Rick Santorum Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Zelare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
_Abyssinia said:
Why are Ron Paul supporters protesting Rick Santorum?
Click to expand...
Ron Paul supporters are hoping to take Rick Santorum down, so Paul can get a surge. I don’t think it would happen though, since Ron Paul is not a mainstream conservative.
 
kubark said:
I don’t know how Santorum could be considered “pro-life” when you realize that “pro-life” is a comprehensive term covering conception to natural death. Santorum supported our unjust war in Iraq and has defended the unconstitutional and immoral foreign policy of interventionism and preemptive warfare. He is currently shilling and warmongering for a war with Iran. He is a neoconservative that places loyalty to Israeli and other illegitimate foreign interests ahead of America’s national security and ahead of the Constitution.

The only comprehensively pro-life, pro-constitution, pro-America candidate currently running on the Republican ticket is Ron Paul - and he has the voting record to prove it.

Prediction: if anyone OTHER THAN Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, Obama or the Democrat wins.

Prediction: if anyone OTHER THAN Ron Paul wins the 2012 election, we go to war with Iran (assuming Obama doesn’t provoke a war before the election).
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict:

“While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment,” he said. “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia,” he added.

lifesitenews.com/news/pope-benedict-xvi-on-what-should-be-the-principal-focus-for-catholic-voters/
 
rlg94086 said:
Ron Paul supporters are hoping to take Rick Santorum down, so Paul can get a surge. I don’t think it would happen though, since Ron Paul is not a mainstream conservative.
Click to expand...
If most Republican voters are serious about the budget (which in general they are, but when it comes to specifics they show much more trepidation), then the only reasonable candidate to vote for is Paul. No other candidate has a realistic and specific plan for dealing with our greatest threat to national sovereignty which is our national debt (and more importantly, unfunded liabilities).
 
Not_Sure said:
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.
Click to expand...
You’re presenting an old argument espoused by a lot of people in the late 1960s and 1970s who believed Blacks were taking advantage of the welfare system, and some of them were at that time though certainly not all. Even then, however, in absolute numbers, there were more Whites on welfare than Blacks. Today, though, the situation is quite different. Many of the WORKING poor need assistance, as well as those people who used to be middle class and have lost their job, and those who are homeless. There are more Blacks in the upper middle class now than ever before in history, but there are still plenty of poor people from ALL ethnic groups who need help, particularly in this economy.
 
jam070406 said:
Thank God!!
Click to expand...
smndtupidisaftr said:
If most Republican voters are serious about the budget (which in general they are, but when it comes to specifics they show much more trepidation), then the only reasonable candidate to vote for is Paul. No other candidate has a realistic and specific plan for dealing with our greatest threat to national sovereignty which is our national debt (and more importantly, unfunded liabilities).
Click to expand...
I’m pretty certain we are all familiar with where you stand on Ron Paul (i.e. him or no one). 😛
 
jam070406 said:
Maybe it’s because of this:

youtube.com/watch?v=5Aohgrn1peA&feature=g-u&context=G29006d1FUAAAAAAAEAA
Click to expand...
Rick Santorum has supported balanced budgets, welfare reform, leaner government, entitlement reform. Has Ron Paul passed one bill that repealed a federal entitlement? Anyway, this is not the Ron Paul, it is Rick Santorum thread.

Lobbying is constitutional.

“People say that I voted for ‘The Bridge to Nowhere,’” Santorum said in Iowa last week, according to the Des Moines Register. “I did. I went with the federalist argument, which is, ‘Who am I in Pennsylvania to tell Alaska what their highway priorities should be?’ You had a city that was separated from its airport, and of course in Alaska you have to travel by air, and you had to have a ferry. There were times when they couldn’t get across.”

X in earmarks does not always equal to a budget increase. X may be spent anyway, and the earmark directs spending to a specific project.
 
meltzerboy said:
You’re presenting an old argument espoused by a lot of people in the late 1960s and 1970s who believed Blacks were taking advantage of the welfare system, and some of them were at that time though certainly not all. Even then, however, in absolute numbers, there were more Whites on welfare than Blacks. Today, though, the situation is quite different. Many of the WORKING poor need assistance, as well as those people who used to be middle class and have lost their job, and those who are homeless. There are more Blacks in the upper middle class now than ever before in history, but there are still plenty of poor people from ALL ethnic groups who need help, particularly in this economy.
Click to expand...
I read a study cited in Thomas Woods’ The Church and the Market where he mentioned that about 80% of the states offer welfare benefits that exceed minimum wage, some of them by far. When you factor in the disutility of labor, then what is the incentive to get off of welfare and find a real job?

