Rick Santorum Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Zelare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dicsiples, cult of personality, maybe I will really ramp up rhetoric and start calling political supporters “worshipers.” Anything to avoid issues.

FYI - Let us not forget that the last winner of a presidential election had a rather emotional following and charismatic campaign. He now sits in the White House. It is not a bad thing to inspire others.
 
Ron Paul 35% and president Obama 27% and I like the part were I it said I didn’t agree with president Obama on any major issue.

Wasn’t shocked by my top result though I still don’t thin he can win.
 
RACJ said:
There is only one candidate in the GOP primary whose supporters are attracted to a “cult of personality”. And that is Ron Paul, a man who lacks the courage to face a tough interview with either Beck or Levin. Hey, he’s even afraid of Hannity now! 😃
The winner of Iowa, Santorum, takes on ALL comers, and you either accept his explanations of his positions, or you don’t, but you always know where he stands. Why, he even reads what he writes! :ehh: Rob
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t waste my time with Beck, and Levin and Hannity - talk about a cult of personality. Hannity has a particular habit of inviting Ron Paul on to his show following the Fox News debates, and then reprimanding him and chiding him for Paul’s constitutional and pro-life record on foreign policy.

As to this mention of “courage.” The only really glaring moment in this nomination process where “courage” was glaringly absent, was when **NOT ONE **of the Republican candidates (Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, Romney, Cain, Perry, or Huntsman) came to Ron Paul’s defense when he was excluded from the Republican Jewish Coalition debate forum back in December of 2011. The Republican Jewish Coalition called Paul’s views “extreme.” **NOT ONE **of the other Republican candidates had the “courage” to defend Paul and those of us he represents.
 
I’ll take it that a “yawn” is your attempt at a defense for Rick Santorum’s endorsement of the pro-death Arlen Specter over the pro-life Pat Toomey over a supreme court nominee deal that Specter denies ever took place.

I’ll take it that a “yawn” is the best you could do in spinning Santorum’s support for Title X legislation that directly funded contraception and indirectly funded abortions.

It is time we stop “yawning” for pro-life frauds like Santorum and Gingrich and Romney. It is time we stop giving them second chances when they demonstrate by their RECORDS that they are pro-life, conservative frauds.

Santorum is a proven liar with a statement like, "Ron Paul’s record on abortion is “one of the worst in the United States Congress.” Last time I checked it was Ron Paul who has reintroduced the Sanctity of Life Act on at least two occasions.

The sad fact remains: if Santorum and Gingrich and Romeny and the other fake conservatives had been supporting Ron Paul’s constitutional initiatives in Congress all these years, there is a strong chance that abortion woud** ALREADY **be illegal in many of our states. As it currently stands, following the approach of unprinicipled, uneducated, stubborn conservative-in-name-only men like Santorum, abortion **IS LEGAL IN ALL 50 **states and there is no reason to think it will not stay that way for some time.

I don’t think Repubicans are going to get many more opportunities to get this issue right.

P.S. By the way, I just had the pleasure of watching Ron Paul give Santorum a spanking on the issue of effective pro-life strategy and on the the issue of the proper role of the federal government in this issue. Ron Paul effectively exposed the fraudulent logic that is behind the smear campaign (by a pro-life group no less) to give Ron Paul only a 50-60% pro life rating. What Santorum did during the debate was absolutely disgusting. Paul did not mention him, but Santorum jumps in on the pretense of “responding” so that he can give this false attack on Paul and try to make it look like he is no more pro-life than Harry Reid, which he knows is false. Shame on you again, Rick Santorum.
 
63% with Rick. on social issues

I side with Rick Santorum on 91% of social issues.

Some issues I am not sure because I don’t have enough information like global warming.
 
RACJ said:
There is only one candidate in the GOP primary whose supporters are attracted to a “cult of personality”. And that is Ron Paul, a man who lacks the courage to face a tough interview with either Beck or Levin. Hey, he’s even afraid of Hannity now! 😃
The winner of Iowa, Santorum, takes on ALL comers, and you either accept his explanations of his positions, or you don’t, but you always know where he stands. Why, he even reads what he writes! :ehh: Rob
Click to expand...
Yes and the whole thing about Santorum’s support for Spector over Toomey was a political calculation - he thought Spector would have a better chance of winning and helping Bush’s supreme court nominees get approved. Given Spector’s crucial help in getting Clarence Thomas approved (a fact our younger Paul-bots might not be aware of) it is reasonable to desire Spector’s help in getting other justices approved. Santorum didn’t have to have a deal with Spector, he merely made the political calculation that Spector would be more helpful in the long run. It amazes me how low some of the Paul-bots will stoop to try to discredit Santorum’s impeccable pro-life record. Fortunately we won’t have to listen to them much longer.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Yes and the whole thing about Santorum’s support for Spector over Toomey was a political calculation - he thought Spector would have a better chance of winning and helping Bush’s supreme court nominees get approved. Given Spector’s crucial help in getting Clarence Thomas approved (a fact our younger Paul-bots might not be aware of) it is reasonable to desire Spector’s help in getting other justices approved. Santorum didn’t have to have a deal with Spector, he merely made the political calculation that Spector would be more helpful in the long run. It amazes me how low some of the Paul-bots will stoop to try to discredit Santorum’s impeccable pro-life record. Fortunately we won’t have to listen to them much longer.

Ishii
Click to expand...
More excuses.

