View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 26th, 2014, 1:11 am



Reply to topic  [ 232 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 16  Next
 Thoughts on Santorum 
Author Message
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Thoughts on Santorum
Like many of you, I haven't been totally impressed with the crop of Presidential hopefuls, but I have also noticed that particular people have been cast aside by the media, and had limited exposure, so that Mr. and Mrs. America don't really know who and what they are in terms of their beliefs and policies.

Having said that, I was really surprised by Former Senator Santorum, and I know that he's been a staunch advocate for Defense, and was very active in Congress during the Bush era. What are your thoughts on him? He's a conservative, and strong family man, and I've heard that he has a particularly strong economic policy, but I haven't heard a lot about him and wonder what others think.

Romney seems soft and emotionless
Gingrich seems like Martz (a mad scientist)
Paul is economically sound, but weak outside the US
Perry seems like Bush redux, and therefore unelectable.

Thoughts?

_________________
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."


January 5th, 2012, 8:54 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2747
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
He's unelectable.

He hates gays and is too socially conservative. No independents would vote for him and some moderate Republicans would stay home. He could be the governor of a southern state, but no way the President of the US.

His "rise" represents a phenomena that has been going on for nearly a year--the "anyone but Romney" phenomenon.

All of the candidates have had their turm in the spotlight--Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich and now Santorum. They are all deeply flawed, and thus have been slowly exposed one-by-one. Santorum will be forgotten about in 4 or 5 weeks.

The Republican nominee will be Romney. Then Paul will enter the general election and Obama will win. Game, set, match.

I still don't know how RP is considered "weak" on foreign policy. The guy receives more donations from active duty military than all the other candidates combined (meanwhile, Romney's top donor is Goldman Sachs). His stance on 9/11 is based on the 9/11 commission report and the research of the CIA. Oh well, ignorance is bliss I suppose, and denial is a powerful force. In the end though, it will cost the Republicans the election.



January 6th, 2012, 12:11 am
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3871
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Quote:
I still don't know how RP is considered "weak" on foreign policy. The guy receives more donations from active duty military than all the other candidates combined (meanwhile, Romney's top donor is Goldman Sachs). His stance on 9/11 is based on the 9/11 commission report and the research of the CIA. Oh well, ignorance is bliss I suppose, and denial is a powerful force. In the end though, it will cost the Republicans the election.

I remember the last elections republican debate and he made Capt 911 himself (Ex Mayor Guliani (sp?)) look like an idiot for not understanding why Americans were hated in the middle east and how our actions from the 70's caused such hatred. I was feelin pretty smug about my guy (Big Ron Paul fan here) untill the next day when I discovered that very few people had any idea what he was talking about and actually thought Guliani looked good after the argument. that simply blew my mind. Ignorance is not bliss...it's fricken sad sometimes....

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


January 6th, 2012, 9:30 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3145
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Back on topic:

I can't stand Santorum. First of all he's a huge hypocrite. He claims to be a fiscal conservative, yet there he was in congress voting for huge government spending increases when Bush was president. But all of a sudden he's for small government, less spending, etc. Slimy politician.

Another example of gross hypocrisy is Santorum's stance on abortion. He is against abortion in all cases, even in the case of rape or to save the life of the mother. Think about that. He'd force a rape victim to have the rapist's child, and would force a mother to die so that her child might live. If all life is sacred, how is allowing one to die ok? But the real hypocrisy is the fact that his wife effectively had an abortion to safe her own life, and he supported her. That's right, she killed off her baby because to save the life of the mother. For those that don't know, Santorum's wife Karen was having a difficult pregnancy, and had a surgery to try to save the fetus. But, an infection resulted, and it would have killed her. The only way to save her was to take antibiotics, but a side effect of the antibiotics was that labor would be induced, killing the baby (she was 5 months pregnant at the time). So, she decided to take the antibiotics to save her own life, knowing it would kill the baby. Santorum the husband was ok with this, because he didn't want his wife to die. Santorum the politician though, would sign into law a bill disallowing this procedure, because killing the fetus to save the mother is abortion and shouldn't be allowed :roll:. He's a terrible, terrible hypocrite and shouldn't be anywhere near the presidency.

