|
Post by wheels on Mar 15, 2012 10:50:35 GMT -5
Santorum is an unabashed Roman Catholic. Anti-Contraception has been a very large and hard fought canon of the Catholic church. Only the Muslim religion rivals the church-state historical alliances of the Roman Catholic church. John F. Kennedy at least declared his allegiance to the concept of separation of church and state, which is sorely lacking in Santorum's published views and excited utterances. A vote for Santorum is a vote to incorporate undue influence by the Pope in American politics. talk about conspiracy theories! you keep going back to contraceptives but you've already lost that argument. santorum has clearly stated that the federal government should not ban contraceptives. i'll ask again, should only atheists be allowed to hold public office?
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Mar 15, 2012 10:51:06 GMT -5
Santorum position on Capital Punishment Santorum has not broached the subject publicly for six years and counting. However, the last time he spoke about capital punishment, we found Santorum uncharacteristically divided on the issue. 'I felt very troubled about cases where someone may have been convicted wrongly. DNA evidence definitely should be used when possible. I agree with the pope that in the civilized world ... the application of the death penalty should be limited. I would definitely agree with that. I would certainly suggest there probably should be some further limits on what we use it for.' March 22, 2005, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 2012.republican-candidates.org/Santorum/Capital-Punishment.php Ooh...seems a little feeble for the typical GOP base voter.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Mar 15, 2012 10:54:48 GMT -5
Santorum position on Capital Punishment Santorum has not broached the subject publicly for six years and counting. However, the last time he spoke about capital punishment, we found Santorum uncharacteristically divided on the issue. 'I felt very troubled about cases where someone may have been convicted wrongly. DNA evidence definitely should be used when possible. I agree with the pope that in the civilized world ... the application of the death penalty should be limited. I would definitely agree with that. I would certainly suggest there probably should be some further limits on what we use it for.' March 22, 2005, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 2012.republican-candidates.org/Santorum/Capital-Punishment.php Ooh...seems a little feeble for the typical GOP base voter. Yes, feeble. But nothing appears to matter more than proclaiming Christian faith.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Mar 15, 2012 11:04:53 GMT -5
Santorum is an unabashed Roman Catholic. Anti-Contraception has been a very large and hard fought canon of the Catholic church. Only the Muslim religion rivals the church-state historical alliances of the Roman Catholic church. John F. Kennedy at least declared his allegiance to the concept of separation of church and state, which is sorely lacking in Santorum's published views and excited utterances. A vote for Santorum is a vote to incorporate undue influence by the Pope in American politics. talk about conspiracy theories! you keep going back to contraceptives but you've already lost that argument. santorum has clearly stated that the federal government should not ban contraceptives. i'll ask again, should only atheists be allowed to hold public office? Rick Santorum: www.ontheissues.org/senate/rick_santorum.htm Plan B morning-after pill is abortion, and dangerous. (Sep 2006) But let's allow the states to abuse women by banning any form of birth control. Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/rick-santorum-birth-control-sodomy_n_1181291.htmlRick Santorum's money man (well, the Santorum Super-PAC's money man) sent liberal women to their fainting couches during an appearance on MSNBC. Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum's big mega-donor kicked up a controversy over the issue of contraception today when he urged a return to the good old days when gals had a simple solution for it: aspirin between the knees. We're not kidding. Wealthy entreprenuer Foster Freiss, who's backed Santorum's Super-PAC, made the statements to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell today, after being asked if his candidate has expressed some extremist views on contraception. He appeared to express wonder that women even have to worry about the issue of paying for contraception these days, Politico reports. 'On this contraceptive thing, my Gosh it's such [sic] inexpensive,' he added. 'You know, back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn't that costly. freewillsf.blogspot.com/2012/02/taking-offence-does-rick-santorum-want.html
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Mar 15, 2012 20:42:01 GMT -5
It was the result of a sectional rivalry. It was the result of a compromise, without which, the slave states would not have signed. It put off a decision until later, while bringing prosperity and liberty more thoroughly to the nation as a whole. George Washington, who himself inherited slaves, was opposed to slavery. Apparently, his slaves were slaves in name only. However, he toiled long and hard thinking of ways to integrate them into society. Today, many of them have sold themselves back into slavery of a different kind. Even if this is true, so what? Don't characterize it as men wanting to hold women down. The Founding Fathers explicitly excluded women from the franchise, which is unconscionable in today's world. Their judgment is not absolute for all time as you suggest. They included those who owned land for the very reason that those who are paying the taxes should be the ones who decide how that money should be spent. They understood very greatly just how easy it is to spend other peoples' money and the danger of that. It's coming home to roost today. would allow it to evolve through legislative, judicial processes including a detailed amendment process. BZZZZZZT! Wrong answer. They allowed only for legislative changes, not judicial. The SCOTUS is only supposed to rule on the letter of the law, not change the law, in spite of what FDR thought (and did) by packing the court to ram through is unconstitutional programs. Did changes need to be made? Yes. But they should be made legally. By ignoring the law, society is taught that lawlessness is A-OK, and we wonder why there is so much crime.