That is the problem with welfare. We have to remember original sin, and so making that sin even more convenient makes people even less likely to get themselves away from that sin (that is, not working and taking money from others when you are fully able to work yourself).
 
_Abyssinia said:
Rick Santorum has supported balanced budgets, welfare reform, leaner government, entitlement reform. Has Ron Paul passed one bill that repealed a federal entitlement? Anyway, this is not the Ron Paul, it is Rick Santorum thread.
Click to expand...
And that is accomplished by voting to raise the debt ceiling a number of times, voting for the bridge to nowhere, voting for medicare part D (which expanded entitlements), and voting for No Child Left Behind?
 
_Abyssinia said:
Rick Santorum has supported balanced budgets, welfare reform, leaner government, entitlement reform. Has Ron Paul passed one bill that repealed a federal entitlement? Anyway, this is not the Ron Paul, it is Rick Santorum thread.
Click to expand...
The bigger question would be has Ron Paul voted to approve any big government programs. You are free to investigate Dr. Paul’s and Santorum’s voting records.
 
jam070406 said:
The bigger question would be has Ron Paul voted to approve any big government programs.
Click to expand...
That would be the “bigger question” in the Ron Paul thread…not the Rick Santorum thread. In the Rick Santorum thread, it would be a very tiny question that is only of interest to Ron Paul voters. 😉
 
_Abyssinia said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually many people like the idea of not being denied for pre existing conditions or their children being able to remain on their healthcare plans longer. The Affordable Care Act hasn’t even been fully implememented yet for people to know whether it has been proven to be unpopular or not.

An example of a problem with states coming up with 50 different healthcare experiments is that for instance a sick person who Jesus wants us to take care of in one state might be denied coverage or not be able to obtain adequate, affordable care. While another person in a neighboring state by be cared for better. I seriously doubt Jesus wants such a 50 state solution on caring for the sick when He said to care for them.
 
CMatt25 said:
Actually many people like the idea of not being denied for pre existing conditions or their children being able to remain on their healthcare plans longer. The Affordable Care Act hasn’t even been fully implememented yet for people to know whether it has been proven to be unpopular or not.

An example of a problem with states coming up with 50 different healthcare experiments is that for instance a sick person who Jesus wants us to take care of in one state might be denied coverage or not be able to obtain adequate, affordable care. While another person in a neighboring state by be cared for better. I seriously doubt Jesus wants such a 50 state solution on caring for the sick when He said to care for them.
Click to expand...
That’s dirty pool. You can’t say “I seriously doubt Jesus wants” in a debate where both sides have valid arguments for their claims.

The problem with forcing everyone to have insurance is the violation of free will. For instance, maybe the young man in his 20’s feels that his money would be better used investing and getting a good return such that he can secure for himself a comfortable life upon retirement. Maybe the father of a family of four needs the money to pay for food for his children instead of the not-as-pressing need to get insurance for his kids.

Furthermore, there is the issue of cost. Total coverage health insurance has a sinister component in that it makes prices skyrocket. Do you know the cost of a doctor visit? I only know the co-pay; I don’t know the actual cost. How much does surgery cost? Is it better to go to one hospital or another? Total coverage insurance used to be a very rare thing; it was usually had by those who were in high-risk professions. What people had instead were catastrophic coverage plans where if they had a serious medical issue, the insurance would cover it. This method is superior because it allows us to see the prices for services since we would have to pay them out of pocket and would make insurance cheaper because we would only pay for the rare occurrence rather than everything.

For further reading on the healthcare system and the free market alternative, I recommend Dale Steinreich’s essay 100 Years of Medical Fascism.

mises.org/daily/4276
 
Lets see:
against abortion…check
against euthanasia…check
Devout Catholic…check
believes in sacramental marriage…check
public record shows conservative political agenda…check.

Guess i know which lever i am pulling in our primary.
 
ishii said:
I am curious, what is a “catholic” economic policy?
Click to expand...
Please read and study

[The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...e_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Man, poverty and riches) particularly chapter 7 “Economic Life”
40.png
ishii:
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?
Click to expand...
No
40.png
ishii:
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” ?
Click to expand...
When that politician does not then go on to say that the benefits accrued through the lower corporate taxes MUST redound to the benefit of society as a whole through adherence to the doctrines of solidarity and the common good; that the corporate owners and managers are stewards of the wealth created thereby, who bear an obligation in justice to be sure that wealth spreads to society as a whole; to the extent that politician does not say these things, he is speaking of not as an advocate of Catholic social doctrine, but rather as an Americanist, whereby individual liberty takes priority overall, often at the expense of society and the common good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top