Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum highlights how wrongheaded our culture is pretty darn effectively.
Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum highlights how wrongheaded our culture is pretty darn effectively.
© 2024 Creative Minority Report — Powered by WordPress
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
August 17, 2011 at 2:51 am
Go Santorum 2012. He is clearly the best.
August 17, 2011 at 3:41 am
Santorum is a huge supporter of the unjust(according to Catholic teaching) and illegal(according to the U.S. Constitution)wars that the U.S. wages around the world which have resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed. Ron Paul is the candidate to support since he considers all life as precious. In addition, Santorum would not beat Obama in the general election. If you are interested in getting rid of Obama, then Ron Paul is your candidate.
August 17, 2011 at 3:55 am
If electability is the criterion, you must be honest with yourself: Ron Paul has even less chance of unseating Obama than Santorum has. Like it or not, that's just the reality.
August 17, 2011 at 4:15 am
Athelstane – you're using the mantra from 2008 – "he can't win, he can't win". You'll have to come up with something better this time – you've been watching too much Fox News and CNN I guess. Ron Paul basically tied with Bachmann for first in the straw poll. Where did Santorum (Arlen Specter's boy) come in? In the latest national poll, Ron Paul is in 3rd, very close behind Romney and Perry. Among males, he is actually in first. The establishment, and that includes Republicans and Democrats, are scared to death of Ron Paul, because they know he can win. Why don't you start thinking for yourself, instead of letting the establishment think for you? Even if you support the evil Empire, a vote for Santorum is wasted because he can't win.
August 17, 2011 at 4:28 am
This was a shining star moment for Santorum. i plan in planting yard signs rather than flowers this year. I have McCotter's. Where can I get Santorum's?
August 17, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Win or not… he still has shown logical thinking in the face of over 9 million viewers; and that is win win.
August 17, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I won't consider voting for Santorum after Lisa Graas exposed his views on excusing torture:
http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/05/19/rick-santorum-i-do-not-believe-enhanced-interrogation-is-torture/
If it comes down to Obama vs. Santorum, I'm sitting the election out (again).
August 17, 2011 at 4:07 pm
is a huge supporter of the unjust(according to Catholic teaching) and illegal(according to the U.S. Constitution)wars
I know you Paulbots like to keep repeating this mantra over and over again, but repeating a thing over and over again doesn't make it true.
Also, it's amazing that it took all of two comments for someone to derail this thread with a non sequiter comment.
August 17, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Ron Paul basically tied with Bachmann for first in the straw poll.
Yes, a non-binding straw poll of 16,000 people in a small city in the 30th largest state in the country. Yes, his impressive showing in a manufactured event is certainly a sign that the nomination is within his grasp.
In the latest national poll, Ron Paul is in 3rd, very close behind Romney and Perry
Hmm, your grasp of numbers seems to be as faulty as your grasp of the constitution, unless you think being nearly 20 points behind the front-runner is fairly close. Paul has consistently polled in the 10 percent range. That number has not gone up or down over time. He will almost certainly get between 7-12 percent of the vote in all of the primaries. And he will wind up with as many delegates as I will.
Why don't you start thinking for yourself, instead of letting the establishment think for you?
I love comments like these. Here you have someone who mindlessly repeats the same cliches and arguments spouted by every other Paulbot, and yet he accuses others of not thinking for themselves. I'm sure geronimo will now respond with a rather lengthy and impassioned comment that addresses none of the fact presented, but instead will just accuse me of being a neocon or something.
Yawn.
August 17, 2011 at 4:32 pm
I'm not a Paulbot, and I don't know about the legality of the wars, but the morality of Iraq is highly questionable from a Catholic perspective.
August 17, 2011 at 4:39 pm
The morality of the wars is at least debatable, but hardly as much of a certainty as geronimo and others repeatedly suggest. The legality of the wars, however, is not up for question. I would suggest that our involvement in Libya is constitutionally dubious, but Congress approved of our actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. There's nothing in the Constitution to infer that our actions there were unconstitutional.
August 17, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Zummo – you are the one repeating mantras over and over again.
The war is unjust – any honest reading of the Catechism and the statements of the last 2 Popes and numerous members of the hierarchy will lead to that conclusion.
The war is illegal – The Constitution does not allow the President to declare war. Congress must declare war.
The fact is that Ron Paul almost won the straw poll. Your buddy Santorum came in so far behind that the guy in front of him dropped out of the race. You can spin that any way you like, but those are the facts.
I will not accuse you of being a neocon – you have accused yourself.
No doubt you will now respond with the same mindless arguments and name-calling that you usually use.
August 17, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Congress must declare war.
It did. Congress authorized actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Try a new talking point.
August 17, 2011 at 4:57 pm
They did not declare war. A war declaration was before them and they refused. Instead, they wimped out and let the President do whatever he wanted. This is not constitutional. If your buddy Santorum was so in favor of war, then he should have pushed for a war declaration instead of wimping out and letting the executive branch take over congressional power. Are you also going to argue that they declared war on Libya?
