Catholic Santorum winning the South ... our next Prez ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brb3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
scipio337 said:
Do you mean like your own “fact” that Republicans or Santorum have a “general disregard of science”??

🤷
Click to expand...
I wondered about that statement as well. This always leads me back to Obama’s campaign statement that he would govern by science and not by ideology. 🤷
 
scipio337 said:
Do you mean like your own “fact” that Republicans or Santorum have a “general disregard of science”??

🤷
Click to expand...
like your signature. It is what Jefferson correctly predicted for our Country, as well. I am no friend of the Repiblicrats or Demolicans, or whatever ti calls itself to be popular. My comment was specific to what I’ve deduced from the stance of some of the unfortunate examples we have for candidate for Highest Office. As it has also been predicted, democracy tends towards mediocrity. And as I am sure you are aware, by all of our national Institutes we have gone from first to about twentieth amongst industrial nations on many measures of success from education to general health and happiness, largely under Republican auspices. Even Brazil has an unemployment rate approaching zero and are sucking up American workers as the become the fifth largest economy by feeding the other contenders, Russia and China.

Anyway, being informed, you know all that. Maybe you missed this one because you are wathcing the ultra rich folks station, FOX “news” which has been demonstrated to foster disinformation:

nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html
 
Pork_Roll said:
Great question. I wonder the same thing. You should have heard Michael Savage bash him. The problem is, people don’t know their faith. You have many well intentioned conservative catholics who listen more to Michael Savage, Ann Coulter and Ayn Rand than they do the pope and his writings. What’s worse is that some think that the economic policies of the rank and file GOP are perfectly compatible with the church’s social teachings.

The fact that the more “catholic” Santorum is on issues the more he is attacked is proof positive to me that the media and the principalities and powers are inherently anti-catholic/traditional christian be them GOP or democrat. While I agree it is perfectly reasonable to support Romney over Obama, it isn’t reasonable for a catholic to not recognize that Santorum is by far the better candidate on the moral issues.
Click to expand...
*Santorum is a faithful Catholic. Does this mean he is boring to most Catholics? Most Catholics may not be faithful.

:)Cinette:)*
 
Micorhizea said:
like your signature. It is what Jefferson correctly predicted for our Country, as well. I am no friend of the Repiblicrats or Demolicans, or whatever ti calls itself to be popular. My comment was specific to what I’ve deduced from the stance of some of the unfortunate examples we have for candidate for Highest Office. As it has also been predicted, democracy tends towards mediocrity. And as I am sure you are aware, by all of our national Institutes we have gone from first to about twentieth amongst industrial nations on many measures of success from education to general health and happiness, largely under Republican auspices. Even Brazil has an unemployment rate approaching zero and are sucking up American workers as the become the fifth largest economy by feeding the other contenders, Russia and China.

Anyway, being informed, you know all that. Maybe you missed this one because you are wathcing the ultra rich folks station, FOX “news” which has been demonstrated to foster disinformation:

nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html
Click to expand...
A Paul Krugman op-ed? No bias there!

If you would be so kind, please provide the comments, particularly by Santorum, that lead you to your deduction.
 
*The American people will get the President they deserve - they always do!
 
scipio337 said:
A Paul Krugman op-ed? No bias there!

If you would be so kind, please provide the comments, particularly by Santorum, that lead you to your deduction.
Click to expand...
Op-eds are facts, don’t you know? And the NYT has never falsified news stories nor censored words to be used in its articles. NOT. :rolleyes:
 
qui_est_ce said:
Here we go again. All conservatives get their news from Fox.

I happen to get my news from NPR.

Liberal left has lots of ultra rich too. 🤷 Is there something wrong with being ultra rich?
Click to expand...
Did I say that all conservatives get their news from FOX? No, I wondered if 337 in particular did.

Did I say that the ultra rich were either conservative or liberal? No. In fact if you read my post, I conflated the two.

So what are you talking about? What I’m talking about is the state of perception that allows people to read/think this sloppily and then believe that they are thinking about anything. Heinlein was right: the average human does that job well enough to get to the corner store and back without breaking a leg. The other guy was right too: “It is great luck for leaders that men don’t think!” ~ A. Hitler
 
@ qui est ce

And no, there isn’t anything wrong with being ultra rich. Since you listen to NPR, you know the good that the Gates foundation is dong, as well as others. So what gave you t idea that I’m against wealth? Because I mentioned that condition without qualifying i other than suggest that there were ultra rich people sponsoring Fox? There are. Dis I say ALL of them do that? Show me. Perhaps you might do well to take a course in General Semantics or critical thinking. I am sure that you are personally a wonderful individual. But you did not do yourself credit with this particular post. That is why there is an op-ed for either side. I’m sure that the “conservative” position is lily white and always spot on? Lord, even Adam Smith said that the danger of capitalism is that it tends to function to siphon wealth to the top, and that there needs to be a balancing mechanism in place. Please show me how the Norquist pledge Republicans are helping with that, or tell me what suggestions you might have.

