Rick Santorum Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Zelare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RACJ said:
You COULD have woken up as a conservative! 😉 Here’s wishing you a full, speedy recovery. Rob
P.S. You too, Bob!!! God bless!
Click to expand...
Getting up covered with blood was enough for me! I have to take blood thinners and cuts over one eye and on my head left me and my clothes looking as though I had been shot.
 
Havard said:
Well, there’s definitely a connection between the two. The way one stands on an issue, in part, defines his character.

But there are other factors that make up a man that have nothing to do with “the issues.”

Take for example, leadership. One of the points Romney really tries to sell is that he has a “record of proven leadership” in executive roles. Regardless of whether you buy this, the the question of whether one possesses said characteristic should matter, without question. Two great examples of why they matter are Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. They were defining issues in Bush 43’s presidency, yet no one could ever have talked about them as “issues” until they happened. The only thing that could have intimated what Bush would have done, prior to the fact, were evidence of his leadership abilities.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you on voting character. People can promise all sorts of things on the campaign trail, but as W. said, you don’t know what’s on the president’s desk. That’s why I disliked Obama’s campaign promises. They were just rhetoric.

This is why I liked W. so much, even though I didn’t always agree with his policies. He is a man of moral integrity. He was able to make hard decisions because the roadwork for the right thing to do was within his character.
 
estesbob said:
Sounds like we both had a rough time. I had quadruple bypass surgery 5 weeks ago today. At least they were able to verify i do indeed have a heart!
Click to expand...
Wow. That is some serious stuff. I’m glad you are still around…and, with your bypass, we will be blessed with having you here, God willing, for many, many years to come. My stepdad had his quadruple almost 30 years ago…still ticking. 🙂
 
Onegin said:
Wondering if any of the Santorum supporters out there have any comments on this article? Is there a back story here or is it really as bad as it looks? :confused:

motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/how-rick-santorum-ripped-off-american-military-veteran
Click to expand...
12 years ago he helped facilitate the selling of 46 acres of land for 23 million dollars. Some people thought they could have gotten more. Mother jones, of course is one of those and also points out that the Cathoilc Church was helping rip off the the veterans also. Mother Jones also tries to make a connection between selling the land and the fact one of the residents of the home was admitted to the hospital with maggots in an open sore over a decade later??? Typical mother jones fare-low on facts, high on hyperbole.

Other incisive, unbiased stories on the same page;

%between%Scalia and Thomas: Who Cares If Your Lawyer Abandons You on Death Row?
Newt Gingrich and the Politics of Resentment
Why Romney Should Pay Higher Taxes
Aborted Fetuses: The Awkward Guest at Your Super Bowl Party
The Republicans’ Dark-Money-Moving Machine
Rick Santorum’s Big-Coal Buddies
.
 
estesbob said:
Sounds like we both had a rough time. I had quadruple bypass surgery 5 weeks ago today. At least they were able to verify i do indeed have a heart!
Click to expand...
I’m glad you are feeling well enough to post. My husband had his second bypass surgery today. His first one was good for over 15 years, I’m hoping this one lasts longer, since he finally quit smoking 3 months ago. He only needed a double this time.
 
estesbob said:
You will find the political discourse in CAF becomes a lot more civilized after paul drops out fo the race.
Click to expand...
I have generally found that those who are uncivilized are uncivilized regardless of the issue. Charity, as they say covers a multitude of sins. I do not think it right to excuse unseemly behavior based on the topic.
 
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.”
 
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
Click to expand...
Obama is evil. No doubt about it.
 
ROESHAMBOW said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Wow!

This kind of thing needs to be broadcast to all our pastors and bishops.
 
mizznicole said:
Can someone enlighten me, and forgive me if it’s buried in the 55 pages here, how Ron Paul supporters get away with calling Santorum’s pro-life record “a sham”?
Click to expand...
I think the reason is that both Paul and Santorum are competing for the same group of voters, although it is hard for me to fathom how the Paul supporters, if they make that claim, justify that claim given their libertarian ideology. 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. A libertarian can just as easily favor “abortion rights” as oppose such “rights”. Nothing in the libertarian ideology precludes one over the other, which is why abortion will never be outlawed in the unlikely event of a Paul administration.

I don’t think it’s fair to label Santorum’s record a sham. What is fair to say about Santorum is that his record on “social issues” has always taken a back seat to his Americanist bent on economic and foreign policy issues. By Americanist, I mean his hyper-aggressive foreign policy positions: his eagerness to begin bombing Iran ASAP; his devotion to advancing the interests of the Likud government of Israel by making its enemies our enemies; his evident love of the capitalist system and his desire to impose it everywhere on earth.

The Catholic Santorum has yet to even utter, let alone take issue with, the word “usury”, which our banking system is based on. Usury (compounding interest) is unequivocally condemned by the Church, yet its most outspokenly Catholic candidate does not address it. Why? I have a good reason why. Becuase if Santorum (or any other Catholic candidate) speaks out against usury, he would be ridden out of the Republican party on a rail. As long as he accepts the economic and foreign policy dictates of the Americanist establishment, they will put up with his positions on “social issues” while no doubt snickering at him behind his back. After all, they still do need votes to get their candidates elected.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/07/santorum-accuses-obama-of-creating-only-240-million-jobs/

The republican party is so disappointing this time around. I actually share Ricks beliefs, just not his methods of imposing them. I thought Obama would be a lesson to them, maybe one day.
Click to expand...
A Santorum or Gingrich nomination (or a Romney nomination for that matter) would destroy what little genuine conservatism is left in the Republican party and all but gaurantee Obama a second term. They have compromised on key conservative issues. They have put their loyalty to Party and Cause ahead of Principle and Constitution.

Santorum has compromised on the abortion issue several times. And he supported the unjust war in Iraq in direct opposition to Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger and numerous other official voices in the Chruch hierachy. He is now pushing for another unjust and unnecessary war in Iran. How a Catholic could even consider Santorum is beyond me.

Gingrich carries so much baggage (the ethics violations alone should have ended his career in politics and should have been a clue that it was time to get a real job) that one is almost tempted to think that he may be working for the Democrats in order to ensure a win for Obama.

The only thing going for Gingrich is that he is an excellent debater. But guess what? So is Obama.

Prediction: if anyone OTHER than Ron Paul is nominated, Obama wins. Why? Because Ron Paul is the only one that has what serious voters are looking for in this election: a consistent voting record and the courage to tell the truth that neither Party wants to hear.
 
kubark said:
A Santorum or Gingrich nomination (or a Romney nomination for that matter) would destroy what little genuine conservatism is left in the Republican party and all but gaurantee Obama a second term. They have compromised on key conservative issues. They have put their loyalty to Party and Cause ahead of Principle and Constitution.

Santorum has compromised on the abortion issue several times. And he supported the unjust war in Iraq in direct opposition to Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger and numerous other official voices in the Chruch hierachy. He is now pushing for another unjust and unnecessary war in Iran. How a Catholic could even consider Santorum is beyond me.

Gingrich carries so much baggage (the ethics violations alone should have ended his career in politics and should have been a clue that it was time to get a real job) that one is almost tempted to think that he may be working for the Democrats in order to ensure a win for Obama.

The only thing going for Gingrich is that he is an excellent debater. But guess what? So is Obama.

Prediction: if anyone OTHER than Ron Paul is nominated, Obama wins.
Click to expand...
Why? Because Ron Paul has the only things going for him that serious voters are going to care about this election: a consistent voting record and the courage to tell the truth that neither Party wants to hear.
 
mizznicole said:
Can someone enlighten me, and forgive me if it’s buried in the 55 pages here, how Ron Paul supporters get away with calling Santorum’s pro-life record “a sham”?

It seems to fly in the face of all evidence and reason. It really bothers me.
Click to expand...
The “evidence and reason” demonstrate that Santorum’s pro-life record is a sham. What really “bothers” me is that so many voters actually put more stock in a politician’s rhetoric rather than his/her voting record and understanding of the Constitution which they take an oath to uphold.

For starters, Santorum ENDORSED the pro-death Arlen Specter over the pro-life Pat Toomey in 2006. Arlen Specter went on to win (thank you Rick) and became the deciding vote cast in favor of Obamacare (thank you Rick). Santorum attempted to justify supporting the pro-death candidate over the pro-life candidate by saying that the pro-death candidate (Specter) gave him (Santorum) a promise to consider a “supreme court nominee deal” that would attempt to pack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges. Unfortunately (for Santorum), Arlen Specter DENIES that such a Supreme Court nominee deal ever took place. So, not only did Santorum compromise on basic pro-life principles, he may also be a liar (wouldn’t it be nice to resolve whether or not Santorum is lying, BEFORE he is nominated President?).

Secondly, Santorum voted for Title X legislation that directly funded contraception and indirectly funded abortions.

Third, Santorum supported the unjust and unnecessary War in Iraq, in direct opposition to the guidance and statements of Pope John Paul II, then Cardinal Ratzinger and numerous other high ranking Church hierarchy. Santorum seems to think that the term “pro-life” only covers beginning of life and end of life. In fact, it covers everything in between including the waging of unjust wars. Christian faith insists that accurate moral calcuation is not beyond human capability; the flawed moral and political bias for Iraq War I and II were knowable and known by lay and religious experts long before the Iraq Survey Group admitted in 2004 that Iraq had destroyed its WMD arsenal 13 years earlier. And as Father John P. Delaney reminded us back in 1941:

*"There is something immoral or amoral in the constant statement: I think it would be wrong, morally wrong, stupid, foolish for us to get into the war, but if we should get in, then it’s the duty of all of us to rally behind the President. National unity before all else! National unity, even in the prosecution of an unjust war?

If a war is unjust, then it must be opposed before the outbreak of hostilities and after. If a war is unjust, I must refuse to be a party to the injustice after the declaration of war, as well as before. It is only when nationalism is put before conscience that leaders can do what they will with a country, and a country’s wealth, and a country’s blood. If leaders knew that the people would not follow them into an unjust war, if leaders knew that in an unjust declaration of war, they would have to build prisons and concentration camps to house thousands upon thousands of conscientious objectors, leaders would not lead us to war. A sit-down strike even on the barbed wire of a concentration camp is the only answer to an unjust participation in war."*

Yet, nary a peep over Santorum from the same allegedly pro-life groups that have nothing but contempt for Ron Paul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top