Rick Santorum Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Zelare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Libertarianism, at heart, is “pro-choice” both in the common sense understanding of the phrase and in the semantically evasive sense in which those who favor legal abortion use it. .
Libertarianism has never supported one has a “choice” to commit a crime against another person. It is not a matter of semantics or evasion, but an understanding of personhood. A person has no more choice under libertarinan ideas to kill their child than they do to molest their child.
 
The following quote from EWTN should be taken into consideration:
Washington D.C., Jan 20, 2012 / 02:45 pm (CNA/EWTN News).-"**** The Obama administration announced Jan. 20 that it will not expand an exemption for religious groups that object to its requirement for health insurance plans to cover sterilization and contraception – including abortion-causing drugs – free of charge**** Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said in a Jan. 20 statement that religious employers who object to providing the coverage will be required to comply with the new law by Aug. 1, 2013, one year later than the initial deadline. Sebelius noted that “important concerns” had been “raised about religious liberty.” Those speaking out against the mandate included many Catholic organizations, such as schools, hospitals and social agencies, which serve all people in need, regardless of their religious affiliation. During the comment period that followed the announcement of the rule, the administration received an outpouring of criticism from believers of various religious backgrounds. Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ pro-life committee, argued against the regulation, warning that Jesus himself would not qualify for the religious exemption. In December, a group of more than 60 evangelical, Baptist and Jewish leaders voiced their objection to the mandate in a letter to President Obama. They observed that “religious organizations beyond the Catholic community have deep moral objections” to the proposed mandate.
Sebelius said that those concerns were given “very careful consideration” and asserted that the final rule “strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.” While the rule will take effect for most employers on Aug. 1, 2012, Sebelius said that there will be a one-year “delayed implementation” of the mandate for nonprofit employers who do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plans due to religious beliefs.
“This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule,” she said. Sebelius added that these employers will be required to inform employees “that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.”
The announcement comes one day after Pope Benedict XVI warned of “grave threats” to religious liberty in the U.S.
an address to a group of U.S. bishops visiting tIn he Vatican, the Pope voiced great concern over “certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.” He said that it is “imperative” for “the entire Catholic community” in the U.S. to realize that the threats are “hostile to Christianity.”
We have got to vote them out of office. Sebelius Catholic? 😦

Thanks for posting.
 
Santorum emphasizes pro-life credentials while Obama celebrates Row V Wade anniversary - Washington Times

Florida is neutral turf, says Santorum, and a better test than NH or SC - USA Today

Santorum’s Florida stump speech offered nothing specific to state - CBS
 
Santorum is just biding his time waiting for Newt to implode. The question for him is will his money run out before Newt implodes.
 
Santorum is just biding his time waiting for Newt to implode. The question for him is will his money run out before Newt implodes.
Thanks to proportional distribution of votes, it’s very likely now that unless 2 of the remaining 4 Republican candidates bow out they’ll have to broker the convention. Nobody is going to pull a clean majority of the delegates if the most decisive win so far is Newt with 40% pull in South Carolina. The delegates are spread out between Paul, Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney too well.

Come a brokered convention either someone not in the field is going to be conscripted, or someone is going to play King Maker. Neither of these scenarios work for the Romney campaign unless they can actually buy out another candidate. I don’t see Santorum or Ron Paul being bought at any price. Meanwhile, I think Ron Paul would rather lose his eye teeth than throw in behind Romney or Gingrich, an no one is going to throw his support behind Ron Paul. Rick Santorum won’t throw in behind anyone he can’t be 100% certain on appointing pro-life justices.

I could actually see Ron Paul throwing in at the convention behind Rick Santorum if he could wring some sort of concessions out of him in terms of shaping policy. Putting his son Rand Paul (all the anti-Big Government sentiment you lose about Ron Paul with 100% less wacky foreign policy) on the ticket as VP might work nicely.
  • Marty Lund
 
Thanks to proportional distribution of votes, it’s very likely now that unless 2 of the remaining 4 Republican candidates bow out they’ll have to broker the convention. Nobody is going to pull a clean majority of the delegates if the most decisive win so far is Newt with 40% pull in South Carolina. The delegates are spread out between Paul, Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney too well.

Come a brokered convention either someone not in the field is going to be conscripted, or someone is going to play King Maker. Neither of these scenarios work for the Romney campaign unless they can actually buy out another candidate. I don’t see Santorum or Ron Paul being bought at any price. Meanwhile, I think Ron Paul would rather lose his eye teeth than throw in behind Romney or Gingrich, an no one is going to throw his support behind Ron Paul. Rick Santorum won’t throw in behind anyone he can’t be 100% certain on appointing pro-life justices.

I could actually see Ron Paul throwing in at the convention behind Rick Santorum if he could wring some sort of concessions out of him in terms of shaping policy. Putting his son Rand Paul (all the anti-Big Government sentiment you lose about Ron Paul with 100% less wacky foreign policy) on the ticket as VP might work nicely.
  • Marty Lund
The structure for a brokered convention no longer exists–at least not from what I have heard and read.
 
Libertarianism has never supported one has a “choice” to commit a crime against another person. It is not a matter of semantics or evasion, but an understanding of personhood. A person has no more choice under libertarinan ideas to kill their child than they do to molest their child.
The problem with your statement is that a significant number of people (libertarians included) do not consider abortion a crime. They consider it a right. If one libertarian believes that abortion is committing a crime against another person and another libertarian believes that abortion is a right no government ought to have power to deny, on what basis in libertarian ideology does one decide which is right? There isn’t any as far as I can tell. If the matter is left to the individual conscience, or the marketplace of ideas, and the libertarian does not allow for the influence of an enforcing power like the state, then what ultimately happens under a libertarian system is that the more powerful private influences overpower the less powerful. Then might makes right. That’s what libertariaism is ultimately about. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but that’s what I believe.
 
The structure for a brokered convention no longer exists–at least not from what I have heard and read.
No, the brokered convention is alive and well. Once the first vote is held and no candidate has 50% of the delegates the regular delegates are no longer bound. Horse-trading ensues.

Of course, once the delegate count reaches a critical mass where 50% (even with super-delegates) can no longer be achieved by any candidate the negotiations for the brokered convention will probably already be taking place.
  • Marty Lund
 
No, the brokered convention is alive and well. Once the first vote is held and no candidate has 50% of the delegates the regular delegates are no longer bound. Horse-trading ensues.

Of course, once the delegate count reaches a critical mass where 50% (even with super-delegates) can no longer be achieved by any candidate the negotiations for the brokered convention will probably already be taking place.
  • Marty Lund
With the volatility of the race this year, it sounds like a brokered convention is a very real possibility. Gingrich’s new surge could fall apart, and/or Romney and Gingrich could both end up with slightly less than 50% with the split by Paul and/or Santorum.
 
The problem with your statement is that a significant number of people (libertarians included) do not consider abortion a crime. … That’s what libertariaism is ultimately about. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but that’s what I believe.
I think your labeling with too broad a brush. Libertarianism is not anarchy. All the stuff you are talking about libertarians believing no one I know believes. It is easy to build strawman arguments with labels when you get to tell other people what they believe. That is the basic problem with our two-party system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top