Rick Santorum Thread

[estesbob]

That is an uncharitable and inaccurate statement.

But it one the prime weapons in the Democrat Catholics Arsenal. Demonize republicans beyond recognition so they can rationalize supporting abject evil.Caring about 1.2 million dead children a year is dismissed as “single issue” voting. This attitude is based on a willfull ignorance of the teachings of the Church. When Church teaching is referenced it usually single lines from complex documents , given the Democrat spin ,while everything else is ignored.

As I have stated many times abortion will remain legal in this country until Catholic Democrats come to love the unborn more than they hate. The GOPh

 

[rlg94086]

Listen Federal is the only way to go… If the states had their way California and Vermont would have universal healthcare (which Vermont already has done ) and Texas and South Carolina would be anarchist dystopias for lack of services…

I just can’t support 50 separate welfare systems… I do agree we can lower the bureaucracy by contracting services out. For example I work for a Catholic social services agency. We’ve got contracts with the state of Ohio and the Fed to handle social services. Can you support something like that on the Federal level where there’s a decentralized system of contracts?

That would be better but still too bloated. There is no reason to have a federal bureaucracy, and the Church gives a lot of warning about the Welfare State.

I’m sorry that you don’t trust people in their own state to know what’s best for them. If you have kids, will you (or have you) let them grow up and make their own decisions?

 

[bbarrick8383]

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IEd7F5wBrqI#!

Song made for Ron Paul.

I like the speech he’s giving at the beginning.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Santorum was a great advocate of the poor in Congress. If you want to know the truth about his record look at this link.

This is from the New York Times!
Hardly a pro-Republican newspaper.

I facebooked it. All my liberal family who worship the NYTimes will be shocked.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I just can’t support 50 separate welfare systems… I do agree we can lower the bureaucracy by contracting services out. For example I work for a Catholic social services agency. **We’ve got contracts with the state of Ohio and the Fed to handle social services. **Can you support something like that on the Federal level where there’s a decentralized system of contracts?

Let’s see how long that lasts when the pro-aborts and pro-gay marriage people sue, like they did in Illinois and Washington, DC.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

The social safety net is endorsed in the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum along with just wages, right to organize in a union, and other worker and state protections…

And Elle welfare recipients are required to work and attend job training. Workfare was instituted in the 90’s (ironically thanks to Santorum)… I liked Santorum in the 1990’s. He was much more of a team player and go between the Republicans, Democrats, and Clinton back then.

Santorum got Clinton to sign the reform bill… But I’ve lost all respect for Santorum with his current positions… He may be pro-life, pro family, and Catholic… But he certainly isn’t sticking to Catholic social teaching

The thing is welfare is no longer used as a safety net. It is used as a lifestyle. Entire families, generation after generation, are on welfare. There are a great number of people who use welfare as their meal ticket (not to mention that welfare halts the growth of families-- many couples aren’t marrying (many women having illegitimate children) because the woman will get more welfare benefits if she’s not married). I can not support welfare, because it does not work as a safety net.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Santorum was a great advocate of the poor in Congress.

.

You mean like his vote against extending unemployment benefits while at the same time voting twice for congressional pay raises?

Jim

 

[gnjsdad]

I am not governed by your papal encyclicals, nor am I governed by you. We have 50 different states for a very important reason. If someone uses the Federal government to intrude on my state laws and impose their own laws then you have created a path toward aggression. We will never get along as a country as long as their are people like you who feel it’s their duty to force people like me into the same ant hill you want to live in. I’ve got my own ant hill here in Oklahoma, stay out of it. If you live here/move here then fine we will fight that fight, which you will never win, but keep your tyrannical big bloated central government ideas to yourself.

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a more eloquent declamation of the ideology of Americanism. I don’t think I’d be unfair if I were to summarize your view as “keep your laws off my body”. This is the sentiment at the heart of the Americanist ideology, which we are learning is incompatible with a truly Catholic world view. It is the sentiment at the root of the ideology of sexual revolution and it is the sentiment at the root of the lassez faire libertarian economic ideology. American politics is essentially an amalgamation of these two ideologies, which sometimes come into conflict but more often happily co-exist.

