Ask his two first wives? Ask Hillary. Ask Jackie. Ask the tooth fairy. The fact that Newt has 2 divorces means nothing. His relationship with his children means everything. Newt's accomplishments as speaker leaves everything Mitt has accomplished in the dust.

Ann is right. Santorum is weak. What the hell has he ever done? Talks like a conservative, but doesn't always vote like one.

No, you have reduced it to that. My argument seems to have gone over your head.

At least Santorum has the support of Michael Moore. He has that in his favor.

Part of Newt's accomplishments as Speaker are his being forced out by the conservatives in his own party.

..... wants to raise minimum wage, ....

Come on. Romney a Marxist? You are delusional.

...The problem is not Santorum's conservative positions, it's that he can't defend them.

No. Obama is the Marxist.

I like when O'Reilly asked Romney - is Obama a socialist? Romney says, no.

Romney has to say, no. If he said yes, wouldn't the next question be - if Obama is a socialist, then why aren't you: both of the you socialized medecine?

I be a sayin agin, maybe Ann wants Romney because he would be the weakest possible GOP candidate possible, the most Obama-like, for one simple reason that she absolutely would not want to share with us yet, - having Romney will open the door the widest for a yet undeclared independent / third party candidate who Ann knows is intending to announce their candidacy. (A rogue perhaps?)

This is the only explanation that gives me any comfort. If only I knew it for a fact because if it was true I would be defending Romney like a true Massachusetts liberal or maybe even shut my grinning mouth altogether.

C'mon Ann, you can tell us! This being a private message board and all.

I'd rather find myself grovelling in tears at Ann's feet begging for her forgiveness than to keep having to post my objections to her support of Romney.

:thumb:

Establishing one religion IS infringing on another. Aren't Christians "infringed" upon in Iran?

Two weeks ago Ann was describing conservatism as state-level socialism and now as state-level threocracy. So much for preserving the blessings of liberty. I thought conservatives believed in unalienable rights, not tyrannical constructs.

She's gone man.

Are you saying that a church would be wrong to establish a city?

The Founders already negated it.

OK, Mr. Fact, which state of the United States ever esablished a state religion?


(Hint: Kandahar is not state).

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches.

Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.[4] As of 2010, Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provided, "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."[5]

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, makes no mention of religious establishment, but forbids the states to "abridge the privileges or immunities" of U.S. citizens, or to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments. The exact boundaries of this prohibition are still disputed, and are a frequent source of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court — especially as the Court must now balance, on a state level, the First Amendment prohibitions on government establishment of official religions with the First Amendment prohibitions on government interference with the free exercise of religion. See school prayer for such a controversy in contemporary American politics.

[there's where your viewpoint was first established, Ray Gun - in 1947 by FDR's stacked court. Not until 1947 did anybody try to read the Constitution as prohibiting the states from having official churches and religious functions.]

All current State constitutions do mention a Creator,[citation needed] but include guarantees of religious liberty parallel to the First Amendment. The constitutions of eight states (Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) also contain clauses that prohibit atheists from holding public office.[6][7] However, these clauses were held by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, where the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with the religious test prohibition in Article 6 Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

The Church of Hawaii was the state church of Hawaii from 1862-1893.

States not only can 'establish a religion' for their particular state, it was in fact DONE.

Nine of the original 13 colonies had state churches.

The Church of Hawaii was the state church of Hawaii from 1862-1893.

I had to repeat the question in the hopes you would see the gap between it and your answer.

You mean British Colonies had established religions? Yes, they did. That was another country. None of those was a "state of the United States" when the religion was established. As they became states, they began disestablishing, some at the time of the Delclaration, some later.

Hawaii was not a "state of the United States" at that time.

So, your proclaimed fact is indeed not a fact. You cannot name a single state of the United States that established a religion. Can you admit you were wrong?

Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.

States can have their own churches. After the ratifying of the Constitution, you seem to be under the illusion that the 9 state Churches just went 'poof!' and ceased to exist. That did not happen.

If Santorum wins the nomination the Democrats now know how to beat him - keep him talking about birthcontrol.

I don't think the churches, either the physical buildings or the organizations of people went "poof," and wrote nothing that would justify such a wild inference.

When the colonies became states and "disestablished" the church as a state church, that means legal (British) theocracy ended. The church became the property of the people, and ceased to be an agency of government.

Now, the orignal comment that sparked your ranting was - when did "conservatism" became belief in "state-level theocracy." Do you still think states of the United States established theocracy? Do you still think conservatives believe the states of the US have the power to become theocracies; that, for example, a sufficient Muslim population could turn Michigan into the Shariah Republic of Mishistan?

Or perhaps, you might think, as I do, that when the Ordinance of 1787 stipulated freedom of religion in the Northwest Territory, it pre-empted what would later be the state of Michigan from establishing a theocracy.

The states may have - on their own - decided to end them, sometimes as late as 1833, but nothing in the Constitution made those state Churches illegal.

It wasn't until 1947 that the Supreme Court suddenly discovered that the states couldn't have a Church any more than the Federal Gov't.

By what fantasy do you hold the colony church's to be agents of the British Crown?

Santorum is beginning to seem like a crybaby.

I understand now what you're saying. While a state can establish a religion they can't infringe on other religions.

Yes, because of the Fourteenth Amendment and how the Supreme Court interpretted the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause to expand the First Amendment to apply to states. I agree with you that it doesn't prevent states (or cities) from establishing a religion, but some people would argue that and the court cases would be expensive.

Not really different than Obama, Romney will push for a ban on 'assault' weapons; he favors the Brady Bill and thinks the Second Amendment has something to do with hunting varmints. Santorum recognizes my Constitutional rights.

No different at all than what Obama just did to change our military rules to open homosexuality, Romney looked forward to the exact same thing and told disappointed log cabin republicans in 1994 that Clinton's DADT was merely a stepping stone to open homosexuality in the military down the road. That and the FACT that Romney had ZERO Mass Constitutional reason to tell clerks to start issuing marriage licenses to queer couples. Romney is either lying that he favors an amendment to define marriage as one of each or, he is afraid of homosexuals, or the is a closet case himself - which is true I don't think matters. Something tells me I don't have to worry about Santorum caving in to homosexual demands for special rights. They now include TEACHING homosexual sex practices to children in some MA public schools whether their parents want their kids exposed to it or not - thanks Mitt!

No Child Left Behind is the colossal failure that we all knew it would be but it was what Bush wanted. Imagine that, a senator voting in favor of what a prdesident of his very same party was promoting in a display case with flashing lights in a idiotic attempt to appease liberals. Santorum wasn't the only republican who found himself stuck between a rock and hard place with Bush's liberal lose-lose policies.

Santorum is beginning to seem like a crybaby. Just look at how he is contesting the two votes in Michigan. He says that Romney cronies made this deal behind closed doors but the policy to give those two votes to the winner of the the popular vote was decided on February 7th.

I like Rick but really... this is so Al Gore-ish.

He was also looking like a crybaby

Really? And what date was this force out vote? Or are you just making up your own history?