Rick Santorum Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Zelare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One major , major advanatge for Santorum is that , since he is known to be a strong believer , he would have wisdom enough , let us hope, if and when the real occasion comes, to discern , with much prayer and guidance , any major decision , such as dealing with Iran !

It is very likley that he is aware of the incident in which Russia was set back, in their quest for world power , by a nuclear accident , dealt by the hands of Providence !

One very good step that even candidates , esp. from Texas could do would be , to ask forgiveness from The Church and Pope John Paul 11 also , for the Iraq war and may be Sen.Santorum could make a vow that as President , he would do so even officially , esp. as penanace for any extreme , imprudent leanings in this regard !

He has been mocked and persecuted , for reminding persons that they can be true men and women of God given dignity,

His name - Rick , as in Richard , is for ‘strong’ and Santorum - Santo - ofcourse meaning sanctfying and rum - again , to mean strong ; thus , may be Providence is telling us who might be there to help us , in strengt and sanctification - esp. . in dealing with the serious area of the littering of faith , that might be worse than in pagan Roman days !
 
Since the “well known host” is not specified, I deduced from further reading the responding posts that we are talking about Bill O’Reilly? If it is, it would not surprise me. Sometimes I get the feeling that Bill’s Catholicism is an expedient aspect of his politics. Very interesting.

I remember that Tom Ridge, a conservative, who is also Catholic, once postulated that the Republicans will not get back the White House until they reverse their pro-life platform. Perhaps, O’Reilly, who is a mainstream Republican shill, is promoting a paradigm shift within the Republican Party?

If the Republican Party has made a strategic shift , from pro-life, to the “culture of death”, with its lynchpin issue of being pro-abortion, it makes sense that they would first try to soft-sell it using a likeable foil like O’Reilly. This must be carefully watched. To cynically seek power upon the blood of the innocents would be a fatal mistake, in my view.

Does anyone know what O’Reilly’s stated position is vis a vis abortion/contraception? Also, was he interviewing Rick Santorum?
 
kubark said:
A Rick Santorum nomination would all but gaurantee a win for Obama or the Democrat in 2012. He is a neoconservative interventionist (domestically and in terms of foreign policy) and regardless of how good his intentions are, he would destroy what little genuine constitutional, traditional conservatism is left in the Republican party.

The ironic thing is that Ron Paul, who is a Protestant, is actually more pro-life and more pro-constitution than Santorum, a Catholic. Santorum may be a smooth debater and may have found a way to pander to the Evangelical crowd, but Ron Paul has a voting record that speaks for itself and is actually the only Republican that is electable come the general election.
Click to expand...
Excellent post.

Since Santorum hasn’t been near the top of any polls until recently, he hasn’t endured the scrutiny the others have. The fact is he is much too socially conservative to be elected. In several weeks Santorum will be in free fall - just like Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, etc.
 
k5thbeatle said:
Was watching a well known news show host talk to one of the presidential candidates and they touched on abortion and contraception. Apparently having anti-contraception and pro-life views are seen as “radical”. Wanting life is radical? I almost had to say that to myself a few times to let that sink in. When did murder become the norm and for life become the “radical” view???

Also I noted that this host quoted a stat that 98% of the population including 98% of catholics are for artificial contrception? I haven’t been able to find any facts about this and I know some catholics are confused about this but 98%???

I never knew I was the radical???
Click to expand...
Here is the interview in question between Bill-O and Mr. Santorum, just in case any of you want the actual LINK [please include the LINK, and make the title of the post match the title of video/story–OTHERWISE ITS NOT NEWS!]

Mr. Santorum on Bill-O (Interview)

In Bill-O’s defense, I get the feeling that many of his questions are actually ‘opportunities’ for sympathetic guests to address the controversial issues they’ve faced. In this case, Bill-O is playing the ‘conservative, but uncommitted or lapsed Catholic.’

Therefore, these aren’t his opinions necessarily, but those of the voters Mr. Santorum is trying to sway. On the other hand, Mr. Romney is running an econo-centric campaign, and will probably put social and faith issues on the back-burner. So the right-wing media establishment more favorable to Mr. Romney’s secular + hyper-fiscal conservatism might be intentionally giving the more outspokenly social conservative candidate a tough run.