This is why Santorum’s campaign has a glaring contradiction at its heart. His “social issue” instincts are sound, based on Catholic doctrine. His economic instincts are thoroughly Americanist. The Gospels tell us that no man can serve two masters, meaning God and money. From what I’ve seen of Santorum, he is trying to do precisely that. His Catholic “social views” will never be embraced here. His economic views have an undoubted appeal to the powerful here. Now, should he continue his quest for political power, Santorum will have to downplay one or the other of his two “masters”. Which one will he “love” and which one will he come to “despise” (as the Gospel puts it)? We have a clue in his last election campaign for the Senate in PA, which he lost by a margin of 59% to 41%. His main thrust was that we needed to bomb Iran asap. It is the same now.

 

[ishii]

Let’s see Newt called food stamps a bad idea, Herman Cain said it was all the poor’s fault for their condition, Perry called social security a ponzi scheme… Need I go on?

I am a staunch advocate of the social safety net…

We need to have a safety net the helps people that need it, helps people rise above it, and doesn’t encourage people to join it. Right now we don’t have that.

Ishii

 

[jam070406]

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IEd7F5wBrqI#!

Song made for Ron Paul.

I like the speech he’s giving at the beginning.

Last night on TV, I saw Dr. Paul speaking in NH and he mentioned St. Augustine, and his just war theory. And that, that was the principle that drives his views on war.

 

[ishii]

Listen Federal is the only way to go… If the states had their way California and Vermont would have universal healthcare (which Vermont already has done ) and Texas and South Carolina would be anarchist dystopias for lack of services…

I just can’t support 50 separate welfare systems… I do agree we can lower the bureaucracy by contracting services out. For example I work for a Catholic social services agency. We’ve got contracts with the state of Ohio and the Fed to handle social services. Can you support something like that on the Federal level where there’s a decentralized system of contracts?

“going federal” most often is in contradiction to the principle of subsidiarity. And here’s the thing about bureaucracies: they get bigger and bigger and obsessed with their own self preservation, more funding, more staff, etc.and they become bloated and ineffective. And, the problems they were originally meant to deal with invariably get worse! So if you want socialism in your state, then fine. But why do you want to force the people of Texas to be socialized just like in Vermont - when Texas doesn’t want to? Why not let the market decide? If socialism is so great, then people would want to flock to places where it exists, right? And if Texas is so bad because it doesn’t have socialism then why are people flocking there?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a more eloquent declamation of the ideology of Americanism. I don’t think I’d be unfair if I were to summarize your view as “keep your laws off my body”. This is the sentiment at the heart of the Americanist ideology, which we are learning is incompatible with a truly Catholic world view. It is the sentiment at the root of the ideology of sexual revolution and it is the sentiment at the root of the lassez faire libertarian economic ideology. American politics is essentially an amalgamation of these two ideologies, which sometimes come into conflict but more often happily co-exist.

This is why Santorum’s campaign has a glaring contradiction at its heart. His “social issue” instincts are sound, based on Catholic doctrine. His economic instincts are thoroughly Americanist.

I am curious, what is a “catholic” economic policy? Does the catholic church specifically spell out what programs need to be federal, which need to be at the state level, and what the tax rate should be? How do you, say, look at the vote of a poltician to lower corporate taxes, for example, and conclude that their economic instincts are not catholic but “Americanist” ?

Ishii

 

[jam070406]

I am not sure what he said in the video, but here is what he wrote for the Wall Street Journal

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140783488183486.html

It’s unfortunate you couldn’t watch it.

I wonder why the two camps didn’t include the Paul camp in this “gentlemen’s agreement” And who was the “source” that gave the vote count?

“The person who’s got the official piece of paper is missing, but the Romney and Santorum people who were monitoring it agree on what the number is, so…until…they’re gonna, they, they’ve basically agreed we will confirm both of us the outcome in this particular prescient and the state party will accept that.” -Karl Rove

youtube.com/watch?v=sD09uVFQs9M

 

[Swiss_Guy]

We need to have a safety net the helps people that need it, helps people rise above it, and doesn’t encourage people to join it. **Right now we don’t have that. **Ishii

Which is a big problem. And we have the bureaucratic big-government secularist Democrats to thank for that.

 

[CMatt25]

Listen Federal is the only way to go… If the states had their way California and Vermont would have universal healthcare (which Vermont already has done ) and Texas and South Carolina would be anarchist dystopias for lack of services…

I just can’t support 50 separate welfare systems… I do agree we can lower the bureaucracy by contracting services out. For example I work for a Catholic social services agency. We’ve got contracts with the state of Ohio and the Fed to handle social services.

