a woman did, but she took her findings and shared them- the facts are shrouded in mystery as all Truth really is but watson and crick were the first to publish.

there's aNoble prize awarded to people who made serious contribution to the invesntion of the MRI, and there's alot of angry scientists who beleive they made more important contributions to it...

so basically get over it, it's just money and a fancy dress party [Wink] heck teh the oscars are jsut as silly sometimes and they don't even get a cash award...
The Bigfoot  - posted
Maybe not a cash award but those giftbags for every award nominee are lavish. ags/#swag-bag-bliss
CashCowMoo  - posted
Santorum looks like he was a big spender, I cant vote for him. My caucus is Saturday, im going for Romney. No child left behind eh Rick? Nice debt ceiling votes.

Contact Us | Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2018 All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2