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.

So, there's my thoughts on him. I want my president to be a strong leader, and part of being a leader is being honest, standing up for what you believe in, and not being a hypocrite.

_________________
"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


January 6th, 2012, 10:54 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
TDJ:

I see a lot of generalizations in your response, and as I respond to them I don't want you to think I'm being mean spirited. So please don't misunderstand the type, I'm not being argumentative!

1. Weren't these the same Bush increases that SUCCEEDED, and have been PAID BACK? That's what I've heard, can you show me where I'm wrong?

2. Another example of gross hypocrisy is Santorum's stance on abortion. He is against abortion in all cases, even in the case of rape or to save the life of the mother. Think about that. He'd force a rape victim to have the rapist's child, and would force a mother to die so that her child might live. So now all of sudden it's a child and not a lump of tissue? For all these years Pro-abortionist have been talking about how it's not life, it's just a lump of tissue, but now because it happends to be a by-product of a criminal assualt, now it's life?

2a. Are there any statistics to back up the number of "children" conceived due to criminal sexual assualt? If there are, I'm curious as to how large a number this actually is, because this very example as touted as one of the main reasons abortion should be allowed, but I have trouble believing that an innocent child, born of an innocent mother, fathered by a criminal is going to turn into a criminal. It is only later in life that we humans become criminals by choices we make.

2b. You are making a generalization on his wife's choice to use antibiotics as the sole cause for abortion. That's not true, a side effect is a POSSIBILITY, not a guarantee. Not to mention the state of her body's health due to the infection, so the abortion could have been a natural miscarriage, in the bodies effort to heal itself.

Another thing that concerns me is your "dislike" for Santorum on his CIVIL issues, yet we have a President who has lied more times and been exposed for his lies, more often that Bush was ever ACCUSED of lying. Presidential Mandate seriously? That was pushed aside in less than 6 mos. by the state of Pennsylvania.

3. So you are saying that a return to Constitutional law, which many were based upon the religious teachings of the Bible would be a bad thing? Wait till you try Sharia law on for size!

4. So, there's my thoughts on him. I want my president to be a strong leader, and part of being a leader is being honest, standing up for what you believe in, and not being a hypocrite. You've answered your own question here! He is a man who has principles, beliefs, and is willing to stand for them. Unlike BO, who tells you one thing and then proceeds to do several others.

What really stinks is that people are so Christophobic, that anything that looks like, smells like, or claims to be a person of pricinples and maybe even a Christian, is hated for being TOO EXTREME. Do you really think that when we as a country were operating more towards the center and more fundamentally sound in terms of our religious heritage that we were worse off then we are now? I really can't believe that we've gone so far down the road that we are willing to swallow this garbage.

We didn't do a lot of things right throughout history, but we've done a lot of good too! Now, we are placating, surrendering, and driving a country that was free, and willing to help anyone, straight into the arms of a one world system. Bankrupt the world, and then reset the system with the 1/2 % controling everything and the rest of us eating off there scraps. No thank you, I will do for myself and my own, and you can keep the change, comrade!

_________________
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."


January 6th, 2012, 4:31 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Just so you know and I didn't want to start another thread but I thought this was interesting. I heard it last week and decided to check it out.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/internatio ... 7AZ3RO9qnM

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/w ... d-in-iraq/

So now 2 separate sources, name a third source that leaked all the info. as showing the US did indeed find SIGNIFICANT amounts of WMD's but according to the liberal rags, Bush lied. Hmmm, amazing what comes out in the wash!

_________________
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."


January 6th, 2012, 4:37 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3145
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
WarEr4Christ wrote:
TDJ:

I see a lot of generalizations in your response, and as I respond to them I don't want you to think I'm being mean spirited. So please don't misunderstand the type, I'm not being argumentative!

