well if his NH strategy works that may occur as well.

Santorum scares me, because unlike the other candidates with chances to win, the skeletons in his closet are not reducible to a soundbite that will resonate with Joe Public. He might have a shot in the general election if the idiot republicans give him the chance and then our country is fucked.

actually looking at huckabee's advantage in 2008 in Iowa, it seems that religious looney tunes just do better in Iowa. I just hope nothing awful happens like Bachman or Pery dropping out and giving their endorsement to Captain Crusader.

Could you imagine that man with power over Nuclear Weapons?

I can, and it makes me feel safer than Obama with nuclear weapons.

then you are a fucking idiot. nuff said.

Cool story bro, I can see you are informed on the issues

You support Rick Santorum. I can see you are informed bro...

You would love an admitted and proud crusader with nuclear weapons.

I do not support Rick Santorum, nice false accusation though

Your one sentence responses aside bro, you have to explain to me how you trust an admitted crusader with Nuclear Weapons/ The Arsenal of the the United States over our current president.

Don't worry about a President Santorum. He won't win New Hampshire. He will never have enough money to challenge Perry in South Carolina, where they will be going after the same constituency.

You're too hard on him, but also overestimate him. He has to wait a long time to win another vote, and has problems from the perspective of a lot of sections of the party.

I'm too hard on him? How so?

I am waiting to hear the redeeming qualities of this theocrat running for the presidency of the United States.

And as for the Crusades being a good thing, if you think it's important for the Holy Land to be in Christian hands then that makes sense. I mean, I bet Muslims think the Arab conquest of the Holy Land was a good thing, and we don't begrudge them that. He has problems beyond a private opinion which will have next to no impact on policy.

And remember, the guy's just Catholic. We're the best at holding ridiculous sounding beliefs and still being completely integrated in modern society.

Too hard because I doubt he would impose anything like a theocracy. We had a secular government in the 19th century when everybody everywhere really, sincerely believed in religious things. No one man could impose religious rule anymore than one man could impose atheistic rule in this country. Calm down.

and at any rate, he won't win.

Win the nomination, I mean. He's basically won Iowa, even if he ends up being a few votes behind Romney.

Invictus, I don't know if you studied the medieval period or anything, but the crusades were several drawn out massacres. They massacred Jews throughout Germany, the Massacred all the inhabitants of Jerusalem(Muslim Jew AND Christian) They Massacred the Cathar Heritics, Pagans in Eastern Europe and to top it off, The Massacred Catholics at Zara and Christians at Constantinople.

And if Santorum is a catholic he would know that the Catholic Church realized what a shit show the Crusades were ans apologized for them.

These were a good thing?

This is what we should consciously try to duplicate with out foreign policy?

Aw, don't calm them down Invictus; the flame war was hilarious!

"Too hard because I doubt he would impose anything like a theocracy. "

Im glad you have your doubts...

He wants an amendment defining marriage the way christians define it and he wants a ban on abortions. He wants to base our foreign policy on Christian prophesy and Christian conceptions of friend and enemy. He wants to banish the 9th circuit court of appeals because it dared to insist on a separation of church and state. I'm glad he wont scrap the constitution and name himself Santorum the Holy, Priest of the Americans, that seems to be the only thing that might concern you.

Last time we elected a christian wacko, God told him to invade Iraq and look where that got us.

Him thinking they were good automatically means he wants to... what, exactly? Make the Jordan Valley the 51st state?

I know that the Crusades were full of massacres. But so were the Mongol invasions. So were Aztec festivals. So was the Muslim conquest of Arabia, Iran, North Africa, etc. History is full of truly horrific crimes, and it's a bit silly to single one particular episode as especially worthy of criticism.

He's probably just sad that Christ's homeland doesn't follow his religion. Not much different than looking at Hagia Sophia and thinking, "Oh, I wish that were still a church." Too often religious people are represented by nuts leading little churches in the middle of nowhere and charlatans in glorified convention centers. Mainline Protestants, Orthodox, Catholics, etc are not trying to build Jerusalem, killing the heathens for God.

So once again, calm down. He won't win, but if he did, he wouldn't do the horrible things you think would. At most it would be like when Bush was president. One might not agree with things like giving money to religious institutions to preform social work, but it's hardly caesaropapism.

"Him thinking they were good automatically means he wants to... what, exactly? Make the Jordan Valley the 51st state?"

Considering he was defending the crusades in the context of defending perpetual american involvement in Middle Eastern Wars, I do believe it is of some import.

"I know that the Crusades were full of massacres. But so were the Mongol invasions. So were Aztec festivals. So was the Muslim conquest of Arabia, Iran, North Africa, etc. History is full of truly horrific crimes, and it's a bit silly to single one particular episode as especially worthy of criticism."

