• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who is Santorum?

roguenuke said:
Obama was brought into this debate by a conservative on the second page. Go check for yourself.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you check the context of that post, it was someone trying to bring the focus back to issues and not focus on the same stuff I warned about in the post your replied to here, which is social issues. Notice how a liberal was the one who tried to go down that road, a conservative pointed out something wrong with liberals, and now here we are arguing about it. Sounds like what I typed in my statement about you guys hijacking the post huh? Now, on to Santorum!
I like the guy. He has some very original and realstic economic ideas. The manufacturing tax abolishment is something I think could be passed bipartisanly as long as extra crap is left out of it. Flat taxes and "9-9-9" are not realistic. It would become a big fight and further maul everyone's opinion of our congress, which isn't much right now btw. I mean, the tax code is only like 84,000 pages. Why argue over that right? Too much trouble to fix something, just add to it. At least, that's been the attitude on Capital hill for as long as I can remember. I would like to hear what others, convservative and lib, think of the manufacturing tax abolishment.
 
TheNextEra said:
Have at it, it shouldn't be a problem then to get it overturned and Obama found guilty and impeached. However, I don't see that happening.

I will agree though that Obama should be held accountable.
Click to expand...

So should Congress, and then the law should be declared unconstitutional.

But, that's just my opinion.
 
Gill said:
True, but mine has much more evidence than yours.
Click to expand...

glad to see you have made such an assertion
show us your evidence that i was responsible for writing that original wiki information or, being unable to do so, be found a liar
 
Last edited:
MarineTpartier said:
Actually, if you check the context of that post, it was someone trying to bring the focus back to issues and not focus on the same stuff I warned about in the post your replied to here, which is social issues.
Click to expand...

The title of this thread is "Who is Santorum". His views on social issues is indeed ON TOPIC. You don't get to decide what is or is not talked about in this thread. If you don't like it, you can either let it go, get out of this thread, or try and report it. Those are your onoly options because I will continue to bring up his social issues because they are paramount to why this man should NOT be elected.

Don't like it, go pound sand.
 
TheNextEra said:
The title of this thread is "Who is Santorum". His views on social issues is indeed ON TOPIC. You don't get to decide what is or is not talked about in this thread. If you don't like it, you can either let it go, get out of this thread, or try and report it. Those are your onoly options because I will continue to bring up his social issues because they are paramount to why this man should NOT be elected.

Don't like it, go pound sand.
Click to expand...
So, anyway, I also like Santorum's proposal about capping gov't spending at 18% of the GDP. Another bill that could be passed in a bipartisan Capital Hill. The thing that a lot of these guys, these guys being the GOP candidates, are missing is that they are trying to hit a long ball with everything they propose. If you are always swinging for the fences, it means you strike out a lot. The GOP have struck out a lot lately so its time to start hitting singles and chipping away like liberal spending policies and entitlements have. When I say liberal, I mean liberal in theory, not neccessarily proposed by a liberal. Bush was clearly a liberal spender.
 
Conservative said:
Oh, I see, you don't get the real news in Colorado? Prove that Bush violated the Constitution on any of those issues?
Click to expand...

If he didn't violate the Constitution is was not becuase he had any reservations about doing it , that is for sure. Do you remember this?


Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."
Click to expand...

Bush - Constitution 'Just A Goddamned Piece Of Paper'
 
MarineTpartier said:
And, as I warned to all of the conservatives on here, consider this thread officially hijacked. Have a look at the last time Santorum was even mentioned in a thread named "Who is Santorum?". I told you guys libs would come in here and make it all about Obama and look what has happened. This whole thing has devolved into a discussion about child molesting conservatives, if Obama can still blame Bush, and the rights of a homosexual to marry. All issues that we, as conservatives, shouldn't care as much about in a election year that has as much weight as the 1980 election, if not more. Our country is nose diving economically, militarily, and constitutionally and the conservatives on this thread (website?) are letting the left do what they always do. Point out what they think are our faults, hide their own, and then put us on the defensive. Stop playing their game. Don't fall prey to it. Don't let one of these guys lead you down a path about abortion, homosexual marriage, or any other social issue. Libs like that because they can debate it. Its my way is better and yours is not. That's the only argument with social issues such as those. If you bring up economics or foreign policy with them, what have they got? He authorized the death of Osama, that's it. Liberals know that their way has failed. They know Obama isn't Lincoln, like he wanted to be. He isn't even Bill Clinton. He is a bravo male in an alpha male position and is doing everything he can to keep his nose above the water. And guess who's in the water with him? All the libs you hear on this website and everywhere else.
Click to expand...

OK Lets talk about how Santorum wants to implement Sharia Christian law and believes all our laws must conform to what he calls "Biblical truths". Do you think those beliefs are suitible for a man that wants to be President?

Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan.

Santorum is not hiding this. The only reason you may not be aware of it is because up until his recent surge in the polls, the media were ignoring him. However, "Santorum Two" was out there telling anyone who would listen.

He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."

On Thanksgiving Day at an Iowa candidates' forum, he reiterated: "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."

"Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran. The outcry would be deafening, especially from people like Santorum."

Yes, that means exactly what you think it does: Santorum believes that each and every one of our government's laws must match God's law, warning that "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." I'm not exactly sure what "agitation" means in this context, but I think it's a code word for something much worse than acid reflux.

And as an aside, when Santorum says "God," he means "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." So, if your god differs from Rick's, your god's views will be ignored, just like the father is on "Keeping Up with the Kardashians."

Some of you might be asking: How far will "Santorum Two" take this? It's not like he's going to base public policy decisions on Bible passages, right?

Well, here's what Santorum had to say just last week when asked about his opposition to gay marriage: "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change."

Santorum could not be more unambiguous: His policy decisions will be based on "biblical truths," and as he noted, these "truths" will not change regardless of whether public opinion has evolved since the time the Bible was written thousands of years ago.

Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran. The outcry would be deafening, especially from people like Santorum.
Click to expand...

Santorum wants to impose 'Judeo-Christian Sharia' - CNN.com
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
LOL, what's next Moveon.org information posted as fact. You are going to have to do better than that, doubt seriously that any of this is true. Amazing the bs you buy and the facts that you ignore
Click to expand...

Kettle meet pot.
 
TheNextEra said:
And it is YOUR opinion he is guilty and not fact. FACT is that Obama has not been found guilty of ANYTHING.

I don't like the law he signed either, but I'm not crying it is unconsitutional. I will cry foul and say it is wrong. This is the number one reason I am not voting for Obama.
Click to expand...

He is definitely guilty of hypocrisy.
 
This thread began by asking who Rick Santorum is. I still don't know; he wasn't on my radar until the Iowa results. But what would be really great would be sticking to how the candidates stand on the issues rather than on repeating "talking points" or stooping to character assassination.

I'm sick of it. Tired of the pigeon-holing. Tired of the nasty crap--Gore's kid being busted for DUI, Cheney's kid being gay, Palin's Downs baby really being her daughter's, all of it proves nothing. I want to know where the candidates stand. Have they put their money and voting records where their mouths are?

And I'm willing to listen to oppositional POVs because I don't have all the answers. But the character assassinations and sound-byte dismissals of candidates as "crazy" or "dumb" discourage me from wanting to share my views. I mean, there's no reasoning with the unreasonable.
 
Conservatives...

THIS is Santorum:


"They ('Libertarianish Right') Conservatives have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world."​



​
 
MarineTpartier said:
Actually, if you check the context of that post, it was someone trying to bring the focus back to issues and not focus on the same stuff I warned about in the post your replied to here, which is social issues. Notice how a liberal was the one who tried to go down that road, a conservative pointed out something wrong with liberals, and now here we are arguing about it. Sounds like what I typed in my statement about you guys hijacking the post huh? Now, on to Santorum!
I like the guy. He has some very original and realstic economic ideas. The manufacturing tax abolishment is something I think could be passed bipartisanly as long as extra crap is left out of it. Flat taxes and "9-9-9" are not realistic. It would become a big fight and further maul everyone's opinion of our congress, which isn't much right now btw. I mean, the tax code is only like 84,000 pages. Why argue over that right? Too much trouble to fix something, just add to it. At least, that's been the attitude on Capital hill for as long as I can remember. I would like to hear what others, convservative and lib, think of the manufacturing tax abolishment.
Click to expand...

I checked the context and I know the poster.

Others were pointing out that Santorum is way more interested in social issues than he is economic ones. He has said so himself.

The poster who brought up Obama was trying to divert the thread to talk about Obama's failures, which is not unusual for him. He had no such higher purpose as you are trying to suggest of getting the thread back on topic because everyone was already on topic talking about who Santorum is and where his priorities lie.
 
poweRob said:
Conservatives...

THIS is Santorum:


"They ('Libertarianish Right') Conservatives have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world."​



​
Click to expand...


He is a conservative! You don't understand what the meaning of the DOI. Try again! Judge Napolitano is a disgrace! He is a PaulBot!
 
Zyphlin said:
Indeed, the issue however is the fact that the candidate in question, Santorum, has chosen time and time again to make his social views and social issues be at the forefront of his campaign and his policies. Take the earlier instance of debate when Bachmann was focusing on Health Care as something she'd go into states to deal with but feeling like a President shouldn't be going in there over Marriage and Santorum roasting her for that fact. The reason people, and its NOT just liberals because I've been raising it too, keep bringing up social issues with Santorum is because he is someone who...even admitted by himself...ties his moral and religious views closely with his political ones. He feels its just as important to push the social agenda right now as it is to push the social.