1. Weren't these the same Bush increases that SUCCEEDED, and have been PAID BACK? That's what I've heard, can you show me where I'm wrong?

2. Another example of gross hypocrisy is Santorum's stance on abortion. He is against abortion in all cases, even in the case of rape or to save the life of the mother. Think about that. He'd force a rape victim to have the rapist's child, and would force a mother to die so that her child might live. So now all of sudden it's a child and not a lump of tissue? For all these years Pro-abortionist have been talking about how it's not life, it's just a lump of tissue, but now because it happends to be a by-product of a criminal assualt, now it's life?

2a. Are there any statistics to back up the number of "children" conceived due to criminal sexual assualt? If there are, I'm curious as to how large a number this actually is, because this very example as touted as one of the main reasons abortion should be allowed, but I have trouble believing that an innocent child, born of an innocent mother, fathered by a criminal is going to turn into a criminal. It is only later in life that we humans become criminals by choices we make.

2b. You are making a generalization on his wife's choice to use antibiotics as the sole cause for abortion. That's not true, a side effect is a POSSIBILITY, not a guarantee. Not to mention the state of her body's health due to the infection, so the abortion could have been a natural miscarriage, in the bodies effort to heal itself.

Another thing that concerns me is your "dislike" for Santorum on his CIVIL issues, yet we have a President who has lied more times and been exposed for his lies, more often that Bush was ever ACCUSED of lying. Presidential Mandate seriously? That was pushed aside in less than 6 mos. by the state of Pennsylvania.

3. So you are saying that a return to Constitutional law, which many were based upon the religious teachings of the Bible would be a bad thing? Wait till you try Sharia law on for size!

4. So, there's my thoughts on him. I want my president to be a strong leader, and part of being a leader is being honest, standing up for what you believe in, and not being a hypocrite. You've answered your own question here! He is a man who has principles, beliefs, and is willing to stand for them. Unlike BO, who tells you one thing and then proceeds to do several others.

What really stinks is that people are so Christophobic, that anything that looks like, smells like, or claims to be a person of pricinples and maybe even a Christian, is hated for being TOO EXTREME. Do you really think that when we as a country were operating more towards the center and more fundamentally sound in terms of our religious heritage that we were worse off then we are now? I really can't believe that we've gone so far down the road that we are willing to swallow this garbage.

We didn't do a lot of things right throughout history, but we've done a lot of good too! Now, we are placating, surrendering, and driving a country that was free, and willing to help anyone, straight into the arms of a one world system. Bankrupt the world, and then reset the system with the 1/2 % controling everything and the rest of us eating off there scraps. No thank you, I will do for myself and my own, and you can keep the change, comrade!

I'll respond to this in more detail later, but you're way off base on a lot of things, particularly in your assumptions you seem to be making about me. My criticism of Santorum doesn't mean I prefer Obama, and that's what you seem to be insinuating. I'll go into more detail later, but I don't have time right now.

_________________
"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


January 6th, 2012, 6:00 pm
Profile
NFL Team Captain
User avatar

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 6:07 pm
Posts: 1589
Location: Watching Football
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Quote:
The Republican nominee will be Romney. Then Paul will enter the general election and Obama will win. Game, set, match.


Bingo!

I like some of Santorum's positions, but he is the flavor of the month. Romney will be the nominee and that's unfortunate too. Shame on the Republicans for not being able to be a true Candidate in front of the American people.

I also think the McCain will end up being Romney's running mate. Just my own conspiracy theory.

_________________
Lions Fan since King Kong was a Spider Monkey!


January 6th, 2012, 7:53 pm
Profile
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
I really hope that Newt makes a come back and over-takes Romney. IMO Romney is as unelectable as the rest of them. He just doesn't have the kind of support that the others have. He's garnished about a 20-25% support rate where ever he goes, never really reaching beyond that. He doesn't handle contested debates well (see the Rick Perry exchange and the Brett Behr interview). He is Mormon, and he comes off as a pompous azzhat.

