Register to reply

Rick Santorum's candidacy ...

by ThomasT
Tags: candidacy, rick, santorum
Share this thread:
Angry Citizen
#73
Jan31-12, 09:00 PM
P: 867
Quote Quote by jduster View Post
I'm not a Republican, but I personally favor Santorum over the more extreme candidates like Obama, Newt, and RonPaul.
Obama is about as 'extreme' as the sport of golf. He is sadly centrist, even on the American political spectrum. Just because he's to the left of Hitler doesn't mean he's akin to Stalin...
jduster
#74
Jan31-12, 09:02 PM
P: 46
Quote Quote by Angry Citizen View Post
Obama is about as 'extreme' as the sport of golf. He is sadly centrist, even on the American political spectrum. Just because he's to the left of Hitler doesn't mean he's akin to Stalin...
I guess it is all relative.

Obama certainly is not communist. And he's to the right of many anarchists/socialists/OWS, but he's too far to the left for ME.

What views set the polar ends are more agreed upon than what views establish the center.
Angry Citizen
#75
Jan31-12, 09:13 PM
P: 867
Quote Quote by jduster View Post
I guess it is all relative.

Obama certainly is not communist. And he's to the right of many anarchists/socialists/OWS, but he's too far to the left for ME.

What views set the polar ends are more agreed upon than what views establish the center.
In what way is he too far to the left for you? I mean, if you believe Santorum is a moderate... *shrug* I think there's some misconceptions you have about politics in general. I'd sure like to correct them.
ThomasT
#76
Feb6-12, 01:33 AM
P: 1,414
Santorum is apparently in favor of the, considered by some to be, exorbitant prices charged by big pharma. Definitely a basically status quo guy, imo, and a self-avowed religious fanatic as well. Imo, we would see no positive changes under the direction of somebody like Santorum.
SHISHKABOB
#77
Feb6-12, 04:31 AM
P: 614
hmm, I guess that's how I feel too. He seems like he is too much under the sway of his religion.
Ryan_m_b
#78
Feb6-12, 07:13 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,463
Quote Quote by jduster View Post
Well, rape does not change the moral dilemma abortion, pro-life or pro-choice. If the fetus is not a life, it's not a life. But if it is a life, then aborting it solely on the ground that its father was a rapist, is murder. But its inconsistent to say, if the fetus is a life, that its killing an innocent life, but its not killing an innocent life if it was procreated by rape.
The controversy is not whether or not an embryo or a foetus is alive (it evidently is just like skin cells, gametes etc) the question is whether or not it is a person. Abortion is only wrong if you think that an embryo or foetus is deserving of person hood and where ever you want to argue that point you're going to need evidence to back up the claim. "Personhood begins at conception because that's when an intangible, immaterial, unverifiable, unevidenced soul attaches to it" is not a valid argument but it's the one that many pro-life groups use.
WhoWee
#79
Feb8-12, 08:09 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
People who vote for presidential candidates without considering their capacity for judicial appointments are ignorant, and are endangering the rest of us. Some powers are best left entrusted to people with a bit of intelligence.
What are you suggesting as an alternative to our process?
turbo
#80
Feb8-12, 08:22 AM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
What are you suggesting as an alternative to our process?
We don't need an alternative. We need to have informed voters that will understand that their vote could put somebody in the white house who will appoint extremists to the supreme court. Santorum opposes all abortion, even in the case of rape or incest (familial abuse), so what would be his "litmus test" for Federal judges? Voters need to consider what kinds of appointments a President might make before pulling that lever. The power to appoint Federal judges for life-terms is not one to be taken lightly.
WhoWee
#81
Feb8-12, 08:25 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
We don't need an alternative. We need to have informed voters that will understand that their vote could put somebody in the white house who will appoint extremists to the supreme court. Santorum opposes all abortion, even in the case of rape or incest (familial abuse), so what would be his "litmus test" for Federal judges? Voters need to consider what kinds of appointments a President might make before pulling that lever. The power to appoint Federal judges for life-terms is not one to be taken lightly.
I'm certain there are Conservatives who fear appointments favoring the Left accordingly.
mheslep
#82
Feb8-12, 03:43 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
In some jurisdictions "personhood" doesn't begin even after birth. A human (?) breathing on its own can be killed and the killer walk, if sufficient sympathy can be generated for the killer.