Fox in general has also deliberately tried to re-center itself after the last election and in the post-Glenn Beck-era.

FWIW, Bill-O’s description of the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraceptives was sickening. Something just felt wrong about it, especially when he flatly describes it as ‘man-made.’

I suppose that’s how he worms his way out of justifying his private life, where he advises young women on the use of ‘falafels:’ ‘Falafels?’
 
k5thbeatle said:
Was watching a well known news show host talk to one of the presidential candidates and they touched on abortion and contraception. Apparently having anti-contraception and pro-life views are seen as “radical”. Wanting life is radical? I almost had to say that to myself a few times to let that sink in. When did murder become the norm and for life become the “radical” view???

Also I noted that this host quoted a stat that 98% of the population including 98% of catholics are for artificial contrception? I haven’t been able to find any facts about this and I know some catholics are confused about this but 98%???

I never knew I was the radical???
Click to expand...
You are quite right. The orthodox Catholic faith is radical. It is dangerous to the powerful and the comfortable. It has been that way since the beginning and will be that way till the end.
I think it was Chesterton who once said " Christianity has not been tried and found wanting it has been found hard and left untried"
 
Sorry I apparently posted this in the wrong thread heading. Apparently that ruffled some feathers. I was only making a point that being seen as pro-life is now seen as radical or extremist. Thanks to all the reasonable people that replied.
 
k5thbeatle said:
Sorry I apparently posted this in the wrong thread heading. Apparently that ruffled some feathers. I was only making a point that being seen as pro-life is now seen as radical or extremist. Thanks to all the reasonable people that replied.
Click to expand...
haha, sorry for my ‘unreasonable’ post :rolleyes: that gave your news report some context… 😉

You could have gotten some laughs by posting, ‘Newsflash: I, insertname, am a Pro-Life Radical.’
 
LiveCatholic said:
Here is the interview in question between Bill-O and Mr. Santorum, just in case any of you want the actual LINK [please include the LINK, and make the title of the post match the title of video/story–OTHERWISE ITS NOT NEWS!]

Mr. Santorum on Bill-O (Interview)

In Bill-O’s defense, I get the feeling that many of his questions are actually ‘opportunities’ for sympathetic guests to address the controversial issues they’ve faced. In this case, Bill-O is playing the ‘conservative, but uncommitted or lapsed Catholic.’

Therefore, these aren’t his opinions necessarily, but those of the voters Mr. Santorum is trying to sway. On the other hand, Mr. Romney is running an econo-centric campaign, and will probably put social and faith issues on the back-burner. So the right-wing media establishment more favorable to Mr. Romney’s secular + hyper-fiscal conservatism might be intentionally giving the more outspokenly social conservative candidate a tough run.

Fox in general has also deliberately tried to re-center itself after the last election and in the post-Glenn Beck-era.

FWIW, Bill-O’s description of the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraceptives was sickening. Something just felt wrong about it, especially when he flatly describes it as ‘man-made.’

I suppose that’s how he worms his way out of justifying his private life, where he advises young women on the use of ‘falafels:’ ‘Falafels?’
Click to expand...
Brilliant! Best thing I’ve ever read on here. By the way, what is a Falafel?
 
Santorum will be castigated as a right wing extremist in them mainstream media, even though his view on gay ‘marriage’ and abortion are practically the same as Mitt Romney’s.

Perfect example, ‘9 controversial Rick Santorum quotes.’’’

theweek.com/article/index/223041/9-controversial-rick-santorum-quotes

Number 6 is wrong. Rick Santorum said on Fox on Wednesday,

“If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of – blah – came out. And people said I said ‘black.’ I didn’t," Santorum said. “And I can tell you, … I don’t use the term ‘black’ very often. I use the term ‘African-American’ more than I use ‘black.’ … I think sometimes you want to give someone the benefit of the doubt if it’s a little bit of a blurred word.”

The media assumed he said ‘black.’ Look what he said:

mediaite.com/online/did-rick-santorum-really-talk-about-making-%E2%80%98black-people%E2%80%99s-lives-better%E2%80%99-with-%E2%80%98somebody-else%E2%80%99s-money%E2%80%99/

Santorum on O’Reilly factor:

Bill O’reilly: You say that the states should have the rights to ban some contraception. That’s right off the bat going to be a big one.