As far as Santorum, I agree... He has zero chance beating Obama.


January 6th, 2012, 8:17 pm
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2747
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
The Republican Party is a party in crisis. McCain was the best-worst candidate, Romney is the best-worst candidate. The party needs to be destroyed and then reemerge as something new, which is what I think this election cycle will do.


January 6th, 2012, 9:25 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
I re-read my post and actually I wasn't trying to single anyone out in particular, so I apologize blue if you thought I was directing something at you as this was not the case. I was trying to make a point that the President we have is so destructive to this country and our Constitution, that just about anyone has got to be better than him.

As I re-read it, I think I discovered something that makes sense and could explain the Republican weakness.

1. What do our candidates stand for?
2. How does that line up with what you personally seek in a President?
3. What are you willing to surrender in terms of what you seek, for the preservation of the Country and Constitution?

I'm sure there are more questions that could be asked but these were the three that came to mind.

In terms of Santorum:

You have a man of faith
You have a man who deeply, and passionately loves this country
You have a man desperately wanting to overthrow the regime that is currently destroying this country and it's Constitution.
You have a man who wants to secure the borders, protect it's citizens, and do the right things to grow the economy.

What do we currently have:

A man who says he has faith
A man who does not love this country and has shown it.
A man who is willing to play cronism at the cost of the American people.
A man who steps on and bypasses the American Constituion as if it doesn't apply to him
A man who does not want a United States, but a nation that is part of a larger system.
An economy that is bankrupt, thus forcing said country to it's knees.

Vlad Lenin stated, "The quickest way to bring down a country is to corrupt it's currency." Not a direct quote but I can get it for you from brainyquotes.com if you'd like. Spend, spend, spend and you'll be bankrupt, not prosperous.

The two are so polar opposite, that I can see Santorum winning the election if more people know who he is and what he believes and will stand for.

_________________
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."


January 6th, 2012, 10:02 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3145
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
WarEr4Christ wrote:
TDJ:

I see a lot of generalizations in your response, and as I respond to them I don't want you to think I'm being mean spirited. So please don't misunderstand the type, I'm not being argumentative!

1. Weren't these the same Bush increases that SUCCEEDED, and have been PAID BACK? That's what I've heard, can you show me where I'm wrong?

2. Another example of gross hypocrisy is Santorum's stance on abortion. He is against abortion in all cases, even in the case of rape or to save the life of the mother. Think about that. He'd force a rape victim to have the rapist's child, and would force a mother to die so that her child might live. So now all of sudden it's a child and not a lump of tissue? For all these years Pro-abortionist have been talking about how it's not life, it's just a lump of tissue, but now because it happends to be a by-product of a criminal assualt, now it's life?

2a. Are there any statistics to back up the number of "children" conceived due to criminal sexual assualt? If there are, I'm curious as to how large a number this actually is, because this very example as touted as one of the main reasons abortion should be allowed, but I have trouble believing that an innocent child, born of an innocent mother, fathered by a criminal is going to turn into a criminal. It is only later in life that we humans become criminals by choices we make.

2b. You are making a generalization on his wife's choice to use antibiotics as the sole cause for abortion. That's not true, a side effect is a POSSIBILITY, not a guarantee. Not to mention the state of her body's health due to the infection, so the abortion could have been a natural miscarriage, in the bodies effort to heal itself.

Another thing that concerns me is your "dislike" for Santorum on his CIVIL issues, yet we have a President who has lied more times and been exposed for his lies, more often that Bush was ever ACCUSED of lying. Presidential Mandate seriously? That was pushed aside in less than 6 mos. by the state of Pennsylvania.

3. So you are saying that a return to Constitutional law, which many were based upon the religious teachings of the Bible would be a bad thing? Wait till you try Sharia law on for size!