Infanticide conviction nets Alberta woman suspended sentence
WhoWee
#83
Feb8-12, 07:58 PM
P: 1,123
Santorum is picking up momentum.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/politi...sts/index.html

"Santorum jolts GOP presidential race with 3-state sweep"
Jack21222
#84
Feb8-12, 11:15 PM
P: 772
Quote Quote by jduster View Post
While, I'm not against contraception or pre-marital sex, those are just his personal beliefs - not ideas he is actually proposing to make law.
Are you certain of that? Here is the actual Rick Santorum quote:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
His first sentence seems to indicate that he'd talk about contraception as president in some sort of official capacity.

And then, here is a note from a Washington Post article:
In his Missouri victory speech Tuesday night, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum devoted a substantial chunk of his remarks to the Obama administration’s decision to mandate birth control coverage with very limited exceptions for Catholic employers.
This would be a case where his personal opposition to birth control would spill into public policy.
Ryan_m_b
#85
Feb9-12, 03:19 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,463
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
Quote Quote by jduster View Post
While, I'm not against contraception or pre-marital sex, those are just his personal beliefs - not ideas he is actually proposing to make law.
Are you certain of that? Here is the actual Rick Santorum quote:
ďOne of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, thatís okay, contraception is okay. Itís not okay. Itís a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.Ē
His first sentence seems to indicate that he'd talk about contraception as president in some sort of official capacity.

And then, here is a note from a Washington Post article:
In his Missouri victory speech Tuesday night, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum devoted a substantial chunk of his remarks to the Obama administrationís decision to mandate birth control coverage with very limited exceptions for Catholic employers.
This would be a case where his personal opposition to birth control would spill into public policy.
Supposing he did get in even if he didn't try or didn't succeed in pushing through laws against the sale of contraceptions or having pre-martial sex there's a lot he could do to damage contraceptive use and abortion in the US such as scrapping sex-ed, defunding planned parenthood etc.
WhoWee
#86
Feb9-12, 07:37 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
Are you certain of that? Here is the actual Rick Santorum quote:



His first sentence seems to indicate that he'd talk about contraception as president in some sort of official capacity.

And then, here is a note from a Washington Post article:


This would be a case where his personal opposition to birth control would spill into public policy.
Are we going to analyze every word a candidate has ever spoken in this election - and regardless of when and where statements were made?
Ryan_m_b
#87
Feb9-12, 07:39 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,463
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Are we going to analyze every word a candidate has ever spoken in this election - and regardless of when and where statements were made?
No but looking at the words the candidates say regarding specific issues when those issues are brought up for discussion seems logical.
WhoWee
#88
Feb9-12, 07:47 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
No but looking at the words the candidates say regarding specific issues when those issues are brought up for discussion seems logical.
I just wanted to check - because I'm in favor of analyzing every word Senator, candidate, President-elect, and President Obama has ever spoken.
mheslep
#89
Feb9-12, 11:18 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
... in the US such as scrapping sex-ed,
Aside from funding, how is the federal government going to have any control over sex-ed (or music or gym or social studies) in local school systems?

defunding planned parenthood etc.
As it should be. There's obviously a big social divide in the country on abortion. The natural resolution was arrived at years ago: abortion will be legal, but those who disagree don't have to pay for it through taxes. Planned Parenthood is a flagrant federally funded abuse of that deal.
Char. Limit
#90
Feb9-12, 11:20 AM
PF Gold
Char. Limit's Avatar
P: 1,951
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Aside from funding, how is the federal government going to have any control over sex-ed (or music or gym or social studies) in the local school system?
I find this statement funny. "Aside from the main method the federal government controls education, how will the federal government control education?"

As it should be. There's obviously a big social divide in the country on abortion. The natural resolution was arrived at years ago: abortion will be legal, but those who disagree don't have to pay for it through taxes. Planned Parenthood is a flagrant federally funded abuse of that deal.
Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortions, and none of their federal funding goes to abortion. Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Ron Paul's candidacy Current Events 578
Mitt Romney's candidacy Current Events 735
Rick Steves' Europe: Iran Current Events 4
Consider yourself Rick Roll'd General Discussion 20
Vote Rick James! General Discussion 6