Rick Santorum: The Thread

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by markolas

I hope the 3 people in this poll who said they're supporters are on my ignore list. I know at least one of them is. The other two would be if I knew who they were. Anyone who supports this guy is loathsome and not someone I want anything to do with.

I support Santorum only because I know he will lose badly against Obama. But there is also a hopelessly optimistic part of me that believes that Santorum is a referendum on American values- that a Rick Santorum candidacy would be like holding up a magnifying mirror to us all. What are we really about as a country? Are we really a country founded upon false dogma, fearmongering, lies and hate speech? Do people truly believe that an anti-intellectual hypocrite who believes in removing freedoms from minorities and integrating religion- a single religion (Catholicism) - into the charter for ruling the country is somehow compatible with American values? I would like to think that, as dumb as Americans are in general, they will eventually realize that they are inadvertently being lured into agreeing with economic policies that are antithetical to their own best interests by focusing obsessively on red herring social issues that have nothing to do with their own prosperity. In 2004, it was all about the gays. In 2008 it was all about "OMG, Obama is black and a Muslim!" In 2012 it's all about the gays again... oh, and the "prostitutes," i.e., women who use contraception. Perhaps Americans will finally wake up to all of the lies they've been fed for the past 12 years... One could only hope!

[markolas]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Perhaps Americans will finally wake up to all of the lies they've been fed for the past 12 years... One could only hope!

Oh, sweetie...

Yes, you are an optimist. Of course, that's coming from someone who, just the other day, was advocating for mandatory euthanasia for everyone at birth, since we all get sick and die anyway.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by iamnotafraid

Hitler...?

I would invite anyone to read through this
thread with an open mind and find the hate
speech. And then ask yourself, which side
did it come from?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I rest my case.

Hate speech from Rick Santorum:

“I have a problem with homosexual acts… I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does…" - April 23, 2003

" That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”

Rick Santorum equating "homosexual acts" with bigamy, polygamy, bestiality and incest. Yes, Rick, it is a slippery slope! Why stop at incest? Murder, rape, locust swarms, global warming... yes, all of that because of "homosexual acts." Again, all he does is LIE, LIE and LIE some more... and indeed, if you say something enough times, people start believing it!

"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." - campaign stop in Iowa January 2012

Really? He doesn't want to make black people's lives better? He pretty much just stated that black people are lazy and living on the public dole. Hateful? No way!

"Women are too emotionally weak for combat..." January 2012

Self-explanatory.

So in summary, Rick Santorum hates gays (because they undermine society!), hates blacks (because they're lazy!) and hates women (because they are weak!). America: you get the president you deserve.

[ButterCookie]

I'd like to see Rick Santorum carry and give birth to a baby.

We'll see who's emotionally weak then.

Edit: Can't a comedian come along and please do to him what Tina Fey did to Sarah Palin? Because every time I see this idiot's name, I just get so angry that my sarcasm switch flicks and I end up making myself sound backward. I have things I want to say about him but when I try I just turn to jelly.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

FIXED: "This country was founded by people who sought escape from a religion ruled by government."

The Puritans weren't supportive of religious freedom for those who disagreed with them, either. Yes, they were persecuted - but they were equally willing to persecute as is evidenced by their actions here in the New World.

Our nations founders were smart men, and wrote our constitution as such so that government could operate without influence from the church (remember, at the time, the Vatican told Kings and Emperors how to run their nations). The Pope was the supreme ruler of Catholic Europe, and the founding fathers of the United States wanted to ensure that could NEVER happen here. No church would ever tell us what to do. At the same time, they wanted to ensure that people of all faiths were able to worship here however they chose without persecution from the government or from other faiths. In order for this to happen, religion MUST stay out of government - the very moment our government becomes occupied by religion is the very moment we actually lose our religious freedoms.

America must never become the Christian version of Iran, and men like Santorum only want an American theocracy.

Faith is personal, and has no place in our laws. Men like Rick Santorum are unsuitable for the Presidency.

[TrueFaith77]

^^I'm not sure what you mean about the Pope and how they wanted to make sure "that" would never happen here. I'm pretty sure that clause in the Constitution is in reference to the Church of England (ruled by the King). In other words, there would be no Church of America (ruled by the government or King).