More rationalizations.

Santorum’s rhetoric may be deceptively “impeccable” but his pro-life record is a sham.

Paul tells the truth that many on both Left and Rigth do not want to hear.

It is amazing how many fake conservatives have come out of the closet in reaction to Ron Paul.
 
Santorum- 71%
Paul- 62%
Romny- 60%

This pretty much fell the way I thought it would…
 
sharptiger999 said:
The institution of marriage is thousands of years old and is different across many cultures. It was around far longer than governments. I understand what you think it is. The question is why do you need government involved. Last I checked you believe it is a church and religious function.
Click to expand...
Yes traditional marriage old and the underpinning of our society. Not a bad reason to protect it from those who would tear it down to remake society according to their desires. The traditional institution of marriage is under fire from the secular left and the gay lobby. I realize the federal govt. is inept, but I think a cogent argument can be made (and has) that it has an interest in preserving traditional marriage as one of the underpinnings of society. Of course the institution of marriage will need more than support from the government to survive.
sharptiger999 said:
My apologies on the age error - though it doesn’t change my point. Unfortunately though, I deal with facts and data, unlike the last part of your message regarding a 50 state sweep. Unfortunately for you, the facts are Romney & Paul are statisticly tied in a hypothetical matchup vs Obama. Gingrich & Santorum were near the bottom due to their inability to get independents or traditional democrats.
Click to expand...
Yes, the polls may say that. However, my own common sense and knowlege of political reality tells me that Obama would have a field day with Ron Paul and win all fifty states. As I wrote earlier, there is enough ammo in Obama’s war chest to smear Ron Paul should he somehow chance upon the nomination. The campaign would be about how extreme Paul is and how mainstream Obama is - Obama would say how we’re finally headed in the right direction, etc - and this would be helped by the unemployment rate going down a bit more, which it seems poised to do. There would be thinly veiled comments about Ron Paul’s fitness for the presdency in light of his age - this would be done by Obama surrogates, of course. Paul’s long history as a true-believing libertarian (and Libertarian) would be picked apart and he’d be asked to explain every statement. The campaign would always be on the defensive. In short, the only way Paul could win would be if there was an economic collapse.

Politics 101, sharptiger.

Ishii
 
Is it really necessary to call each other names like “Paul-bots” and “Santorum disciples”. Can’t we treat each other with a little more respect while we disagree?
 
Cider said:
Is it really necessary to call each other names like “Paul-bots” and “Santorum disciples”. Can’t we treat each other with a little more respect while we disagree?
Click to expand...
I don’t call all Paul supporters “paul-bots” - just the ones who deserve it - who defame a good conservative catholic in order to help their candidate go from 4th to 3rd in a primary. Btw, I think the suffix “bot” is much more critical than the suffix “disciple.”

Ishii
 
I sided highest with Ron Paul at only 55%. My biggest issue is of course with the scientific theory of evolution. I’m really all over the place on issues. Luckily I scored lowest with Obama.

I understand why Santorum is sensitive about the Internet. Someone has really attacked his good Italian name for his statements against homosexual acts. These angry hateful degenerates make me sick. I bet if it were turned around, meaning that you google Barney Frank and some definition comes up of something disgusting and vulgar, google would remove it.
 
Elle_C said:
I also have to remind you that most of our Christian roots lie in what is Israel right now. If it were up to the Palestinians, they’d destroy the Church of Benjamin, and raise another Mosque.

I’ll also remind you, that most Christians support Israel. There are Christians all over the world, living in Muslim nations and fearing for their lives. In no way does Israel cause the Palestinian Christians or any other any harm by defending their right to exist.
Click to expand...
Our Christian roots lie in Jesus Christ, not some hunk of land.
 
kubark said:
More excuses.

More rationalizations.

Santorum’s rhetoric may be deceptively “impeccable” but his pro-life record is a sham.

Paul tells the truth that many on both Left and Rigth do not want to hear.

It is amazing how many fake conservatives have come out of the closet in reaction to Ron Paul.
Click to expand...
I like Santorum, I really do. I think that it was very unfortunate that he threw support behind Arlen Spectre instead of Pat Toomey, and Pat Toomey eventually won the seat that Santorum lost because he supported Spectre (irony?)
 
With Perry out, Santorum needs a lot of prayers and hail marys and eucharistic adoration visits to overcome the other two GOP dudes who both have flip flopping issues …as well as character questions.

I hope he hangs in there.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
I like Santorum, I really do. I think that it was very unfortunate that he threw support behind Arlen Spectre instead of Pat Toomey, and Pat Toomey eventually won the seat that Santorum lost because he supported Spectre (irony?)
Click to expand...
Irony.

Not really. It was 2006, during an unpopular war.

Santorum was influenced too by being loyal to the President’s agenda…

It was a pre-tea party era…where endorsements were less ‘rock the boat’ and conventional. Spectre was an elder, and Santorum felt he was indebted.

Just like Sarah Palin endorsed John McCain out of loyalty.

Also justices were an issue , and the like.

Santorum made an error and I think he admits he regrets it, in 20/20 Spectre jumping ship in 2009, etc.

The irony is Santorum has to overcome negativity by being supportive of his President’s agenda. In George W. Bush…he basically is having to overcome faults for being too much of a team player.

Of course we won’t be seeing “we have to forgive” Santorum for that.

That only applies to Newt Gingrich and GOP talking heads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top