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Mar 16, 2012 8:57:31 GMT -5
It was the result of a compromise, without which, the slave states would not have signed. It put off a decision until later, while bringing prosperity and liberty more thoroughly to the nation as a whole. Unless you were, you know, a slave, a woman or a non-property-holding man. Not so much liberty and prosperity for them. So let's get this straight: You consider yourself a slave because you have to pay a percentage of your income in taxes. But GW's slaves - who could not vote, own property, or even physically move about without permission from their OWNER were only "slaves in name". You will go to any extreme - even to the extreme of marginalizing chattel slavery in order to make yourself look like a victim. Unreal. Wow, it must have been "hard work" thinking and pondering about all that - while his slaves were actually working in the fields and being bought and sold like animals. It also must have been "hard work" when he decided to send assistance to the French when they put down a slave revolt in Haiti. And signing the Fugitive Slave act? Wow, his hand must have been sore for days. If the Founding Fathers (men) didn't want to hold women down, they would have given them the same rights and privileges as men. So you think that we should go back to a system in which only people who own land should be able to vote? The principle of judicial review goes back to the Marshall court. If you have a problem with that, then you have 200+ years of jurisprudential tradition to overcome. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Mar 16, 2012 9:26:45 GMT -5
Judicial review was created with the ratification of the US Constitution. Rutledge, John South 1st justice 1791 John Jay First Chief Justice 1795 Today, we have 9 justices all of which claim to be Roman Catholic for the first time ever. Most if not all of the first colonists came here to escape religious intolerance mostly by the Catholic church, then proceeded to institute persecution of dissidents. Not until Roger Williams' establishment of Rhode Island did true religious freedom become firmly established here.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Mar 16, 2012 12:25:22 GMT -5
talk about conspiracy theories! you keep going back to contraceptives but you've already lost that argument. santorum has clearly stated that the federal government should not ban contraceptives. i'll ask again, should only atheists be allowed to hold public office? Rick Santorum: www.ontheissues.org/senate/rick_santorum.htm Plan B morning-after pill is abortion, and dangerous. (Sep 2006) But let's allow the states to abuse women by banning any form of birth control. Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/rick-santorum-birth-control-sodomy_n_1181291.htmlRick Santorum's money man (well, the Santorum Super-PAC's money man) sent liberal women to their fainting couches during an appearance on MSNBC. Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum's big mega-donor kicked up a controversy over the issue of contraception today when he urged a return to the good old days when gals had a simple solution for it: aspirin between the knees. We're not kidding. Wealthy entreprenuer Foster Freiss, who's backed Santorum's Super-PAC, made the statements to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell today, after being asked if his candidate has expressed some extremist views on contraception. He appeared to express wonder that women even have to worry about the issue of paying for contraception these days, Politico reports. 'On this contraceptive thing, my Gosh it's such [sic] inexpensive,' he added. 'You know, back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn't that costly. freewillsf.blogspot.com/2012/02/taking-offence-does-rick-santorum-want.htmlstill no answer to my question? should only atheists be allowed to hold public office?
|
|
|
Post by duke on Mar 18, 2012 23:14:02 GMT -5
wheels: Sounds like a religious test where a religious test is prohibited.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Mar 19, 2012 0:26:37 GMT -5
When the choice is to sign the Constitution and permit slavery to exist, or not sign it and it will exist with no way to cut it off in the future, the best option is not "none of the above".
Those were the two choices, whether you like it or not. This is the real world, not the mamby-pamby land in which you live.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Mar 19, 2012 10:07:33 GMT -5
Actually there was a way to abolish slavery, for it happened. You really do need to brush up on your history before making such absurd statements. Slavery has not existed for will over 100 years. The top post was about a current oath of office that includes support for the current constitution. If the "Senator" did not want to support the constitution, he should not have run for office knowing what the conditions of that office required. Rather than being honest, the questioning Senator had lied about his intentions were, then after acquiring the entrusted privileges, proceeded to defraud those that elected him. Perhaps you can find justification for those lies in your Bible. Mine states that one of more sins were committed.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Mar 19, 2012 12:20:58 GMT -5
wheels: Sounds like a religious test where a religious test is prohibited. i'm not asking what the law states. i'm asking for your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Mar 19, 2012 13:19:10 GMT -5
My opinion is that the law is to be followed.
|
|
|
Post by elgusano on Mar 19, 2012 15:04:36 GMT -5
Actually there was a way to abolish slavery, for it happened. And it happened because... drum roll... They signed the US Constitution at the time and worked on it from there. You really do need to brush up on your history before making such absurd statements. You really do need to brush up on your English before trying to comment on it. Slavery has not existed for will over 100 years Slavery is still a thriving industry throughout the world in name, and still a thriving industry in act in the USA. The top post was about a current oath of office that includes support for the current constitution. And my response was about the hypocrisy of left wing whackos who say it's OK when one person does it, but has conniptions when the person they don't like does it. If the "Senator" did not want to support the constitution, he should not have run for office knowing what the conditions of that office required. Rather than being honest, the questioning Senator had lied about his intentions were, then after acquiring the entrusted privileges, proceeded to defraud those that elected him. If he did not want to support the Constitution, he should not have taken an oath to do so. He could run for office on an "ignore the Constitution" platform just as Gore, Kerry, and Obama did. (FDR was a bigger violator, but not when he ran; W was pretty bad about ignoring it, but didn't run on the platform.) Perhaps you can find justification for those lies in your Bible. Mine states that one of more sins were committed. Which lies are you speaking of?
|
|
|
Post by vimeiro on Mar 26, 2012 20:15:50 GMT -5
Looks like the curtain is coming down for Newt: "Newt Gingrich has lost his last embedded print reporters, reporters on the trail confirm. The last two print reporters covering Gingrich full-time on the trail -- from POLITICO and the Atlanta Journal Constitution -- pulled out on Friday. The Associated Press pulled its embed after Tuesday's Illinois primary." www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/03/newt-gingrich-loses-his-print-reporters-118712.html
|
|