If Santorum wanted a theocracy, that would be antithetical to Catholicism. And he's Catholic....


ETA:

Re: Santorum's gay-bestiality analogies. They are not only offensive, they are astonishingly lame. The sad thing is is that the time I saw him making these arguments was to counter college students' arguments stated thus: "Anyone should be able to marry anyone they want." Which was the perfect set up. Santorum won that argument, but only cuz his opponents were stupider than he is.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

^^I'm not sure what you mean about the Pope and how they wanted to make sure "that" would never happen here. I'm pretty sure that clause in the Constitution is in reference to the Church of England (ruled by the King). In other words, there would be no Church of America (ruled by the government or King).

If Santorum wanted a theocracy, that would be antithetical to Catholicism. And he's Catholic....

You have a valid point since when Henry the 8th set himself as ruler of the new Church of England, the Anglican Church, he ended the separation that had existed between Church and State in England.

But also...It took 200 years to elect a Catholic President in this country. Why? Because Americans have been afraid of the Pope telling us what to do, through our leaders, since we were founded - hence John F. Kennedy's very famous speech about separation of church and state (the same speech that makes Santorum want to "throw up"). If you are familiar with the history of Europe following the fall of Rome, you'll know that the Vatican and the Pope in particular had near-compete and total control over political matters in Europe for almost 1500 years. This is one of the many reasons for the Protestant Reformation in northern Europe (which led to the Thiry Years War and the subsequent Peace of Augsburg, which effectively ended the political power of the Church, but which the Vatican refused to recognize). The whole reason the Church of England was founded was because Henry the 8th was tired of taking direction from the Pope and wanted to annul a marriage - not that he was any better, mind you, a tyrant is a tyrant no matter what faith he belongs to.

James Madison: "Practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both"

John F. Kennedy:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."

and then...

"I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same."

In other words, the office of the President is above being influenced by personal faith, and when a conflict does arise, he or she should resign. In that regard, Sntorum shouldn't even be running for any office, let alone the nation's highest.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

John F. Kennedy:

and then...
"I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same."

In other words, the office of the President is above being influenced by personal faith, and when a conflict does arise, he or she should resign. In that regard, Sntorum shouldn't even be running for any office, let alone the nation's highest.

By what should a President (or person) be influenced? The Kennedy support for McCarthy (famously, over Alger Hiss) suggests, for example, that his "faith" induced values that were antithetical to Communism--or was that just plain old Patriotism more than Catholicism, or national interest not Catholicism. My point is: I don't know because I'm not in his head, maybe he was an automotan run by Daddy. And I would question how much Santorum would be influenced by the Vatican. He seems a bit more pro-war than the Pope.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

By what should a President (or person) And I would question how much Santorum would be influenced by the Vatican. He seems a bit more pro-war than the Pope.

Santorum invokes the teachings of the Catholic faith only when it is convenient to his particular platform.Catholicism does teach peace and John Paul 2 spoke out against the debacle that was the Iraqi war.To most Catholics " pro-life "also means anti death penalty which makes Santorum's myopic description of George W as the first "real Catholic president" patently absurd.I'd also point out that nearly 60% of Roman Catholics voted for Obama in 2008.If by some chance this pinhead ends up in the White House it could set Catholicism back in the US. as badly as the reign of Queen Mary Tudor did in England for the last few centuries.I would also argue that at least at the start of her reign her intentions were good..Santorum not so much.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

By what should a President (or person) be influenced? The Kennedy support for McCarthy (famously, over Alger Hiss) suggests, for example, that his "faith" induced values that were antithetical to Communism--or was that just plain old Patriotism more than Catholicism, or national interest not Catholicism. My point is: I don't know because I'm not in his head, maybe he was an automotan run by Daddy. And I would question how much Santorum would be influenced by the Vatican. He seems a bit more pro-war than the Pope.

I had a great, if lengthy reply written up...but then we had happy hour in the office and I had a beer (and a cupcake) and then went back to my computer and shut it down without clicking the "submit reply" button...so it's gone.

Oh well.

Essentially I just think the guy is far too concerned about the personal matters of other people, and these are issues that I feel have no place in politics.

But it makes for interesting discussion.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Santorum invokes the teachings of the Catholic faith only when it is convenient to his particular platform.Catholicism does teach peace and John Paul 2 spoke out against the debacle that was the Iraqi war.

Exactly. Thank you.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

I support Santorum only because I know he will lose badly against Obama.

Well, I don't really count that as supporting him. I meant supporting as in "I agree with his ideas and want him to be president."

[sparky]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

FIXED: "This country was founded by people who sought escape from a religion ruled by government."

If I want my posts fixed, I will fix them myself.

Regardless, you doubled the point I made. Religion and government do not mix.

They should stay far away from each other.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by iamnotafraid

Hitler...?

I would invite anyone to read through this
thread with an open mind and find the hate
speech. And then ask yourself, which side
did it come from?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I rest my case.

Yes. Actually, I meant Hitler.

The way in which Hilter overtook and and dismantled the German government at the time of his election would be impossible considering the layout and protections in our constituition. Such a boffoon, as Hitler was, would be completely impotent in this modern age. Impotent. You like that? Considering Santorum's bent on having his nose buried in the crotches of every American whose sex lives he disapproves of and is obsessed with, I think it is quite apt.

Hitler, in spite of the immense destruction he wreaked upon Europe, was far inferior to Santorum in terms of his initial financial power base and his plan. At the core, Hitler was simply a Nationalist and a Racist. He didn't purport to have God on his side. He did not summon up supporters based on a shared belief in some religious sect. He siezed upon a countrywide resentment that mostly concerned the post WW1 agreements that took away German territory and levied enormous financial obligations against Germany. That resulted in a devastating depression and an utter collpase of the German economy. That part at least sounds familiar. Debt to China anyone? Held hostage to fuel companies anyone? Our country's finances and debts are worldwide JOKE. That's one of the reasons the Tea Party exists.

But back to my Hitler reference. I stand by it. Take the end result of Hiltler's stunning rise to European dominance out of the issue. He was merely a clever con artist who had good timing and a nasty mind. His modern equivalent is a wacko skinhead with short man issues and a bad facial hair problem. He was not a religious zealot. Such animals are far more dangerous. The middle east is ruled my mostly just such zealots. And they are our major "enemies" in these wars we have been waging since Kuwait.

Do we really want a president who is of the same stripe as those zealots in the middle east? We want to become the enemy? That is who Santorum is. A man who wants to rule this country with the bible as his guide. And evidently the Pope as his right hand man.
It is preposterous.

His latest idiot move is saying he'd ban pornography. LOL. What would happen to Utah? The biggest consumer of internet porn in the country. Those poor Mormons would lose it.

The man is an idiot. A deluded idiot who is pandering to a scared and diminishing group of people. And he is the highest level hypocrite to have been on the national stage since who knows what. He makes Newt "I dumped my cancer ridden wife on her hospital deathbed to take up with my secretary" Gingrich look like Mary Poppins.

My computer has been in the shop so I have not been able to comment since my initial post on this but I find it shocking that no one has commented upon the fact that his wife was the former mistress of a prominent abortion doctor. Mistress. Not wife. Whore outside the bonds of holy matrimony. An abortion doctor who actually also happened to DELIVER her when she was born. One who was about 40 years her senior. Makes Celine Dion's marriage look normal. Now she's a good Christian wife. You can't make this trash up, folks.

And people vote for this guy. What the hell?

That is the scary part. That's how dumb much of our country is.

[louielouie2000]

So what are everyone's thoughts on Santorum's withdrawal from the race? It honestly caught me off guard... I figured he'd continue the fight with Romney to the bitter end like Hillary Clinton did with Obama in '08. If Santorum left the race because of his daughter's health, and because his family asked him to do such, I'd find it incredibly honorable. But I have a sneaking suspicion this is a coldly calculated move: Santorum is being groomed to be Romney's running mate. It'd make perfect sense: having Santorum on the ticket would appease diehard conservatives who aren't convinced by Romney. Santorum being on the ticket would also help differentiate a potential Romney administration from Obama's. I wholeheartedly believe America would not toss Obama out of the White House in favor of Romney solely because there's not enough policy differences between the two to warrant a change of guard. Americans do not like to renege on their choice of Presidents unless it's absolutely necessary.