View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently September 18th, 2014, 9:53 pm



Reply to topic  [ 232 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 16  Next
 Thoughts on Santorum 
Author Message
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3787
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Sorry Im a little late in this convo but i wanted to ask a simple question about this:

Quote:
Ron Paul, although he has some excellent ideas, his isolationist attitude is DANGEROUS for this country.



Why? the biggest issues this country faces right now are internal. why is 4 years of a guy being completely focused on that cause dangerous? when you cant afford to pay to go overseas....why is it so "dangerous" to simply NOT go overseas untill you can?

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


February 18th, 2012, 1:24 pm
Profile
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
regularjoe12 wrote:
Sorry Im a little late in this convo but i wanted to ask a simple question about this:

Quote:
Ron Paul, although he has some excellent ideas, his isolationist attitude is DANGEROUS for this country.



Why? the biggest issues this country faces right now are internal. why is 4 years of a guy being completely focused on that cause dangerous? when you cant afford to pay to go overseas....why is it so "dangerous" to simply NOT go overseas untill you can?


Egypt is threatening destabilization from merely threatening to REDUCE the foreign aid that we provide to them, to eliminate it would cause an uprising. The same is true for Pakastan. It's not foreign aid that is breaking us, it's a poor economic climate and huge entitlement programs.

Paying out money in foreign aid is much cheaper than fighting a war that we can't afford.


February 18th, 2012, 2:47 pm
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3129
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
BillySims wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
Back on topic:

Also, he has stated on many occasions that he believes all US law must "comport to God's law". To me, that means that he believes that all laws should line up with God's law. Which means that he believes our system of laws are meant to be subject to the laws of the Christian God. That's not ok. In fact, it's unconstitutional. Take the 1st amendment together with Black's Law Dictionary, and you get the Establishment Clause: The establishment clause is "[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another." That last part is the key. the government is prohibited from favoring or disfavoring one religion over another. Openly stating that all civil laws must comport to (the Christian) God's law is explicitly favoring one religion over another. It's not right, and it's unconstitutional.


And do you really think that he would ever be able to effect a policy to do such a thing? NOPE.

FWIW. I even agree with him on that.

He can support the idea all he wants. But, unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

But, then again, Obama got that unconstitutional Obamacare passed. It will be overturned in court. But, that's besides the point.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that it's ok for a candidate to openly support an unconstitutional position, and you support that decision because it agrees with your religious beliefs. Is that correct?

That to me is crazy. If that's acceptable, why isn't a candidate who supports any other unconstitutional position not also valid? Why not say have a candidate who is opposed to women's suffrage? Or against freedom of speech? Hell, why should any of the constitution apply? Why not have a candidate who supports an entirely new constitution? I'm sure someone is thinking these things, but the difference is that none of those positions are supported by a major political candidate. That's what's scary about Santorum openly espousing this.

I really don't understand how anyone can rationalize supporting a candidate who willfully admits that if they had their way, they would pass laws that go contrary to the constitution. It goes against the principles that govern this country. I don't get it.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


February 18th, 2012, 9:42 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7371
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
BillySims wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
Back on topic:

Also, he has stated on many occasions that he believes all US law must "comport to God's law". To me, that means that he believes that all laws should line up with God's law. Which means that he believes our system of laws are meant to be subject to the laws of the Christian God. That's not ok. In fact, it's unconstitutional. Take the 1st amendment together with Black's Law Dictionary, and you get the Establishment Clause: The establishment clause is "[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another." That last part is the key. the government is prohibited from favoring or disfavoring one religion over another. Openly stating that all civil laws must comport to (the Christian) God's law is explicitly favoring one religion over another. It's not right, and it's unconstitutional.


And do you really think that he would ever be able to effect a policy to do such a thing? NOPE.

FWIW. I even agree with him on that.

He can support the idea all he wants. But, unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

But, then again, Obama got that unconstitutional Obamacare passed. It will be overturned in court. But, that's besides the point.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that it's ok for a candidate to openly support an unconstitutional position, and you support that decision because it agrees with your religious beliefs. Is that correct?

That to me is crazy. If that's acceptable, why isn't a candidate who supports any other unconstitutional position not also valid? Why not say have a candidate who is opposed to women's suffrage? Or against freedom of speech? Hell, why should any of the constitution apply? Why not have a candidate who supports an entirely new constitution? I'm sure someone is thinking these things, but the difference is that none of those positions are supported by a major political candidate. That's what's scary about Santorum openly espousing this.

I really don't understand how anyone can rationalize supporting a candidate who willfully admits that if they had their way, they would pass laws that go contrary to the constitution. It goes against the principles that govern this country. I don't get it.


Because just maybe I believe the founding fathers got it wrong on this subject. And Like I said, just because someone believes a certain way on an issue, does not mean they can ever get that belief enacted. That's why we have checks and balances.


February 18th, 2012, 10:17 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
RegJoe: I believe 4 years of isolation is dangerous, because we have Iran who has enacted a mutual protection treaty with Russia. That treaty says that if either one of them is attacked the other MUST defend the victim. That is why Israel's warnings about an attack on Iran are so dangerous, and Biblical. (If I remember correctly the book of Daniel clearly speaks of the Bear coming out of the North. But I could be wrong, it's been a LONG time since I studied it.)

