Santorum - Thoughts?

But you understand creative genius? Ok....

The decline of religion and morality is pretty evident to me. And we'll just leave each other with their own views on that.

I didn't offer an opinion contrary to yours, I simply asked you to prove your assertion. If you can't, just say so.

In regards to creative and eclectic music, I am about the furthest thing from a novice.

Just like you can't 'prove' the opposite. Hence my counter challenge. You also can't ignore the evidence in my link. If my point is better served by exhaustive copy-and-paste, I'll gladly oblige.

It does appear Iowa voters held every candidate up in an effort to inspect and hope one could be better than Mitt. In the end, they couldn't do it and Mitt took the prize.
As for candidates changing their minds, this should be no surprise to any seasoned voter. I would reserve criticism until I studied all the details surrounding the points you mentioned in order to make sure there was nothing that caused a change in position, other than the candidate, himself.
I will likely not do that.

to prove how smart you are?

That's likely true and I'll certainly give you a nod there, I know donkeys who are more creative with music than me.

I suppose I took that comment to have something more to do with politics? Just because he has musical talents doesn't mean a thing to me in regards to his political views.

I appreciate that.

The comments on his musical legacy only went to the point that he was not a nut. He enjoyed sizable success in his own time and influenced (and mentored) quite a few musicians that are relevant and influential to this day. Of course, I tend to look at musical success through the lens of the influence one has on others (sort of like a coaching tree). When I look at commercial success alone, I weep for the future.

My comments in regards to him being a nut was in reference to my opinion of his politics.

He was actually a fiscal conservative with libertarian social views--a political mix that would likely include quite a few people on this board. He just didn't mince words and made no bones about calling people out for their BS. He also had a lyric that said, 'don't eat the yellow snow'. Some people think that's crazy. I think it's damned good advice.

I just saw that on youtube but didn't listen.

Sort of like don't whittle toward you, don't spit against the wind or squat with your spurs on. I think don't eat the yellow snow is pretty sound as well.

Uncommon sense.

Cut and paste whether extensive or not only reinforces the fact that your "proof" rests in other's research which you've either adopted as your own or sought out to support a pre-disposed mindset. In both cases you fail to prove your statement.

I on the otherhand never sought to disprove your position and might have agreed with you had you not failed to prove it.

Kaje did so previously. I'm assuming you and Cimmaron have him on ignore.

First off, you just described the overwhelming majority of posts on this forum.

Furthermore, it was a rather open-ended question I replied to. The whole thing pivots around whether or not people using religion for political gain was more prevalent by those who use their religion for votes, or those who use the politician's religion against them. Who does it more? Firstly, I don't see people using religion against a candidate as much different than any other negative association. If somebody were on an environmental impact committee, believe you me, it would be brought up by Republicans in an election. Therefore, and since there is no great distinction between using one's religion against them versus any other organizational distinction, the presence and prevalence of the religious right made them have a greater impact. They are obtaining political support either by using the pulpit or by crafting their political message to fit within the worldview of the voters' demographic.

So, in short, I don't think that the prevalence of religious political pacts/organizations/etc. can even be quantified against a much broader category of negatively campaigning against someone based on associations. It's like apples and oranges.

So. In the spirit of the ridiculous query of someone to 'prove' a view on an opinion forum; prove your father loved your mother. Give me evidence via your own research or copy and paste evidence that: "not only reinforces the fact that your "proof" rests in other's research which you've either adopted as your own or sought out to support a pre-disposed mindset". This should be a glorious waste of time.

Interesting how he said in the end of the video that we could have 4 more years of Bush.