Rick Santorum: Well, the states have a right to do a lot of things. That doesn’t mean they should do it. Someone asked me if the states have the right to do it. Yes, they have the right to do it. They shouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t vote for it if they did. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to do it. As you know, Bill, you’re a Catholic. Catholic Church teaches that contraception is something you shouldn’t do. So, when I was asked the question about contraception, I said I didn’t support it.

Surely that is something even Ron Paul would agree with, that states would have the right to ban birth control.
 
kubark said:
How could someone like Rick Santorum who supported that unjust, preemptive, unconstitutional war in Iraq, possibly be considered “pro-life?” How could someone like Rick Santorum who is currently warmongering his way to the top of the Republican ticket (as evidenced by his ignorant exchanges with Ron Paul in the debates) by shilling for a war in Iran and by pandering to the war-crazy Evangelicals, possibly be considered “pro-life?”

You do realize that “pro-life” covers not only beginning of life and end of life, but everything in between?
Click to expand...
You’re right , of course. The Left has no idea what to do with Rick Santorum. They truly fear Catholics, probably because they feel Catholics have too many rules and may shed some Catholicism on them.
Joking. I don’t shed.

It actually is comical to see them so fearful of a man who is just being honest about his beliefs. Who actually believes that the President of the US has THAT MUCH influence over what happens on a state level. Does the Left wing realize that Obama is WAY against gay marriage. He has stated it plainly enough, throughout his campaigns, but yet-look at that! Gay Marriage has been legalized in several states, despite the presidents personal opinion.
They wouldn’t cut that kind of slack to Santorum simply because he’s #1 Catholic, and #2, he’s one of the evil Republicans. They don’t realize that the government is checks and balances, and for a president to outlaw something like abortion or gay marriage, he’d have to have the house, the senate, and congress all in agreement. They can make laws, but everyone needs to be somewhat on board.

So, they will take a sad family story, the tragic story of Baby Gabriel, and twist it into one of their amoral headlines. To poke fun at the loss of a child is the most disgusting thing to do. Seems to me it makes sense though, considering they have no problem with aborting an “inconvenience” like they change socks.

Ok, I’m making myself a little angry. Stepping off my soap box.
 
Guys and gals,

Here is a self-proclaimed Catholic who just doesn’t get it. I read this article in the Washington Post yesterday (I normally stay far away from that newspaper) and it just appeared online today in another opinion article.

Now, disregarding the distorted argument and logical fallicy of the title and first paragraph, there is some real meat to chew a little further down in the article.

A brief selection:
Catholic viewpoints
Click to expand...
Santorum is a Catholic of a certain kind, and it’s the most important thing about him. He’s on one side of a long-standing debate in the church about how to build a decent society. Social-justice Catholics (and I’m one of those) represent an older American tradition. We agree with more conservative Catholics on the family as an essential social building block but see capitalism as in need of regulation and correction if it is to serve the common good, and protect the family itself. Many of us — and here we do depart from the church’s official teaching — see gay marriage not as undermining fidelity and commitment but as encouraging them.
Click to expand...
By contrast, Santorum is what Republican strategist Steve Wagner years ago called a “social renewal” Catholic. These Catholics see opposition to abortion as a foundational matter and opposition to gay marriage as essential to “protecting” the family. They view the federal government less as a guarantor of social fairness than as “inflicting harm on the nation’s moral character,” as Wagner has put it.
Click to expand...
Huntsman’s core vote, such as it is right now, comes from less intensely religious economic rationalists who do not perceive culture wars as breaking out all over. Santorum reflects the sensibility of the Catholic and evangelical working-class voters whose ballots Republicans have long taken for granted.
Click to expand...
Santorum was the last staunch conservative standing, unscathed by foolish mistakes or by Mitt Romney’s highly efficient and unaccountable manufacturing operation whose product is attack ads. (Bain Capital would have picked it as a winner.) Though Santorum is a Catholic, evangelicals knew he was one of them in spirit, the new ecumenism being more political than theological.
Click to expand...
 