Iran is running around acting like the little chihuahua trying to pick a fight with anyone, because they have a pit bull in there back pocket. Extremely dangerous, yes in deed. Russia has been flexing it's muscle of late by sending a fleet to Venezuela for "Naval training." And an American Admiral really pissed of the Ruskies by asking if their fleet would make it this far. Speaking of how old and "decrepit" the ships were. Chavez continues to start his nonsense in Venezuela, and China keeps flexing there might, although more quietly.

The issue with Iran is the most volatile to this point, and is a powder keg waiting to go. They are concerned because of mother russia, and believe it's their destiny to bring in the 13th kalifa by self sacrifice or some such nonsense.

So four years of isolation is not prudent, and amounts to putting ones head in the sand. However, I don't believe the reverse is true either. I don't believe we need to be the police force for the world either. Someone needs to tell the U.N. to go f itself, and by the way get the heck out of New York, like yesterday. They take our money, and don't back us up when we do conduct necessary operations. It's corrupt, and needs to get the flock out of country, although I would keep our permenant Security Council status in order to block countries from doing whatever they wanted.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


February 19th, 2012, 10:47 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3129
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
BillySims wrote:
Because just maybe I believe the founding fathers got it wrong on this subject. And Like I said, just because someone believes a certain way on an issue, does not mean they can ever get that belief enacted. That's why we have checks and balances.

Fair enough. You're honest about thinking that the constitution is wrong on this. I wholeheartedly disagree, but I respect your opinion.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


February 19th, 2012, 11:41 am
Profile
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
BillySims wrote:
Because just maybe I believe the founding fathers got it wrong on this subject. And Like I said, just because someone believes a certain way on an issue, does not mean they can ever get that belief enacted. That's why we have checks and balances.

Fair enough. You're honest about thinking that the constitution is wrong on this. I wholeheartedly disagree, but I respect your opinion.


What is the unconstitutional thing that you guys are referring to?


February 19th, 2012, 5:48 pm
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3129
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
BillySims wrote:
Because just maybe I believe the founding fathers got it wrong on this subject. And Like I said, just because someone believes a certain way on an issue, does not mean they can ever get that belief enacted. That's why we have checks and balances.

Fair enough. You're honest about thinking that the constitution is wrong on this. I wholeheartedly disagree, but I respect your opinion.


What is the unconstitutional thing that you guys are referring to?

His statements that he believes US laws should be based on the bible. His quote regarding his view that current civil laws do not comport to "God's law" was the following (amongst several others):

"We have to live under the civil law, we have to obey that law because it is the civil law but we need to continue to try to change it to make sure that these laws, the laws our country, comport."

So he believes that US civil law should comport to God's law. This is fundamentally unconstitutional, per the first amendment, and more specifically the establishment clause:

The first amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

The bolded part is the key to the establishment clause. Per the supreme court (and Black's Law Dictionary), the establishment clause is:

"[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

So, it is the law of the land that the government shall neither establish a religion, prohibit free expression of any religion, nor shall they favor one religion over another. Therefore, making US law comport to God's law is unconstitutional. That alone is enough to disqualify him as a viable candidate in my opinion.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


February 19th, 2012, 6:18 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3129
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
This isn't so much about Santorum as it is about all politicians, so with that said, I'm so sick of the blatant lying by all these guys. Republican, Democrat, they're all just huge liars. Here's the latest:

Santorum recently claimed that in the Netherlands, 50% of all euthanizations are forced and that elderly people flee the country in fear of being euthanized. He furthermore claimed that elderly people wear 'Don't euthanize me' bracelets and euthanasia accounts for 10% of all deaths in the Netherlands. Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yn-eejMcmuA#

Just a few issues, most notably that he's making up statistics/blatantly lying. First, those bracelets:

False, no such bracelets exist, and every euthanasia case must start with a request from the patient. Neither the family nor the doctor can initiate the procedure, which has very clear rules:

- the patient’s suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
- the patient’s request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
- the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
- there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
- the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present
- the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)

Next up, the numbers of euthanizations:
False. In 2010, 136,058 people died in the Netherlands, of which 3,136 through (reported) euthanasia. That is 2.3%. Which means he's off by more than a factor of 4.

How about forced euthanization?
Breaking down the euthanization stats: 2,910 cases were "end of life on request". So, that leaves 226 cases, or 7.2%. Assuming all of those are done against the will of the euthanized person (which is a stretch and is also illegal), he's still off by almost a factor of 7.

So, there's no question that he's blatantly wrong/lying about this. That said, of course not every case of euthanization will be reported. But considering that it is against the law to not report the numbers accurately, I'm going to make the assumption that it is not widespread that the numbers are not off by 430% or 700% (which would be required to make Santorum's statements accurate).