So you're right, you're ABSOLUTELY right. There are MAJOR issues in this country right now that need to be addressed that are economic in nature and its what makes this election so important. The issue is, rather than focusing primarily on those things, Santorum seeks to focus as much on social issues as on those things. Simply declraing people liberals and deriding them for pointing out his social views when HE chooses to make his social views an issue is not going to cut it. Conservative fiscal policy IS popular, but the question would be is its popularity enough that enough people will stomach an equal amount of staunch social conservatism pushed to an equal degree as the economic issues. That is a serious and legitimate question when it comes to Santorum because he, unlike Romney or Huntsman or Paul or even Gingrich, would make the social issues a far larger and more central part of his campaign.
Click to expand...
And here in lies the reason we (conservatives) aren't going to win this year. Because we snipe each other all the time. You are doing exactly what the liberal media, liberal's on this web page, and liberal's everywhere I look are doing. You make a big deal of Santorum's social issues and by default hide the fact that Obama is a disaster. That's exactly the strategy they will use. I will say this. Santorum is the first candidate this year, that I have seen, that stands by what he said in the past. Every single candidate on that stage has back tracked and tried to edit their past statements to fit what they think we as voters want to see. Romney with abortion and health care, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Gingrich on global warming and Fannie Mae. Perry on mandating HPV vaccinations. Bachmann on her claim that the same HPV vaccination causes cancer. Paul's many racist quotes. Cain with Libya. And who cares what Huntsman thinks. Through all that, Santorum has been the only guy not to back track. Regardless of whether you like it or not, he still stands by what he believes. As I said earlier, the only thing he might be able to instill if he is elected is shutting down Planned Parenthood. That's it. He's not repealing DADT, he's not getting a Constitutional amendment about marriage, etc. I believe he played to the crowd in Iowa and trumpeted his beliefs. Now, he will downplay it when he goes to New Hampshire. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you want Obama re-elected, continue to fall prey to the distractions and diversionary tactics of the left. You have to give them props for that. They are far more organized than we are. We knock each other down the first chance we get. You never hear any of them sniping like this.
 
MarineTpartier said:
And here in lies the reason we (conservatives) aren't going to win this year. Because we snipe each other all the time. You are doing exactly what the liberal media, liberal's on this web page, and liberal's everywhere I look are doing. You make a big deal of Santorum's social issues and by default hide the fact that Obama is a disaster. That's exactly the strategy they will use. I will say this. Santorum is the first candidate this year, that I have seen, that stands by what he said in the past. Every single candidate on that stage has back tracked and tried to edit their past statements to fit what they think we as voters want to see. Romney with abortion and health care, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Gingrich on global warming and Fannie Mae. Perry on mandating HPV vaccinations. Bachmann on her claim that the same HPV vaccination causes cancer. Paul's many racist quotes. Cain with Libya. And who cares what Huntsman thinks. Through all that, Santorum has been the only guy not to back track. Regardless of whether you like it or not, he still stands by what he believes. As I said earlier, the only thing he might be able to instill if he is elected is shutting down Planned Parenthood. That's it. He's not repealing DADT, he's not getting a Constitutional amendment about marriage, etc. I believe he played to the crowd in Iowa and trumpeted his beliefs. Now, he will downplay it when he goes to New Hampshire. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you want Obama re-elected, continue to fall prey to the distractions and diversionary tactics of the left. You have to give them props for that. They are far more organized than we are. We knock each other down the first chance we get. You never hear any of them sniping like this.
Click to expand...

I think that may be why Bachmann has dropped out. Because we can't keep spliting the conservative vote.
 
poweRob said:
Of course when a social conservative says stupid **** like this, they exclude the fact that they get to determine what "porn" is. Sex education would be porn and he'd have them teaching stupid crap again like they used to about how if you kiss while wearing a bikini you can get pregnant.
Click to expand...

Of course when an extreme leftwing ideologue (aka Obama) says stupid **** like the Republicans want to starve children and grandma, they exclude the fact that they have no facts. They just base their silly notions on their extremist biases.
 
Amigo said:
I think that may be why Bachmann has dropped out. Because we can't keep spliting the conservative vote.
Click to expand...

Bachmann dropped out because she is an idiot and most people recognize that.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Bachmann dropped out because she is an idiot and most people recognize that.
Click to expand...
I don't think she's an idiot. I just think she hopped into Presidential politics too early in her career because the Tea Party needed someone to represent them in the elections. She's the only one that stepped up. I applaud her for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom