Rick Santorum Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Zelare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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).
 
He would continue to try and legislate morality at the Federal level. A mistake I believe conservatives are paying for today and they don’t even realize it.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Youtube.

Dislike!
Click to expand...
You have stretched the truth here. Santorum was attempting to explain that people have responsibilities and that NOT everything goes. That is a very “Catholic” message.

You shamefully put a completely incorrect spin on his message.
 
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...
Ron Paul is not the topic of the news article and is irrelevant to this thread.

Rick Santorum’s voting record, family life, Catholic upbringing and practice, as summarized in this National Catholic Register article, shows a consistent record to constitutional defense and pro-life stances well within Catholic teaching. His family life, specifically, shows his defense of two of his own children with life-threatening congenital problems, both left to come to term against doctor’s advice to abort, to let God’s will be done and the children’s right to live to be upheld.

As far as Mr. Santorum’s platform on Iran, readers of the thread can find that from his official website and determine with some research on their own on whether Mr. Santorum’s pledges (or his past voting records regarding the Afghanistan War and Iraq War) fall within the Catholic “Just War” teachings.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
He would continue to try and legislate morality at the Federal level. A mistake I believe conservatives are paying for today and they don’t even realize it.
Click to expand...
Did Republicans make a mistake when they sided with freeing the slaves?

Democrats are on the side of legal murder through abortion, one day they will look back in deep shame and wonder what their fellow Democratic brethren were thinking of during this age of legal killing of the unborn
 
irishpatrick said:
You have stretch the truth here. Santorum was attempting to explain that people have responsibilities and that NOT everything goes. That is a very “Catholic” message.

You shamefully put a completely incorrect spin on his message.
Click to expand...
I agree with him on the responsibility part.

Individual responsibility should be preached and practiced. On a local and state level where we have similar personalities one can protect those through law.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
I agree with him on the responsibility part.

Individual responsibility should be preached and practiced. On a local and state level where we have similar personalities one can protect those through law.
Click to expand...
That was his message, that yes we should be able to pursue happiness so long as we do so responsibly. The last 30-40 years of history has shown us the failed ideology of pursuing personal happiness in a vacuum, without any thought to responsibility.
 
irishpatrick said:
Did Republicans make a mistake when they sided with freeing the slaves?
Click to expand...
No, a slave should be protected through law as well as any other individual. The only mistake was killing someone else to do it. Using the federal government to force morality on someone else. Even then it wasn’t really about slaves or morals, just a bunch of men that believe another bunch of men were wrong and decided to kill them for it.
Democrats are on the side of legal murder through abortion, one day they will look back in deep shame and wonder what their fellow Democratic brethren were thinking of during this age of legal killing of the unborn
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
No, a slave should be protected through law as well as any other individual. The only mistake was killing someone else to do it. Using the federal government to force morality on someone else. Even then it wasn’t really about slaves or morals, just a bunch of men that believe another bunch of men were wrong and decided to kill them for it.

.
Click to expand...
There would have been no reason for the conflict had the Democrats conceded that owning people is immoral.

Morality is legislated all the time.
 
irishpatrick said:
You have stretched the truth here. Santorum was attempting to explain that people have responsibilities and that NOT everything goes. That is a very “Catholic” message.

You shamefully put a completely incorrect spin on his message.
Click to expand...
I tend to look at it this way, as well----------though try telling that to the commenters on this clip at Youtube. From the way they look at it, he’s the biggest so-and-so in the history of America and Iowans are idiots for even considering this guy as Presidential material.

Gives one a look at the moral structures of the average Youtube viewer-------and the lack of any clear knowledge of the intricacies and subtleties of Catholic (and even just plain Christian) theology and morality amongst the average Youtube (and even average American) population.

Very sad-----and indicative once again of the triumph of relativism and self-centeredness in America. Once again, sad. :(🤷
 
I guess schools and us parents are both to blame for people being so painfully ignorant of “The Pursuit of Happiness” means in the Declaration of Independence. 10-1 odds are that less than 1% complaining along that tack are even aware of the reference to John Locke without turning to Google or Wikipedia. :sigh:

“If it feels good, do it,” is not a right enshrined anywhere in founding documents of the United States.
  • Marty Lund
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
I tend to look at it this way, as well----------though try telling that to the commenters on this clip at Youtube. From the way they look at it, he’s the biggest so-and-so in the history of America and Iowans are idiots for even considering this guy as Presidential material.

Gives one a look at the moral structures of the average Youtube viewer-------and the lack of any clear knowledge of the intricacies and subtleties of Catholic (and even just plain Christian) theology and morality amongst the average Youtube (and even average American) population.

Very sad-----and indicative once again of the triumph of relativism and self-centeredness in America. Once again, sad. :(🤷
Click to expand...
I agree. Sadly. 🙂
 
irishpatrick said:
There would have been no reason for the conflict had the Democrats conceded that owning people is immoral.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t just Democrats, but southern people. Doing something that was completely normal to do in the north as well at one time. No reason to start a war and kill people over something that was coming to an end anyway.
Morality is legislated all the time.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it shouldn’t be at the Federal level.

Look I live in a very conservative state, I want to ban abortion/gay marriage and such. But if New York wishes to do so then let the gays go live in New York. Then we create a society in which we can live with like minded morals and beliefs. Legislating morality is a road to conflict when the federal government steps in and forces it upon everyone.
 
We should keep in perspective, though, that:

1.) Plenty of people in the Anglo-sphere aren’t citizens of the U.S.

2.) A disproportionate number of high-volume Internet users are teenage children.

3.) People who spend their time leaving comments on YouTube are a self-selecting sub-culture dominated by Internet Trolls.
  • Marty Lund
 
mlund said:
I guess schools and us parents are both to blame for people being so painfully ignorant of “The Pursuit of Happiness” means in the Declaration of Independence. 10-1 odds are that less than 1% complaining along that tack are even aware of the reference to John Locke without turning to Google or Wikipedia. :sigh:

“If it feels good, do it,” is not a right enshrined anywhere in founding documents of the United States.
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
Well, from the Schoolhouse Rock cartoon I grew up with, it involves chasing women. 😃

youtube.com/watch?v=fg5P6higKAE
 
bbarrick8383 said:
It wasn’t just Democrats, but southern people. Doing something that was completely normal to do in the north as well at one time. No reason to start a war and kill people over something that was coming to an end anyway.

Yes, and it shouldn’t be at the Federal level.

Look I live in a very conservative state, I want to ban abortion/gay marriage and such. But if New York wishes to do so then let the gays go live in New York. Then we create a society in which we can live with like minded morals and beliefs. Legislating morality is a road to conflict when the federal government steps in and forces it upon everyone.
Click to expand...
I disagree on the civil war, but no point in going there here.

I disagree on legilating morality. Some things rise to the level.
 
mlund said:
We should keep in perspective, though, that:

1.) Plenty of people in the Anglo-sphere aren’t citizens of the U.S.

2.) A disproportionate number of high-volume Internet users are teenage children.

3.) People who spend their time leaving comments on YouTube are a self-selecting sub-culture dominated by Internet Trolls.
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
I remember the first time I commented on a youtube video, I got a response that said something about I should go run in front of a bus. Haven’t commented again.
 
mlund said:
We should keep in perspective, though, that:

1.) Plenty of people in the Anglo-sphere aren’t citizens of the U.S.

2.) A disproportionate number of high-volume Internet users are teenage children.

3.) People who spend their time leaving comments on YouTube are a self-selecting sub-culture dominated by Internet Trolls.
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
#2…is that still true in the day of massive text messaging and facebook’ing through cell phones and ipads?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top