Author Topic: Rick Sanctorum (Read 8438 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **on:** May 13, 2011, 09:02:05 PM »

I was wondering what people's thoughts on him were. I know he's a Catholic, but I don't know much about his political views. The main reason I ask is that as of right now I'd be somewhat reluctant to vote for Donald Trump or Ron Paul. Trump I'm on the fence with, and while I like Ron Paul I cannot overlook the fact that he's for giving freedom to gαys and for legalizing weed. So, any thoughts on him? Thanks.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #1 on:** May 13, 2011, 09:07:36 PM »

He's Catholic (NO, but conservative) and very pro-life. Also very anti-gαy marriage, anti-euthanasia. Solid on all social issues. On other issues he's your standard-fare establishment Republican.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #2 on:** May 14, 2011, 10:17:31 AM »

Thanks for the info. I'll consider him getting my vote, so far he seems like a good candidate.

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 14, 2011, 12:40:20 PM »

SS, the former Senator Santorum is from my state, PA. His father and paternal grandparents were Italian immigrants. He is a conservative NO Catholic and their family attends Latin Mass. They have 7 children, 6 which are living. Their youngest daughter has Trisomy 18. Their youngest son was diagnosed in utero with severe health disorders and was born prematurely. He died shortly after birth. He was baptized Gabriel and they brought him home for the children to say hello to their brother before they buried him. Karen Santorum wrote a book about their experience.

As far as policies go, Rick Santorum takes a loud voice on social issues. He is about your average Republican politician I suspect. It's hard to trust these guys because, regardless of the letter after their name, they are often out for their own political gains.

Locally, there was some stink about the children's education a few years ago. PA has what is called a state funded "cyber" school. This is a home school program chartered out through the public school system. IOW, it is public school at home. Many families choose this option because it is free, classes are on-line with a teacher web cast, and yet they are at home with the parents. This is the option that the Santorum family has always used but when the family moved to Virginia, some people complained, an investigation was called, and they were charged about $70K by the school board. At that time they removed the children from the program and chose another homeschool program.

During his re-election campaign in 2006, he gave a speech where he took a lot of flack for being a "conspiracy" theorist, an Islamophobe, and a racist. He said that the real reason behind the attack on the Twin Towers was to bring the 12th Imam out of hiding, or something like that.

He ticked A LOT of women off during his re-election because he brought attention to women working outside the home and how detrimental that was to families. During a debate, when the working women attacked him, he had to back pedal a bit and claim that he wasn't really offended by working women, that his mom had worked as a nurse, and that a lot of his staff were women.

My take then is the same as now: Traditional Catholicism is not a ritual, it is a way of living and thinking and it is not compatible with politics. Eventually one will have to compromise something. He will get a lot of criticism and flack and he will lose.

Could you vote for him with a good conscience? Probably. Is he a better choice that the Donald? Definitely.

Darcy · « **Reply #4 on:** May 14, 2011, 12:44:40 PM »

Quote

The third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, conservative Rick Santorum (Pa.), plans to introduce so-called "ideological diversity" legislation that would cut federal funding for thousands of American colleges and universities if those institutions are found to be permitting professors, students and student organizations to openly criticize Israel, which Santorum considers to be an act of "anti-Semitism."

And as a loyal "conservative" republican, he is, of course and foremost, a Zionist.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #5 on:** May 14, 2011, 02:01:01 PM »

Legalizing weed, in my opinion, is a lot better than the feds criminalizing it. You can't be hooked on weed and it actually has anti cancer effects. The reason the feds want it illegal is to put people in prison, making another excuse to tax the people. In my opinion, it's harmless, compared to the "legal" drugs prescribed by the doctors, and people locked up for $30 worth of weed for 7 years doesn't seem to make sense to me.

As for "giving rights to gαys..." he never said he would give them anymore rights than we have.

He said the government should STAY OUT OF MARRIAGE, and it is up to the Churches, not to the state, to determine who is married. He wants the government ENTIRELY OUT OF MARRIAGE. PERIOD. This will stop the fighting. He doesn't want the gαys to impose their standards on us, and he doesn't want the government to impose their standards on us, and we still can maintain our position that they're not married (because they're not in the eyes of GOD.)

I don't get why people want to paint him as some anarchist. He thinks that the GOVERNMENT should stay the heck out of it!

Catholic Samurai · « **Reply #6 on:** May 14, 2011, 02:12:01 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Trump I'm on the fence with, and while I like Ron Paul I cannot overlook the fact that he's for giving freedom to gαys and for legalizing weed.

