Rick Santorum Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Zelare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Me too. In spite of his supporters.
I have to agree that I am taken aback by some of the characterizations of Senator Santorum. The very idea of saying it is not possible for a moral person to support him is in iteself an affront to Christian charity. It is tanamount to calling people here that are supporting him immoral. 😦
 
Yes, I agree with his explanations. You may not, but I do. I don’t agree that the war in Iraq was unconstitutional or unnecessary. I believe Saddam Hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction. Remember, Congress approved the invasion. Hans Blix told us there were weapons of mass destruction.
What were his explanations?

Congress (the proper authority) bypassed having to approve the invasion of Iraq. They instead passed a unconstitutional war resolution delegating their authority to the President. It was an undeclared war by Congress and therefore unconstitutional. And since Just War Doctrine demands that war be waged by the proper authority, it was also unjust (not to mention that there was no initial act of aggression by Iraq and diplomatic solutions had not been tried let alone exhausted).

Hans Blix, along with Scott Ritter and the IAEA also once told us that there were no WMDs. Of course, maybe Blix was thinking of the WMDs that Rumsfeld sold to Sadaam in the 1980s. Hans Blix was as irrelevant then as he is now.
 
What were his explanations?
Already addressed in this thread.
Congress (the proper authority) bypassed having to approve the invasion of Iraq. They instead passed a unconstitutional war resolution delegating their authority to the President. It was an undeclared war by Congress and therefore unconstitutional. And since Just War Doctrine demands that war be waged by the proper authority, it was also unjust (not to mention that there was no initial act of aggression by Iraq and diplomatic solutions had not been tried let alone exhausted).
I disagree with your interpretation
Hans Blix, along with Scott Ritter and the IAEA also once told us that there were no WMDs. Of course, maybe Blix was thinking of the WMDs that Rumsfeld sold to Sadaam in the 1980s. Hans Blix was as irrelevant then as he is now.
Maybe he was for the weapons before he was against them.

We did go with the UN, but then, I agree the UN is irrelevant. 🤷
 
The reason Santorum supported Specter was because Specter was on the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE…and was promised that he would allow Bush’s nomieees a fair chance. We would NOT have Alito OR Roberts if it weren’t for that.
 
Santorum said assassinating Iranian scientists was a wonderful thing, which I find troubling and not very Catholic.
 
Has anybody mentioned on this thread that Santorum stated, a few days ago, that no Palestinians live on the West Bank area of Israel?

Let’s be clear about what the point is here. This is not about Israel’s right to exist, or the legitimacy of its occupation of territory seized in war time. This is about whether there are Palestinian people living in the West Bank. A potential candidate of the GOP is saying there aren’t. It’s an observable, verifiable fact that there ARE, in reality.
 
Has anybody mentioned on this thread that Santorum stated, a few days ago, that no Palestinians live on the West Bank area of Israel?

Let’s be clear about what the point is here. This is not about Israel’s right to exist, or the legitimacy of its occupation of territory seized in war time. This is about whether there are Palestinian people living in the West Bank. A potential candidate of the GOP is saying there aren’t. It’s an observable, verifiable fact that there ARE, in reality.
From the Washington Post:
Santorum, by labeling the Palestinians as “Israelis,” appears to be adopting a position similar to that favored by some Palestinians increasingly skeptical of a two-state solution — a one-state solution that would grant equal rights to Jews and Arabs. Under such a proposal, demographic changes might lead to a greater Arab population than a Jewish population in the single entity, which is why some Israeli politicians, such as opposition leader Tzipi Livni, have accepted the need for a separate Palestinian state.
 
I heard Santorum on the local talk radion show, the day of the NH primary last weel.

Intellectually, Santorum is on the same level as George Bush, but he’s more articulate.

In other words, when it comes to foreign policy in the Middle East, he’s clueless.

Jim
 
I was pleasantly surprised to read that Santorum may be affiliated with Opus Dei. Even though I have mixed feelings about Opus Dei, I do like Santorum’s religious convictions.
 
Already addressed in this thread.
Never addressed.

Maybe someone else will educate me as to Santorum’s explanations.
I disagree with your interpretation
How so?

It is not my interpretation. The Constitution is very clear on the issue of waging war. John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger were very clear on the issue of the Iraq War.
 
I heard Santorum on the local talk radion show, the day of the NH primary last weel.

Intellectually, Santorum is on the same level as George Bush, but he’s more articulate.

In other words, when it comes to foreign policy in the Middle East, he’s clueless.

Jim
Well said.
 
Don’t worry about replying to me. I know it’s tough to come up with any logical answer to debunk me (Ron Paul). Ignore reality, just pretend it never happened.
 
Don’t worry about replying to me. I know it’s tough to come up with any logical answer to debunk me (Ron Paul). Ignore reality, just pretend it never happened.
There’s no quotation or “@(name)” in your post… who are you directing it toward?
 
I’m curious if anyone else here is concerned about Santorum’s apparent support for the recently signed National Defense Authorization Act, which permits the indefinite detention of US Citizens taken into custody on US soil by the military without a trial or even being charged with a crime?