If you listen to NPR, you also know that people in social democracies, particularly Germany, are laughing at us for our misuse of such terms as “socialism” and Communism" citing especially health care as related to our stance as a “Christian” nation. So while I don’t care for the “left,” I have to side with them, despite my disgust, because they are at least trying to act like Adam Smith inspired capitalist conservatives regarding the social safety net.
 
Micorhizea said:
@ qui est ce

And no, there isn’t anything wrong with being ultra rich. Since you listen to NPR, you know the good that the Gates foundation is dong, as well as others. So what gave you t idea that I’m against wealth? Because I mentioned that condition without qualifying i other than suggest that there were ultra rich people sponsoring Fox? There are. Dis I say ALL of them do that? Show me. Perhaps you might do well to take a course in General Semantics or critical thinking. I am sure that you are personally a wonderful individual. But you did not do yourself credit with this particular post. That is why there is an op-ed for either side. I’m sure that the “conservative” position is lily white and always spot on? Lord, even Adam Smith said that the danger of capitalism is that it tends to function to siphon wealth to the top, and that there needs to be a balancing mechanism in place. Please show me how the Norquist pledge Republicans are helping with that, or tell me what suggestions you might have.

If you listen to NPR, you also know that people in social democracies, particularly Germany, are laughing at us for our misuse of such terms as “socialism” and Communism" citing especially health care as related to our stance as a “Christian” nation. So while I don’t care for the “left,” I have to side with them, despite my disgust, because they are at least trying to act like Adam Smith inspired capitalist conservatives regarding the social safety net.
Click to expand...
Do you know where you can take a course in General Semantics? I have looked everywhere and there are none. The best I could do was find the books written by those in the field and read them. If you know of a course let me know because I could never find one.
 
CopticChristian said:
Do you know where you can take a course in General Semantics? I have looked everywhere and there are none. The best I could do was find the books written by those in the field and read them. If you know of a course let me know because I could never find one.
Click to expand...
It’s off topic, but contact these folks and they might guide you. generalsemantics.org/the-general-semantics-learning-center/teaching-materials/

Some English departments have courses of various depths, and there is an audio curse available recorded, sort of unprofessionally, that is available.
 
Micorhizea said:
Did I say that all conservatives get their news from FOX? No, I wondered if 337 in particular did.
Click to expand...
You’ll have to excuse us conservatives - we are used to the ad hominem attack - “you get your news from Fox” or " of course you believe that - all you watch is Fox." We get that all the time. You may say "I never said all conservatives…’ but in my experience on these forums and elsewhere, the implication is certainly just that - “all’ conservatives who disagree with me must get there information from Fox news.” Ad hominems are the height of intellectual laziness and lack of a coherent argument or substance.
Micorhizea said:
Forgive me, I haven’t read all 20 pages of postings, but I have to say that the general disregard of science on the Republican side, maybe especially by Santorum, scares the holy you-know-what out of me!!! We have a right, sometimes useful, to our own opinion. We do not have a right to our own “facts.”
Click to expand...
Could you give actual examples of this “general disregard of science on the Republican side” ? What scares you about Santorum? You’re correct - we don’t have a right to our own facts. But it seems to me we have an obligation to back up our accusations with facts.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
You’ll have to excuse us conservatives - we are used to the ad hominem attack - “you get your news from Fox” or " of course you believe that - all you watch is Fox." We get that all the time. You may say "I never said all conservatives…’ but in my experience on these forums and elsewhere, the implication is certainly just that - “all’ conservatives who disagree with me must get there information from Fox news.” Ad hominems are the height of intellectual laziness and lack of a coherent argument or substance.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the assumption was made that that was what I was doing, and no one has even called me a liberal, which I am not.
Could you give actual examples of this “general disregard of science on the Republican side” ? What scares you about Santorum? You’re correct - we don’t have a right to our own facts. But it seems to me we have an obligation to back up our accusations with facts.
Click to expand...
Being someone who daily goes through numerous pages of world news regarding science, among other things, and listening to the candidates in their “debates.” I hear inconsistencies and attitudes that poo-pooh science. Science as such is treated, it seems to me, by Republicans in particular, and the more religious the more so, as if it is a matter of opinion.

Case in point the Exxon oil executive employed by the last Bush administration to censor scientific reports handed to Congress regarding climate change. Words and figures pointing to the urgency and of the degree and scale of change were expunged, The story was first broken by the Oakland tribune. The man in question returned to Exxon as a VP. Nothing at stake there. And I’m sorry I don’t take notes with dates and times of every speech I hear. But Santorum’s naivety about the scope of things that are effecting climate is pretty scary.

I’m not doing an annotated term paper here, just reporting what I gather from listening to these folks on the news, preferably foreign news which contains some analysis, comparisons, and insight. I learned to do that when I lived in Canada near the border and got both US and Canadian news. What passes for “news” in this Country is not only pathetic, it’s dangerous.