You mean to tell us you don't know weather or not mass human sacrifice is by far a greater evil than smoking a joint???

FWIW, the Indians who were smoking MJ for at least 600 years are still here. Those who sacrificed their people are not.

Darcy · « **Reply #7 on:** May 14, 2011, 02:52:05 PM »

I can certainly agree with cutting funding to many academic institutions for a variety of reasons but not a specific one for being critical of the 'religion' that is basically out to get us. And support of zionism should not be being made synonymous with 'patriotism' (patriotism as putting nation before God is another issue).
This is pure hypocrisy and favoritism to another nation that is giving us grief and interfering in OUR OWN religion. It is outspoken against us as a group and discriminatory against us and interfering with free speech besides.

:geezer:

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #8 on:** May 14, 2011, 03:51:00 PM »

Thanks, CathMomof7, that really helps. I haven't actually decided yet that I'm going to vote for him over Ron Paul, but I am considering it. Sanctorum is atleast anti-gαy, Paul is not.

parentsfortruth, I don't really get why we should legalize weed. Smoking it can cause damage to your body. Just look at a certain person here who smokes it, he cannot stop talking about it. Anyway, I agree with most of Ron Paul's views, i.e keeping the government out of marriage and other things, but his views on gαy marriage are wrong. He may not be for giving them more freedom than us, but he claims to be a Christian yet here he is wanting to allow them into the military. I'd vote for him over Obama any day, but as far as voting for him in the 2012 election, I don't know yet.

Darcy, where did you see that Sanctorum is a Zionist?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #9 on:** May 14, 2011, 03:53:02 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Samurai

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Trump I'm on the fence with, and while I like Ron Paul I cannot overlook the fact that he's for giving freedom to gαys and for legalizing weed.

You mean to tell us you don't know weather or not mass human sacrifice is by far a greater evil than smoking a joint???

FWIW, the Indians who were smoking MJ for at least 600 years are still here. Those who sacrificed their people are not.

I never said that mass human sacrifice wasn't more evil than smoking pot. The fact that Ron Paul wants to give freedom to gαys actually bothers me more than him wanting to legalize pot. If you took his stance on gαy marriage out of the equation, I'd most likely vote for him in a heartbeat.

LordPhan · « **Reply #10 on:** May 14, 2011, 04:01:03 PM »

Not only should marijuana be criminalized it should be made as strict as heroine possession. It is THE drug that gangs use to get children into sin.

Marijuana causes loss of rational thought, it causes one to lose control and has halluncinogenic effects. It also causes a loss in IQ. It leads people down a dark path, I know I was on the path of drugs many years ago.

It is a sin to promote it, and scandal to make someone think it is ok to use it. Scandal is a mortal sin, you get the double effect, you get the penalty of the sin you commited (Scandal) and the penalty of the sins you caused the other person to do.

This goes for the sodomites too, if they even so much as make it seem like sodomy is ok, when it is a gross sin and an abomination before God that leads to hell you're at the very least commiting indifference to sin, and probably scandal.

When it comes to voting, you are however allowed to vote for the lesser of evils I am told. This is not fact, it is from what I understand of it.

Lastly, try not to judge what is or is not a worse sin.... since all sins of a mortal nature lead to hell if not repented. As a religious(I think he is a Brother of the SSPX) said at a breakfast gathering to a group of us in debate once, that I really liked "The Devil dosn't care how you get to hell, as long as you arrive"

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #11 on:** May 14, 2011, 04:06:27 PM »

I agree with you on marijuana, LP. You get a thumbs-up.

Although, it's my understanding that voting for the lesser of the two evils is usually not a good decision. Such as in the case of McCain and Obama. Vote for what we got with Obama, or vote for a man who is war-crazy and and has a woman by his side trying to push the career woman movement. A lose-lose situation, really.

LordPhan · « **Reply #12 on:** May 14, 2011, 04:19:54 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

I agree with you on marijuana, LP. You get a thumbs-up.

Although, it's my understanding that voting for the lesser of the two evils is usually not a good decision. Such as in the case of McCain and Obama. Vote for what we got with Obama, or vote for a man who is war-crazy and and has a woman by his side trying to push the career woman movement. A lose-lose situation, really.

I made a point of stating that that wasn't fact, it is hotly debated from what I have seen. I voted for Prime Minister Steven Harper and his conservative party up here. His is the only pro-life party, and is in line with most things. But I could find fault such as his belief in pushing for freedom of religion which is a masonic belief. I know Mr. Harper is a Protestant which is alot better then the socialists and whatnot the other parties have. I could of not voted but I felt that supporting a conservative majority(Which we have not had in 20 years) was important to start pushing the people here in the right direction.