4. So, there's my thoughts on him. I want my president to be a strong leader, and part of being a leader is being honest, standing up for what you believe in, and not being a hypocrite. You've answered your own question here! He is a man who has principles, beliefs, and is willing to stand for them. Unlike BO, who tells you one thing and then proceeds to do several others.

What really stinks is that people are so Christophobic, that anything that looks like, smells like, or claims to be a person of pricinples and maybe even a Christian, is hated for being TOO EXTREME. Do you really think that when we as a country were operating more towards the center and more fundamentally sound in terms of our religious heritage that we were worse off then we are now? I really can't believe that we've gone so far down the road that we are willing to swallow this garbage.

We didn't do a lot of things right throughout history, but we've done a lot of good too! Now, we are placating, surrendering, and driving a country that was free, and willing to help anyone, straight into the arms of a one world system. Bankrupt the world, and then reset the system with the 1/2 % controling everything and the rest of us eating off there scraps. No thank you, I will do for myself and my own, and you can keep the change, comrade!

Ok, now I've got some time to respond, so I'll go point by point.

1. What are you talking about? I'm not sure what you're referring to as succeeding and being paid back. The corporate bailouts? Those absolutely have not all been successful and have not all been paid back. But regardless, that wasn't my point. My point was that Santorum positions himself and a fiscal conservative, yet he was right there signing on with huge government spending, which is the very antithesis of fiscal conservatism. He's being hypocritical by claiming to be a fiscal conservative when his record doesn't reflect it. It's not different than Obama campaigning as a centrist when he had the most liberal record in the senate. Equally hypocritical.

2. Again, your argument is irrelevant. The point isn't whether it's a lump of cells or a human being. The point is that Santorum is practicing the classic "Do as I say, not as I do" politics. The positions he advocates for all the rest of us are not the same ones he has chosen for his own family. Again, hypocrisy.

2a. I have no stats on conception due to rape. That's not the point. If it happens once it's too many times, and no woman should be forced to have a child that she is carrying against her will. Your argument appears to be based on the likelihood of the child becoming a criminal. I couldn't care less about that. What I do care about is forcing a woman to carry and give birth to a child that she conceived against her will. That is immoral in my opinion.

2b. Here's an article about what happened: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/06/karen_santorum_did_not_have_an_abortion/singleton/
Clearly, she did not have an abortion in the traditional sense. But she did take steps to ensure her survival knowing that the fetus would not survive. So it seems that he's not hypocritical on this. I still strongly disagree, simply because I think it's absurd for the government to be able to make life or death decisions for people regarding health care. Isn't this one of the main arguments many have had against Obamacare? That there are "death panels" that make decisions about who gets treatment and who dies? Isn't this the same principle.

Regarding your statements about my dislike of Santorum's civil issues and comparing them to Obama, I agree that Obama has been a disgrace. I didn't vote for him and never liked him. This is another example of your assumption that because I don't like one republican candidate that I automatically like the democrat. This is not in any way true, and regardless is irrelevant regarding Santorum as a candidate.

3. The US government, while certainly having founding fathers who were Christian, also had those who were not, and was not founded on religious teachings of the bible. In fact, there are several examples where the government explicitly stated that it was not. For example, the Treaty of Tripoli (treaties, along with the constitution, are considered "the supreme law of the land" per the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution) stated: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". This was unanimously ratified by the senate in 1797.

Your mention of Sharia law is also ridiculous. Yes, it's true that Sharia is more extreme and violent than Christian beliefs (in general) but it doesn't matter when it comes to US law. The constitution bans the government from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another. It's crystal clear. No one religion can be favored over another. That includes Christianity.

4. Again, bringing up Obama is irrelevant. I see Santorum has been hypocritical. As has Obama. Pretty much every politician has been hypocritical at some point, so it comes down to finding one who you feel has been the least hypocritical and lied the least. It sucks, but that's the reality (for the most part).