Neither can I and God bless you for the work you do.

 

[rlg94086]

It’s unfortunate you couldn’t watch it.

I wonder why the two camps didn’t include the Paul camp in this “gentlemen’s agreement” And who was the “source” that gave the vote count?

“The person who’s got the official piece of paper is missing, but the Romney and Santorum people who were monitoring it agree on what the number is, so…until…they’re gonna, they, they’ve basically agreed we will confirm both of us the outcome in this particular prescient and the state party will accept that.” -Karl Rove

youtube.com/watch?v=sD09uVFQs9M

They probably didn’t include him because he wasn’t in the close tie. Do you think a vote count would have swung it Ron Paul’s way?

 

[jam070406]

They probably didn’t include him because he wasn’t in the close tie. Do you think a vote count would have swung it Ron Paul’s way?

How many Paul votes were “lost” along with the other two, and not accounted for?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Tonight I saw a clip played on either MSNBC or CNN of Santorum defending his opposition to universal health care by saying people don’t make the right choices for their health. A mother stood up and said her son has cancer and neither she nor he made bad health choices for him, and asked why her son shouldn’t have adequate, affordable health care coverage despite his condition? Or why he should possibly be denied coverage?

Santorum responded with that’s how insurance works. Saying it’s based on risk.

So I’m sitting there listening and I’m thinking to myself, people get sick through no fault of their own all the time, due to genes or what have you. And I sat there, finding myself kinda stunned by his answer and having to ask myself where his heart is in regards to the sick. Sure risk might be how insurance works. But the way insurance works seems to me to have been part of the problem and why folks who are sick with pre existing conditions and in need of care, either haven’t been able to afford coverage or haven’t been able to get it at all.

thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/06/399357/santorum-to-mother-of-cancer-survivor-sick-are-to-blame-for-their-pre-existing-conditions-insurers-should-charge-them-more/

Think Progress is one of the most liberal, pro abortion websites out there. They have been caught distorting Santorums’ statements on a whole range of issues. The fact is, I agree with Mitt Romney, let states experiments with their healthcare, but do not not have a federal program, a one size fits all, which has been proven to be unpopular with ObamaCare.

 

[_Abyssinia]

After late surge, Rick Santorum could miss state ballot deadlines:

chicagotribune.com/news/politics/la-pn-after-late-surge-rick-santorum-could-miss-a-number-of-state-ballots-20120106,0,1713540.story

Santorum rips Obama admin for censoring abstinence as ‘artifact of a bygone era’

lifesitenews.com/news/santorum-rips-obama-admin-for-censoring-abstinence-as-artifact-of-a-bygone

Rick Santorum also clarified on Hannity last night that as a Catholic he believes birth control is wrong, but that he wouldn’t ban it because he believes its a personal choice.

 

[_Abyssinia]

After getting booed during a town hall Thursday for his answer to a gay marriage question, Santorum later walked out on a reporter asking him about past comments he’s made regarding the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal.

Boston CBS affiliate WBZ-TV:

[INDENT][W]e wondered: What would New Hampshire think of Santorum’s decade-old claim that Boston-style liberalism, “lies at the center of the Catholic priest sex-abuse scandal?”

“I’ve already answered this question a hundred times,” said Santorum. “Come on, what games are you guys playing? I’ve answered that question a hundred times.”

And sure enough, he has recently reaffirmed that position, without explaining how the 14 priests from the Manchester, New Hampshire diocese accused of abuse were also infected with that alleged liberal poison.

In his original comments, Santorum argued that priests are not immune to popular culture, that seminaries had been contaminated by cultural permissiveness, and that, “when the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected.”

Watch the exchange below, via WBZ-TV:

On Friday, a group of protesters were escorted out of a Santorum campaign stop after they disrupted the proceedings. According to the Washington Post, the demonstrators appeared to be a combination of gay rights activists, Ron Paul supporters and Occupy Wall Street protesters.

youtube.com/watch?v=OW4NCzHkRT4[/INDENT]

theblaze.com/stories/santorum-walks-out-on-reporter-asking-about-priest-sex-abuse-scandal/

I can not believe a reporter would ask Rick Santorum about the scandal in the Catholic Church. Are gay activists also protesting at Mitt Romney events, he signed the National Organization Marriage pledge, as well as Gingrich and Perry. Why are Ron Paul supporters protesting Rick Santorum?