August 17, 2011 at 6:33 pm
@ Geronimo: I tried to answer your question about why not supporting Ron Paul over on the other post about Paul Ryan running, but, it didn't show up. I don't know why.
Save to say here that, at least for me, I am a conservative and not a libertarian. I believe that libertarianism is a short-brained way of looking at the world, and find most of it to be morally vacuous and dangerous to our national security.
If I can figure out how to post with more detail, I will, back in the other one.
As for Santorum. He got it right here for sure.
August 17, 2011 at 6:38 pm
@non-American Catholic: To say that those wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were highly questionable from a Catholic moral perspective is not accurate. They are not highly questionable. What is questionable are the facts surrounding these wars, the reasons for going into these wars, etc. These are reasons which are oft debated and mostly, I think, poorly understood – even by the vast majority of Americans.
When the context of these wars is correctly understood, the morally right objectives and prosecution of them also becomes clearly moral and defensive.
August 17, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Grrr. Sorry – I can't get that other post on why Ron Paul is all wrong for this country to show up over in the other…posting. I don't know why. Maybe it is too long?? Anyway, I listed 5 reasons, none of which make sense to shorten as that will only encourage needless debate. Maybe Matt and Pat have BLOCK on Ron Paul posts more than X lines long? Maybe I need to remove the word idiot? I don't know. oh well.
August 17, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Used to Post – I already "correctly understand the context of these wars" and they are unjust by any honest reading of Catholic teaching, not to mention the clear statements from the last 2 Popes and numerous members of the hierarchy. What more do you need?
I'm a Catholic first, not a libertarian, or a conservative, or an American, or any other ideology. I might be "short-brained", though, whatever you mean by that.
Concerning national security, the more the U.S. bullies its way around the world, the less security there is. And I'm not really interested in the security of a nation that murders its children before birth. That nation needs to be a little bit more insecure and stop spreading its errors throughout the world.
August 17, 2011 at 10:52 pm
See – I actually agree with you on some, but could not disagree more with you on most.
What I mean by "short-brained" is to espouse an ideology that is based on incomplete or ignored information.
An example of this might be believing that, because the use of the US military upsets some people and makes them hate us, they did not hate us already. To believe this requires a ignorance – willful or otherwise, of the history and motivations of other cultures and religions. It is a recipe for larger, more dangerous and even nuclear wars.
Not to beat this phrase to death, but another example of this might be ignoring the real and present threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States and our allies so that one can feel safely ensconced in the castle of righteousness. It is this ignorance or ignoring of the realities, the history, the threats, that typify the isolationist mindset of the libertarian and the RPaulists.
The Ron Paul view of the world does not allow for a strong America, and, it seems that you might agree with this because we would be "a bully". Or, maybe because abortion is legal here, US disengagement with the world and the concomitant weakening of her would be some kind of a just punishment. News flash: God will take care of that.
I don't want to see the United States any weaker than she already is. The US DOES still stand for good things. And the world with a weak America is a more dangerous one. And the danger starts here.
Does this nation need to be CONVERTED? You betcha. I pray for that and for an end to abortion every single night.
But a wish for an insecure country is, in fact, a short-brained idea. One that would invite more global instability not less, and a greater likelihood of massive destruction here and elsewhere. To get the RPaulist/isolationist/libertarian folks to understand the mechanisms that make this true would require more space than we have here.
Oh and legalize heroin? Another morally vacuous and short-brained idea.
August 17, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Used to Post –
They hate the U.S. because the U.S. military is in their country and the U.S. continues to interfere in their internal affairs. Get it? They don't hate you because you get to vote for Santorum and they can't. They don't hate you because you can get an abortion and they can't. They don't hate you because you can marry another man and they can't. They hate you because you are in their country killing people.
I believe you may be ignorant of some history. Why, if Saddam was such a threat to the U.S., as you believe, did the U.S. provide him with weapons of mass destruction throughout the 1980s? If someone wanted to kill me, I certainly wouldn't give him the gun.
And how exactly was Saddam a threat to the U.S.? He didn't have a navy, and he couldn't even fly an airplane over half of his own country. How in the world was he going to attack the United States? Get real.
By destroying Saddam, the U.S. has succeeded in turning Iraq into an Islamic state and destroyed the ancient Chaldean Catholic Church (which, by-the-way, had religious freedom under Saddam). When the bullets start flying, you never know what will happen. Nice result there – way to win the hearts and minds.
Ron Paul is certainly not an isolationist. He wants to trade and have diplomatic relations with all countries. You, on the other hand, want to bomb other sovereign countries, based on imagined threats to "national security". Strange how the U.S. is more isolated now than before – so who's the isolationist?
And Ron Paul has never said anything about heroin. He has stated that the federal drug laws should be repealed. Are you aware there were no federal drug laws before 1937? Was the drug problem worse then or now? The "war on drugs", like the "war on terror" has been a complete failure, costing billions of dollars and accomplishing nothing but empowering drug lords, taking away civil liberties, and turning the nation into a police state.
And by the way, I don't espouse any ideology – I am a Catholic, not an ideologue.