But once again, I don't know your politicians like you do, I would never presume to tell you who was better or less evil or even if it is better to not vote at all.

Simply put I am not a moral theologian and I do not know. I prefer absolute monarchy, then you either obey or not and there is not other decision :)

Darcy · « **Reply #13 on:** May 14, 2011, 06:36:38 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Thanks, CathMomof7, that really helps. I haven't actually decided yet that I'm going to vote for him over Ron Paul, but I am considering it. Sanctorum is atleast anti-gαy, Paul is not.

parentsfortruth, I don't really get why we should legalize weed. Smoking it can cause damage to your body. Just look at a certain person here who smokes it, he cannot stop talking about it. Anyway, I agree with most of Ron Paul's views, i.e keeping the government out of marriage and other things, but his views on gαy marriage are wrong. He may not be for giving them more freedom than us, but he claims to be a Christian yet here he is wanting to allow them into the military. I'd vote for him over Obama any day, but as far as voting for him in the 2012 election, I don't know yet.

Darcy, where did you see that Sanctorum is a Zionist?

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/against_free_speech_268.html

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #14 on:** May 15, 2011, 09:05:35 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Thanks, CathMomof7, that really helps. I haven't actually decided yet that I'm going to vote for him over Ron Paul, but I am considering it. Sanctorum is atleast anti-gαy, Paul is not.

parentsfortruth, I don't really get why we should legalize weed. Smoking it can cause damage to your body. Just look at a certain person here who smokes it, he cannot stop talking about it. Anyway, I agree with most of Ron Paul's views, i.e keeping the government out of marriage and other things, but his views on gαy marriage are wrong. He may not be for giving them more freedom than us, but he claims to be a Christian yet here he is wanting to allow them into the military. I'd vote for him over Obama any day, but as far as voting for him in the 2012 election, I don't know yet.

Darcy, where did you see that Sanctorum is a Zionist?

If we're going to outlaw a naturally growing plant, then we should also outlaw prescription drugs. Do you have any idea who runs all these pharmaceutical companies? nαzιS. So, of course, they want to outlaw anything that can be made easily by anyone else. MANY "legal drugs" have the SAME calming effect (but with HORRIBLE SIDE EFFECTS) as weed.

I don't use it. I've never used it. I never will use it, but to have the government stepping on people's ability to grow it and smoke it or eat it if they want to, is really just a control mechanism for the government so that BIG PHARMA can push their poisons with no competition.

There's a lot of research, both pro and con, for the weed. I happen to think that we'd save tons of money legalizing it, rather than locking someone up for years over it. Keeping it illegal is the reason it's pushed on children. If it was growing in many people's backyards, and they were using it, there wouldn't be as much of a desire to DO BAD by using it. Many people would try it once (or maybe not), and not use it again. The only reason it's desired is because it's illegal. Make it legal, you won't have that problem, you won't have full prisons full of people that didn't do anything violent and you could use the resources we have to prosecute and LOCK UP PEDOPHILES AND MURDERERS AND RAPISTS FOR GOOD and they won't get off on "good behavior" because NON VIOLENT people like people that use weed, wouldn't be in those prisons taking up unnecessary space.

We have the biggest prison population in the world. Wonder why? MONEY.

As far as gαys go, he doesn't believe in hate crimes. If you allowed gαys to go in the military, and you took away hate crimes, those gαys would get the message that they're not wanted there, and you would see a vast fleeing of gαys from the military. So if you look at it logically, it's not a bad thing he's a proponent of.

Also, as far as gαys being "married," he doesn't think it's the government's JOB to define marriage. That's the job of the Church. Sorry, but I agree. The government has no business issuing "marriage licenses" because why is it any of their business in the first place? I totally understand the position.

Sure, it's not a Catholic position, but tell me, is PERPETUAL UNJUST WAR a Catholic position? Is USURY a Catholic position?

I find these things FAR MORE REPREHENSIBLE than outlawing a plant, or letting gαys get their butts beat in when hate crimes are disappeared, or keeping the government out of marriage and letting society deal with that problem by VOTING WITH THEIR FEET and leaving "churches" that allow such things. Remember, he doesn't want anyone IMPOSING THEIR STANDARDS on us, and in a "free society," that makes sense.

Until we get a Catholic Monarch, we'll never get a decent leader. I think Ron Paul is the best choice in the interim with the choices we've been given thus far.