So that’s my say. We will vote and get exactly what we deserve. What I said about us sliding into a second world status can be easily verified for yourself. I’m done here. Good night, and good luck.

Ishii
 
Micorhizea said:
Being someone who daily goes through numerous pages of world news regarding science, among other things, and listening to the candidates in their “debates.” I hear inconsistencies and attitudes that poo-pooh science. Science as such is treated, it seems to me, by Republicans in particular, and the more religious the more so, as if it is a matter of opinion.

Case in point the Exxon oil executive employed by the last Bush administration to censor scientific reports handed to Congress regarding climate change. Words and figures pointing to the urgency and of the degree and scale of change were expunged, The story was first broken by the Oakland tribune. The man in question returned to Exxon as a VP. Nothing at stake there. And I’m sorry I don’t take notes with dates and times of every speech I hear. But Santorum’s naivety about the scope of things that are effecting climate is pretty scary.

I’m not doing an annotated term paper here, just reporting what I gather from listening to these folks on the news, preferably foreign news which contains some analysis, comparisons, and insight. I learned to do that when I lived in Canada near the border and got both US and Canadian news. What passes for “news” in this Country is not only pathetic, it’s dangerous.

So that’s my say. We will vote and get exactly what we deserve. What I said about us sliding into a second world status can be easily verified for yourself. I’m done here. Good night, and good luck.
Click to expand...
If you think that merely offering hearsay and unsubstantiated, flimsy arguments merits serious consideration, then you are the one in need of luck. Interesting and ironic that you hold up as the ideal - news organizations in a country (Canada) that prosecutes people for violating speech codes.

Here is a link to the news story to back up my assertion:

cbc.ca/news/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html

See how that works? And I’m not doing an “annotated term paper” either.

Ishii
 
Micorhizea said:
It’s off topic, but contact these folks and they might guide you. generalsemantics.org/the-general-semantics-learning-center/teaching-materials/

Some English departments have courses of various depths, and there is an audio curse available recorded, sort of unprofessionally, that is available.
Click to expand...
No. I have known about this for years in my search for a course. They do not offer courses, just seminars. I thought that they would have courses however nothing as simple as an online course or courses in General Semantics. I would not suggest this to anyone as a place to get a course. I have searched all the major local universities. Where is it you found this audio course?
 
Micorhizea said:
@ qui est ce

And no, there isn’t anything wrong with being ultra rich. Since you listen to NPR, you know the good that the Gates foundation is dong, as well as others. So what gave you t idea that I’m against wealth? Because I mentioned that condition without qualifying i other than suggest that there were ultra rich people sponsoring Fox? There are. Dis I say ALL of them do that? Show me. Perhaps you might do well to take a course in General Semantics or critical thinking. I am sure that you are personally a wonderful individual. But you did not do yourself credit with this particular post. That is why there is an op-ed for either side. I’m sure that the “conservative” position is lily white and always spot on? Lord, even Adam Smith said that the danger of capitalism is that it tends to function to siphon wealth to the top, and that there needs to be a balancing mechanism in place. Please show me how the Norquist pledge Republicans are helping with that, or tell me what suggestions you might have.
Click to expand...
Having regularly visited Germany my whole life and having an aunt in Germany that has been in and out of their health care system, when she should be in hospice, I say let them laugh.

Two years ago they were saying the children have forgotten how to go sledding. They think Americans don’t recycle.

My uncle’s niece, married to an ultra rich titled husband got a tax credit for using geothermal heat to build their mansion. :rolleyes:

No handicapped parking either.

They should look to themselves.
 
Micorhizea said:
@ qui est ce

And no, there isn’t anything wrong with being ultra rich. Since you listen to NPR, you know the good that the Gates foundation is dong, as well as others. So what gave you t idea that I’m against wealth? Because I mentioned that condition without qualifying i other than suggest that there were ultra rich people sponsoring Fox?
Click to expand...
Micorhizea said:
Anyway, being informed, you know all that. Maybe you missed this one because you are wathcing the ultra rich folks station, FOX “news” which has been demonstrated to foster disinformation:
Click to expand...
What’s your point with linking ultra rich folks with a (your words) faux news source?
 
renewamerica.com/columns/otoole/120223 - had not realised that the issues around the candidates have such a prophetic ring to it , as depicted in the best selling novel - 'Pierced by a Sword ’ ; even includes the controversy of the hot topic of the day - contraception !

renewamerica.com/columns/otoole/120327 - this too a good one , on how the crowds who come to Santorum rallies are a joyful, prayerful 'salt of the earth ’ type ; on his win in Lousiana , on the Feast of St. Gabriel, in the old calendar ; his victory in Ala and Miss . was on a 13th - two days after the Jewish Festival Purim that celebrates the role of Queen Esther , prototyps of Bl.Mother , whose role is rather maligned , in another candidate’s adherence .

Our Lord mentions on how He looks for efforts and thus , those who want to support a candidate whose core values best follow that of The Church , can be at peace that they are being faithful !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top