Please stop with this Christophic stuff. You've been saying this in a number of threads, and it's just not true. For example, in the Tebow thread you brought it up and it's simply not reality. Tebow is criticized because he gets tons of media coverage and credit when he is a really bad QB. If your theory held water, other athletes who are equally as open about their beliefs would be criticized. For example, Kurt Warner. He is openly, devoutly Christian, and got tons of love in the media when he was playing. And nearly all fans also supported him. Know why? Because he was a really good QB. Simple as that.

Nothing I said is in any way "Christophobic". I'm referencing specific policy positions. Nothing about religion. Just because there are some policy positions that coincide with Christian beliefs and I disagree with those positions does not make me anti-Christian. That's quite a leap for you to make about me, and frankly is kind of offensive. You don't know me, my background, etc. FYI, I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, and I have chosen not to practice any religion as an adult. But, my parents and my brother are still strong Catholics, and I have nothing against them. If I were "Christophobic" I would disapprove of their beliefs. And I do not. So please, cut with the Christophobic stuff. Are there people who are anti-Christian? Of course. But the majority of people are not.

You also asked about "when we were operating more towards the center..." I agree this would be better. But the principles that Santorum espouses are most certainly not "more towards the center". Hell, if a person with Reagan's record were a candidate today, he'd be viewed as too liberal. He cut taxes, but also raised them. He said what he needed to about being anti-aborting during campaigns, but ignored it while in office. He signed amnesty for illegal immigrants. See where I'm going? I'd love for a more centrist candidate to be a viable option. That would move the country back in a more positive direction. But as of now, we have a choice of far left or far right (most likely).

Honestly, I'm probably hoping for Romney or Paul. The rest are a bit nuts in my opinion, and I don't like Obama. If I had my way, Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan would be running, but they are not. Hopefully one of them does in the future, because I really like both of them.

So there you have it. Please stop with all the assumptions about me and making statements calling me comrade and such. They do nothing to support your arguments, and in my opinion, only serve to make you look small minded and kind of angry.

_________________
"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


January 6th, 2012, 10:34 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
TDJ: I see that we aren't really communicating because I can't see your perspective and you can't see mine. I will admit that in the course of trying to describe what I was talking about such terms like commarade due see totally inappropriate. My mistake!

As for the term Christophobic, this is a totally appropriate term to be used in an era wher monacres are given as a way of demeaning a particular group. Think homophobe, germophobe, etc. The Liberal left, and GLTG group have been throwing the homophobe term around for years, and it gives a negative connotation to anyone who does not support the alternate lifestyle. Therefore making them a lesser person because they are "tolerant" another such term.

Let's take a look at what's gone on in our culture in the last 10 years.

1. 10 commandments removed from schools
2. 10 commandments removed from law offices
3. law suits concerning any CHRISTIAN religious symbol installed in public space
a. whether its a cross in the mojave desert to represent brothers in arms lost in WWI to a cross in California to represent brothers lost in Afghanistan. There is even a lawsuit by atheists that claim a steel i beam from the WTC that looks like a cross makes them phycially sick, and causes them emotional distress and should be taken down.
4. Prayer in school, AFTER HOURS, or PRIOR TO SCHOOL, is no longer allowed
5.and the list could go on.

So yes there is a Christophobic movement out there, and the fact that I use such a term as a way of getting it into the communal jargon, much to the chagrin of those who say it makes me look "small" and angry, does not matter. In fact, I could take such thoughts and concerns and buy myself a cup of coffee for a dollar right?

Getting back on point:

2b. your information on Mrs. Santorum is too black and white. What I mean is that based upon your assumption, her choice to save her life is the direct cause of the loss of her child. I think if you actually did a little more research you would find that the body spontaneously aborts fetus' on a regular basis. Unless you happen to be a Dr. directly involved in this case you are spectulating on the cause and making a judgment based on the information. If my wife were in the same situation I too would go for the antibiotics. If it is the Lord's will that we have the child, then He is fully capable of keeping the child in the womb, in spite of antibiotics. But that's a gametime decision that each one has to way the cause and affect.