The Act was passed with strong support from Democrat and Republican legislators and signed by President Obama. From what I can tell it seems all the GOP canidates, excepting Congressman Paul, support the act.

lifesitenews.com/news/constitutional-experts-pro-life-terrorists-could-be-permanently-detained-wi

Pax Christi
 
I’m curious if anyone else here is concerned about Santorum’s apparent support for the recently signed National Defense Authorization Act, which permits the indefinite detention of US Citizens taken into custody on US soil by the military without a trial or even being charged with a crime?

The Act was passed with strong support from Democrat and Republican legislators and signed by President Obama. From what I can tell it seems all the GOP canidates, excepting Congressman Paul, support the act.

lifesitenews.com/news/constitutional-experts-pro-life-terrorists-could-be-permanently-detained-wi

Pax Christi
Neither your quote, nor the link provided, sound like they represent the act. Section 1021 of the act, paraphrased, stated the following: only those whom planned, authorized, or aided, terrorist attacks of SEP 11th, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks, and those whom were a part, or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, and / or The Taliban, and / or associated forces, that currently engage in hostile attacks against The U.S. and / or its coalition partners – inclusive of any person whom, belligerantly, acted to support, aid, such enemy hostilities – may be detained, (Let’s say, as a prisoner of war.), without trial, until, the end of hostilities authorized by The Authorization for Military Force. Such detention must be done in accord, with Public Law 107 – 40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note. It is not a matter of what “will”, must, be done, but what “may”, possibly, be done to include others as well in such circumstances, as a person already in trial, and the transfer of such person(s), to different legal auhtorities, courts or tribunals, in addition to another country, for custody. To be clear, I emphasize – nothing in this section, shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of The United States, or any other persons captured or arrested in The United States. The Secretary of Defense must brief Congress, and detain such “covered persons”, as described in section 1021, pursuant to … . See section 1022. Neither a U.S. citizen, nor a resident alien of The U.S., may be detained under section 1022 on the basis of conduct in The U.S., emphatically, except to the extent granted by The U.S. Constitution.

To answer your question: no – I’m not concerned about it, but were I to have limited myself to the link, which you provided, then on the basis of what is stated in the article, I would say, the following: whatever concern a person may possess about the matter, would be due to the bastardization of Pro-Life into a single issue, and shamefully so.
 
Neither your quote, nor the link provided, sound like they represent the act. Section 1021 of the act, paraphrased, stated the following: only those whom planned, authorized, or aided, terrorist attacks of SEP 11th, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks, and those whom were a part, or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, and / or The Taliban, and / or associated forces, that currently engage in hostile attacks against The U.S. and / or its coalition partners – inclusive of any person whom, belligerantly, acted to support, aid, such enemy hostilities – may be detained, (Let’s say, as a prisoner of war.), without trial, until, the end of hostilities authorized by The Authorization for Military Force. Such detention must be done in accord, with Public Law 107 – 40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note. It is not a matter of what “will”, must, be done, but what “may”, possibly, be done to include others as well in such circumstances, as a person already in trial, and the transfer of such person(s), to different legal auhtorities, courts or tribunals, in addition to another country, for custody. To be clear, I emphasize – nothing in this section, shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of The United States, or any other persons captured or arrested in The United States. The Secretary of Defense must brief Congress, and detain such “covered persons”, as described in section 1021, pursuant to … . See section 1022. Neither a U.S. citizen, nor a resident alien of The U.S., may be detained under section 1022 on the basis of conduct in The U.S., emphatically, except to the extent granted by The U.S. Constitution.

To answer your question: no – I’m not concerned about it, but were I to have limited myself to the link, which you provided, then on the basis of what is stated in the article, I would say, the following: whatever concern a person may possess about the matter, would be due to the bastardization of Pro-Life into a single issue, and shamefully so.
What is an affiliated force? And who determines who falls into that catergory?

How long exactly will the duration of the “Global War on Terror” be?

Even assuming you are correct, and this act will only be used against suspected terrorists…don’t people accused of terrorism have the same constitutional rights as people accused of rape or murder or any other crime? Except that in this case the “belliigerents” aren’t actually accused- that is charged- with anything.

I fail to see anything other than two possibilities for those who support the measure:

A) They don’t know what the Constitution says

B) They don’t care what the Constitution says

If there is a 3rd, please explain to me how indefinite detention of American citizens without trial is reconciled with the Bill of Rights?

Pax
 
What is an affiliated force? And who determines who falls into that catergory?

How long exactly will the duration of the “Global War on Terror” be?

Even assuming you are correct, and this act will only be used against suspected terrorists…don’t people accused of terrorism have the same constitutional rights as people accused of rape or murder or any other crime? Except that in this case the “belliigerents” aren’t actually accused- that is charged- with anything.

I fail to see anything other than two possibilities for those who support the measure:

A) They don’t know what the Constitution says

B) They don’t care what the Constitution says

If there is a 3rd, please explain to me how indefinite detention of American citizens without trial is reconciled with the Bill of Rights?

Pax
I fail to see how indefinite detention of anyone without trial is compatible with any law in any realm, but maybe that’s just me…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top