Ha yes, Invictus, an event where a bunch of peasants are given swords and told to take back the Holy land only to rampage throughout Central Europe putting jews to the sword was just another historical event. An event whose climax (the conquest of Jerusalem) climaxed in the liquidation of Jerusalem, is just another event.

"He's probably just sad that Christ's homeland doesn't follow his religion. Not much different than looking at Hagia Sophia and thinking, "Oh, I wish that were still a church." Too often religious people are represented by nuts leading little churches in the middle of nowhere and charlatans in glorified convention centers. Mainline Protestants, Orthodox, Catholics, etc are not trying to build Jerusalem, killing the heathens for God."

No, he defended holy war against Muslims, that is exactly what he was doing

"So once again, calm down. He won't win, but if he did, he wouldn't do the horrible things you think would. At most it would be like when Bush was president. One might not agree with things like giving money to religious institutions to preform social work, but it's hardly caesaropapism."

Great, I hope god doesn't tell this one to fire our nukes.

"Last time we elected a christian wacko, God told him to invade Iraq and look where that got us."

You really believe that? When a Christian says that it means the same as you saying you made up your mind or your conscience told you. You can legitimately criticize the decision we went into Iraq, but saying it was because God told Bush to do it is ludicrous. This isn't meant to be taken literally. It's the same as having an epiphany. He also said it was a gut decision at one point. Should we say he's a gastromancer?

No, it is meant to be taken literally, he was quoted to have said "God said to me 'George deal with those terrorists in Afganistan" and I did" and then he said to me 'George deal with saddam in Iraq' and I did"

It was not meant figuratively at all. Frankly I don't know how you come up with this shit. These are documented quotes and you are sitting here telling me what the guy "meant" without any idea what he supposedly said.

"The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. ... What I’m talking about is onward American soldiers. What we’re talking about are core American values." -- Santorum

"Ha yes, Invictus, an event where a bunch of peasants are given swords and told to take back the Holy land only to rampage throughout Central Europe putting jews to the sword was just another historical event. An event whose climax (the conquest of Jerusalem) climaxed in the liquidation of Jerusalem, is just another event."

Genghis Khan piled heads outside of cities that resisted him which were as tall as the walls. It doesn't diminish the crimes of one event to admit that other, equally bad things happened at other times. Bad things happen all over. I happen to think that these 200 years where Christians were poking around in the Middle East isn't so talked about because it was unique, it's because it's really interesting and "romantic."

It's hard to believe that I'm defending Santorum, since I would never, ever vote for him. But the fact is that you're being unreasonable here. Go ahead and oppose him for his really reactionary stance on homosexuality or his strong pro-life position or his surprisingly militarist foreign policy (especially in places where there are no Muslims). But don't make it all about the Crusades and that he's trying to make a Left Behind book happen.

It's a silly as saying a British Prime Minister would invade France because he said it's a shame they lose the Hundred Years War.

"Genghis Khan piled heads outside of cities that resisted him which were as tall as the walls. It doesn't diminish the crimes of one event to admit that other, equally bad things happened at other times. Bad things happen all over. I happen to think that these 200 years where Christians were poking around in the Middle East isn't so talked about because it was unique, it's because it's really interesting and "romantic.""

Jeez you would think Ghengis Khan's name was nearly synonymous with "Barbaric"

I wonder if Rick Santorum thinks the same thing about the Crus...
Nevermind

"It's hard to believe that I'm defending Santorum, since I would never, ever vote for him. But the fact is that you're being unreasonable here. Go ahead and oppose him for his really reactionary stance on homosexuality or his strong pro-life position or his surprisingly militarist foreign policy (especially in places where there are no Muslims). But don't make it all about the Crusades and that he's trying to make a Left Behind book happen."

He defended a PERPETUAL AMERICAN PRESENCE in the MIDDLE EAST, by REFERENCING HIS SUPPORT FOR THE CRUSADES.

He used the term "Onward American Soldiers"

What does this man need to say to make you sweat?

"We had a secular government in the 19th century when everybody everywhere really, sincerely believed in religious things."

Beyond a few periods of increased religious activity (and questionably even then), that's not a very accurate depiction of the 19th century. I mean, in order for there to be two periods during that century called "The Great Awakening" there had to be some not-so-awake periods in between. And both of those awakenings sought to modify the law to legislate Christian morality, or their idea of Christian morality, and both succeeded to some extent.

I know the idiom of "God said" because I know religious people. It doesn't mean Gabriel was sent to you. It means you had an epiphany, an a-ha moment, or that all the facts were pointing you one way.

As for the Crusade quote, strictly speaking he's right. The Muslims did invade the Byzantine held Holy Land and take control of the various churches and what not. I don't support his position but you can't say it's because he has unfinished business with the Crusades. That's ludicrous.

But AGAIN, he won't win. Don't even worry about it.

His speech, to clarify even more, referenced the crusades as a template for American foreign policy. How the hell is this irrelevant to his fitness for the office of the Presidency?