My point is, this kind of thing just disgusts me. Whether you think euthanasia is wrong or not, making things up to support your claims only delegitimizes any point you're trying to make. I really wish politicians in this country would stop this crap, but the reality is their base eats it up and doesn't question it, so they get away with it.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


February 19th, 2012, 8:21 pm
Profile
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
BillySims wrote:
Because just maybe I believe the founding fathers got it wrong on this subject. And Like I said, just because someone believes a certain way on an issue, does not mean they can ever get that belief enacted. That's why we have checks and balances.

Fair enough. You're honest about thinking that the constitution is wrong on this. I wholeheartedly disagree, but I respect your opinion.


What is the unconstitutional thing that you guys are referring to?

His statements that he believes US laws should be based on the bible. His quote regarding his view that current civil laws do not comport to "God's law" was the following (amongst several others):

"We have to live under the civil law, we have to obey that law because it is the civil law but we need to continue to try to change it to make sure that these laws, the laws our country, comport."

So he believes that US civil law should comport to God's law. This is fundamentally unconstitutional, per the first amendment, and more specifically the establishment clause:

The first amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

The bolded part is the key to the establishment clause. Per the supreme court (and Black's Law Dictionary), the establishment clause is:

"[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

So, it is the law of the land that the government shall neither establish a religion, prohibit free expression of any religion, nor shall they favor one religion over another. Therefore, making US law comport to God's law is unconstitutional. That alone is enough to disqualify him as a viable candidate in my opinion.



Adjusting a set of laws to comport to "god's law" is hardly "establishing" a religion. I'm not a Santorum fan, in fact I can't stand him, but what he's saying isn't unconstitutional, at all. That's like saying that the Constitution is unconstituational because it is founded on Jeudeo-Christian principles.


February 20th, 2012, 10:36 am
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12038
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Adjusting a set of laws to comport to "god's law" is hardly "establishing" a religion. I'm not a Santorum fan, in fact I can't stand him, but what he's saying isn't unconstitutional, at all. That's like saying that the Constitution is unconstituational because it is founded on Jeudeo-Christian principles.
If true, then what of law(s) based on "Sharia law principles"? Would they be considered unconstitutional?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


February 20th, 2012, 3:45 pm
Profile
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Adjusting a set of laws to comport to "god's law" is hardly "establishing" a religion. I'm not a Santorum fan, in fact I can't stand him, but what he's saying isn't unconstitutional, at all. That's like saying that the Constitution is unconstituational because it is founded on Jeudeo-Christian principles.
If true, then what of law(s) based on "Sharia law principles"? Would they be considered unconstitutional?


That would be fine, if you could get the general public to pass them.

Once the damn law is passed, it doesn't matter what principle it was founded on, it's a law. You can pull ideas from anywhere and base legislation on anything you want. If it gets popular support through Congress, it's a law.

Is it "unlawful" to have laws based on the 10 Commandments? Can we not have laws against stealing because that's a Christian principle? Of course not, that's ridiculous, just as it's ridiculous to say that basing any new law on a religious principle goes against the Establishment Clause, it does not.


February 20th, 2012, 3:46 pm
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3129
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Adjusting a set of laws to comport to "god's law" is hardly "establishing" a religion. I'm not a Santorum fan, in fact I can't stand him, but what he's saying isn't unconstitutional, at all. That's like saying that the Constitution is unconstituational because it is founded on Jeudeo-Christian principles.

Actually it is still unconstitutional because of the establishment clause. The government can not favor one religion over another. That is the unconstitutional part.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


February 20th, 2012, 4:14 pm
Profile
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Adjusting a set of laws to comport to "god's law" is hardly "establishing" a religion. I'm not a Santorum fan, in fact I can't stand him, but what he's saying isn't unconstitutional, at all. That's like saying that the Constitution is unconstituational because it is founded on Jeudeo-Christian principles.

Actually it is still unconstitutional because of the establishment clause. The government can not favor one religion over another. That is the unconstitutional part.


It's NOT FAVORING A RELIGION. The Law doesn't favor anything, it just draws it's moral principles from a religious source. That's not unconstitutional.

If it were a law that made it mandatory to preach the gospel THAT would be "establishing a religion." Having laws based off of religious principles has nothing to do with "establishing a religion."


February 20th, 2012, 4:21 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12038
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Adjusting a set of laws to comport to "god's law" is hardly "establishing" a religion. I'm not a Santorum fan, in fact I can't stand him, but what he's saying isn't unconstitutional, at all. That's like saying that the Constitution is unconstituational because it is founded on Jeudeo-Christian principles.

Actually it is still unconstitutional because of the establishment clause. The government can not favor one religion over another. That is the unconstitutional part.


It's NOT FAVORING A RELIGION. The Law doesn't favor anything, it just draws it's moral principles from a religious source. That's not unconstitutional.

If it were a law that made it mandatory to preach the gospel THAT would be "establishing a religion." Having laws based off of religious principles has nothing to do with "establishing a religion."
If you haven't read all 5 pages of this thread, may I recommend you do so in order to understand this discussion. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just that it would be easier to read what Santorum said about changing our laws, then follow from there....

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


February 20th, 2012, 4:25 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 232 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 16  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.