Rick Santorum Thread

[OrdinaryMelkite]

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.

That’s very Ron Paul-esque, BBarick8383.

I tend to go with that, as well. Unfortunately, many pro-life conservativers do not see it that way. That is one of the many reasons not more in the GOP support him.

Unfortunate, if you look at this one way.

 

[irishpatrick]

That’s Ron Paul-esque, BBarick8383.

I tend to go with that, as well. Unfortunately, many pro-life conservativers do not see it that way. That is one of the many reasons not more in the GOP support him.

Unfortunate, if you look at this one way.

Most prolife conservatives do not feel that all moral situations should be legislated (the oppiste actually). Most feel that abortion is killing, and that since the fed took it on, that is where we need to go to get it reversed through overturning Roe. V. Wade, and letting the issue return to the states. I feel many people (count me here) would prefer a permanent solution, like a life amendment or a personhood amendment, and even a marriage amendment. Some issues are really THAT important.

 

[mlund]

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.

Our Federal Constitution, under the 14th Amendment, secures all with the right to equal protection under the law - regardless of what state they reside in or travel to. If their is an Inalienable Right from our foundations then New York can not deprive its citizens of it, nor can California or any other state.

And yes, it is morally justified to apply the government’s monopoly on violence to protect those rights against infringement by the many states. The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the rights it recognizes for the citizenry are not for any government to dispose of - whether it’s the U.S. Legislature or any body of the many states, counties, or cities in the country.

Always keep in mind that things like the “right” to an abortion and the “right” to same-sex “marriage” are artificial legal constructs a bunch of wackos dreamed up in the post-modern era and imposed on everyone else by means of an unchecked judiciary. The former is a very simple case of creating a sub-class of human being that is legally “sub-human” and then denied his or her Inalienable Right to Life. The latter is a clear case of creating or expanding a sub-class of legal unions to privileges that serve no clear Public Interest. They are both intrusions into the public order by the Federal Government imposing a counter-cultural morality of its own. Abolishing them merely cuts off the tentacles the Government Monster has already reached out with.

• Marty Lund

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Most prolife conservatives do not feel that all moral situations should be legislated (the oppiste actually). Most feel that abortion is killing, and that since the fed took it on, that is where we need to go to get it reversed through overturning Roe. V. Wade, and letting the issue return to the states. I feel many people (count me here) would prefer a permanent solution, like a life amendment or a personhood amendment, and even a marriage amendment. Some issues are really THAT important.

Yes, that’s what I was getting at, Patrick. Many want (like you said) a “permanent” solution. Across the board ban.
Ron Paul is the opposite. I was simply pointing out that that is one of many reasons why many (not all) in the GOP don’t support him.

Paul has a very slim chance of winning after Iowa, but that’s a VERY slim (and highly unlikely, ultimately) chance, IMO.

Sorry.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I disagree on legilating morality. Some things rise to the level.

To be clear, I do not look at a constitutional amendment to declare a baby human at conception and banning abortion as legislating morality.

Some quotes from The Law

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

A free personality is liberty, to legislate it into non existence in every part of the world is not my or anyone elses place.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Yes, that’s what I was getting at, Patrick. Many want (like you said) a “permanent” solution. Across the board ban.
Ron Paul is the opposite. I was simply pointing out that that is one of many reasons why many (not all) in the GOP don’t support him.

Paul has a very slim chance of winning after Iowa, but that’s a VERY slim (and highly unlikely, ultimately) chance, IMO.

Sorry.

If I’m not mistaken, Ron Paul pushed for a personhood amendment to the constitution did he not?

 

[bbarrick8383]

Our Federal Constitution, under the 14th Amendment, secures all with the right to equal protection under the law - regardless of what state they reside in or travel to. If their is an Inalienable Right from our foundations then New York can not deprive its citizens of it, nor can California or any other state.

And yes, it is morally justified to apply the government’s monopoly on violence to protect those rights against infringement by the many states. The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the rights it recognizes for the citizenry are not for any government to dispose of - whether it’s the U.S. Legislature or any body of the many states, counties, or cities in the country.

• Marty Lund

Where did I say anything about violence?

 

[irishpatrick]

Yes, that’s what I was getting at, Patrick. Many want (like you said) a “permanent” solution. Across the board ban.
Ron Paul is the opposite. I was simply pointing out that that is one of many reasons why many (not all) in the GOP don’t support him.