I don't remember saying that you support Obama in any way, what I was asking was what is it about Santorum that is so negative that would keep him from being a good President. If you look at my 2nd post you'll see the comparison between what I know of Santorum (little) to what I know of Obama (what he's demonstrated.)

3. The US government, while certainly having founding fathers who were Christian, also had those who were not, and was not founded on religious teachings of the bible. In fact, there are several examples where the government explicitly stated that it was not. For example, the Treaty of Tripoli (treaties, along with the constitution, are considered "the supreme law of the land" per the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution) stated: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". This was unanimously ratified by the senate in 1797.

Again this appears to be a play on words, but the USA was indeed founded on CHRISTIAN principles. It was the popular, known religion of the day and the 10 commandments played a role in developing a sense of order. The Congress also used other models such as that of Rome to create a Republic, and many other things. Again, I believe this will be a perspective thing and only be more argumentative, and so we should kick this around anymore.

It's funny that you mention one religion should not be favored over another but yet Islam is being pushed into our society as subtly as the "Cordoba Inititative." It's a mosque within sight of ground zero, and is willfully intended to be used much like the mosque at Cordoba, Spain was. A memorial to a muslim victory. Sharia law is making it's way into our legal system through many subtle channels. In fact, take a look at the ACLJ web site and you can see for yourself what is at stake. And the Liberals are placating and welcoming them in with open arms, at the same time as the deny the remodeling of a historic church damaged on 9/11.

You also asked about "when we were operating more towards the center..." I agree this would be better. But the principles that Santorum espouses are most certainly not "more towards the center". Hell, if a person with Reagan's record were a candidate today, he'd be viewed as too liberal. He cut taxes, but also raised them. He said what he needed to about being anti-aborting during campaigns, but ignored it while in office. He signed amnesty for illegal immigrants. See where I'm going? I'd love for a more centrist candidate to be a viable option. That would move the country back in a more positive direction. But as of now, we have a choice of far left or far right (most likely).

The problem with this is that we've moved so far to the left, that any movement back to the center is seen as Extreme Right. That's sad!!!

But again, I was asking for other thoughts on Santorum, I was NOT looking for a fight. I don't know enough about Santorum, but I do like that he is a man of faith and principle. Both of which were obvious in Bush, and most hated too! So let's not draw sides and trade barbs, and I am the guilty party in that. I got caught up in the rhetoric and used the communist words. I apologize on that.

_________________
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."


January 7th, 2012, 12:56 pm
Profile
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Blueskies wrote:
The Republican Party is a party in crisis. McCain was the best-worst candidate, Romney is the best-worst candidate. The party needs to be destroyed and then reemerge as something new, which is what I think this election cycle will do.


IMO Newt is the best candidate we can throw out there. He's the best at keeping his composure. He would do the best in a debate with Barry O. He is incredibly intelligent. He is a fiscally responsible conservative, and he mobilizes his voters to a much higher degree than Mitt. Sure, Newt has prior character issues, but IMO he's over-came them. The "inconsistencies" on his record, IMO, are meaningless. His Congress passed the last four balanced budgets - nuff said...


January 7th, 2012, 2:10 pm
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
http://righttruejustfair.blogspot.com/2 ... of-me.html

Here is a link to a dear friend of mine that has spoken at some TEA party rallies here in Indiana. He does offer a lot of insight and smarts to the conversation. If the TEA party as a whole were to jump behind the candidate that best represented their goals, and that doesn't mean 100%, that means best meets, then we could have a strong choice. Palin supports Santorum, and so that says a lot about him in terms of his drive for this country, regardless of what you think about her. Now draw in the Evangelical vote, and you have a very strong candidate that could really do much to restore what's been destroyed in this country. Sadly, I believe we've already been hamstrung by the bumbling idiot, and his congressional minions, but who knows.

_________________
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."


January 7th, 2012, 3:24 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 232 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 16  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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.