Charlotte408 said:
Can someone help me understand what is happening here?

m.jezebel.com/5873158/rick-santorums-anti+abortion-stance-would-have-killed-his-own-wife?tag=politics
Click to expand...
Read the past 3 or 4 pages and you’ll find out. 🙂

But in short, from what I understand, they had a surgury on their child in her womb to fix something and an infection developed in the amniotic sac, which caused early contractions and birth in which the child survived for 2 hours.

I don’t even think it was a surgery or operation that expressedly endangered the child’s life, let alone an abortive one.

Here’s a member’s recent quote that puts it much better:
_Abyssinia said:
Jezebel is a known pro abortion website, and this is low even for them to start a malicious rumor.

Karen Santorum Did Not Have An Abortion and Rick Santorum Did Not “Authorize” One

Now that Rick Santorum has had his big political success in Iowa, the knives have come out. There is a story being circulated that this champion of life authorized an “abortion” for his wife Karen. The term “abortion” is not always understood. I have lost a child to miscarriage myself, but the doctor did not put “miscarriage” on the paperwork about it. He used the term “spontaneous abortion” even though the child died naturally, as did Gabriel Santorum, one of the sons of Rick and Karen Santorum. When we are speaking about abortion in the context of law, not medicine, the term “abortion” refers to willful and direct intentional killing of an unborn child in the womb.

Read “Gabriel’s Story” by Karen Santorum.
Code: 
[INDENT]I am married to United States Senator Rick Santorum, who in 1996 led the debate on a bill to ban partial-birth abortion—which even several pro-choice senators refer to as “infanticide”. The procedure is justified by its advocates as necessary in cases of fetal abnormalities detected late in pregnancy. They implied that Rick had no right to speak on the issue because it had not not touched his life.

One week later at a routine sonogram, the 20 week old baby in my womb was diagnosed with a defect that is always fatal without surgery. Through our immense heartache came the most basic of parental emotions: We had to save our child. After many tests it was determined our son was eligible for the operation that could save his life. It was a success, but an infection developed in the amniotic sac, and I was rushed to the hospital with a high fever, having contractions. I begged the doctors to stop my labor, but they said it would be malpractice, for I would surely die since these infections are untreatable.

Gabriel Michael Santorum was born at 12:45 AM on Friday, October 11, 1996. He was a beautiful boy. He did not give a cry or open his tiny eyes. We baptized him, bundled him, and held him ever so close. We sang to him, held his little hands and kissed him. Gabriel lived for two hours. In those two hours something simple but profound happened. Rick and I became parents to a newborn baby and welcomed him into our family. That was all….but it was everything. His life was so brief, yet his impact so great. In two hours we experienced a lifetime of emotions. Love, sorrow, regret, joy—-all were packed into that brief span. To have rejected that experience would have been to reject life itself.
There is no truth to the claim that “Karen Santorum had an abortion”. There is also no truth to the claim that Rick Santorum “authorized an abortion” for his wife. He has said that he would have agreed to inducing labor if it had been necessary to save his wife’s life. Inducing labor to save the life of a woman is in no way, shape or form “abortion”. Abortion is the willful and direct intentional killing of an unborn child.

Even beyond the practice of inducing labor, the removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not “abortion” in that the direct action is to remove a part of the mother’s body with the intention of saving her life. The death of the child is unintentional and indirect and is, therefore, not abortion. In like manner, removal of a cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman is not “abortion” because the intent is to remove a part of the woman’s body, not to kill the child.

Willful and direct killing, including the willful and direct killing in every abortion, is murder. It is the ultimate rejection of life. The story of Rick and Karen Santorum and their son Gabriel is, to the contrary, a story of ultimate openness to life. It is for this reason that they were awarded the Poverello Medal, the highest non-academic award given by the orthodox Catholic university Franciscan University of Steubenville.
[/INDENT]

lisagraas.com/blog/2012/01/04/karen-santorum-did-not-have-an-abortion-and-rick-santorum-did-not-authorize-one/
Click to expand...
 
Thanks to all who responded…I’m not so good at sifting through spin :o Its a SHAME they’d even use this against a person…the death of their child SMH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top