Paul has a very slim chance of winning after Iowa, but that’s a VERY slim (and highly unlikely, ultimately) chance, IMO.

Sorry.

I agree.

 

[irishpatrick]

To be clear, I do not look at a constitutional amendment to declare a baby human at conception and banning abortion as legislating morality.

Some quotes from The Law

A free personality is liberty, to legislate it into non existence in every part of the world is not my or anyone elses place.

Well, I know of only two moral issues that conservatives want permanently resolved at the federal level: ban abortion, define marriage as one man and one woman.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Always keep in mind that things like the “right” to an abortion and the “right” to same-sex “marriage” are artificial legal constructs a bunch of wackos dreamed up in the post-modern era and imposed on everyone else by means of the government. The former is a very simple case of creating a sub-class of human being that is legally “sub-human” and those denied his or her Inalienable Right to Life. The latter is a clear case of creating or expanding a sub-class of legal unions to privileges that have serve no Public Interest. They are both intrusions into the public order by the Federal Government imposing a counter-cultural morality of its own. Abolishing them merely cuts off the tentacles the Government Monster has already reached out with.

• Marty Lund

I agree on abortion.

When the Federal government defines marriage, folks should prepare themselves for same sex marriage. It’s in the pipeline and the next Obamaesque government we get is ready to force it upon everyone.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Well, I know of only two moral issues that conservatives want permanently resolved at the federal level: ban abortion, define marriage as one man and one woman.

And the definition will be changed one day or another.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

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.

They do that even if you are attempting to actually AGREE with something they are saying. :yup:

In an sort-of-unrelated aside------for some reason, they get particularly vicious and foul-mouthed with anything related to Justin Bieber, from what I’ve observed.

Sorry you got that unkind response, BTW.

 

[mlund]

Where did I say anything about violence?

Right here:

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.

I’m not talking about putting a seal of approval on the Harper’s Ferry debacle (some vigilante running around killing people and trying to start a revolt). I’m talking about the National government forcing compliance if some wacky state decides they can enact Nullifcation to put all the Black folk back in chains and whip them.

• Marty Lund

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

If I’m not mistaken, Ron Paul pushed for a personhood amendment to the constitution did he not?

I don’t know, Barrick-----anybody know here?

If not, I’ll just look it up.

Excellent, if true.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I don’t know, Barrick-----anybody know here?

If not, I’ll just look it up.

Excellent, if true.

I read about this from another poster and found this on Wiki:

The Sanctity of Life Act was a bill first introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) on July 20, 1995, and cosponsored by Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY). **It was reintroduced with similar text by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2005 in the 109th United States Congress, 110th United States Congress, and 111th United States Congress. **The repeatedly introduced bill sparked advocacy from pro-life activists.

He’s introduced a personhood amendment three times.

The first Paul bill, H.R. 776, was introduced on February 10, 2005, and again referred to the Judiciary committee, which referred it to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on April 4, 2005. It had five cosponsors.

On February 15, 2007, Paul reintroduced the Act in the 110th Congress, with four cosponsors; he reintroduced another version with the same name on June 6, 2007, with five cosponsors. The bills, H.R. 1094 and H.R. 2597, were referred to the Judiciary committee. The committee referred the first bill to the Subcommittee on the Constitution on March 19, 2007, and the second bill to the Subcommittee on Courts on July 16, 2007; both bills expired in subcommittee. In 2009, Paul reintroduced another version of the bill H.R. 2533 with one cosponsor.

Ron Paul introduced it again in March 2011, as H.R. 1096, for the 112th Congress (2011-2012).[5]

**The California Catholic Daily **also cited Paul as “abortion’s ‘unshakeable foe’” with the Act as evidence.[11]

On January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey (“Jane Roe”), now a pro-life activist, endorsed Paul for president based on his authorship of the Sanctity of Life Act and the We the People Act.[12]

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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.

Well worth pointing out. Lol, is this CNN or AP or something?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Well worth pointing out. Lol, is this CNN or AP or something?

Maybe MSNBC? LOL.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I read about this from another poster and found this on Wiki:

He’s introduced a personhood amendment three times.

Thanks for the link, Barrick. Excellent of Santorum.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Thanks for the link, Barrick. Excellent of Santorum.

You mean Paul?

 

[bbarrick8383]

The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.

They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.

I love reading this guys stuff. If anyone else is interested here is a modern semi translation of the actual book, which sometimes I have to read a couple times to fully comprehend and learn.

bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G003