Aloysius Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 he's prolife but willing to support pro-choice candidates when it suits him. doesn't mean he doesn't actually do pro-life activity. Obama's economic numbers follow the trajectory we were on at the end of the Bush years. It was on a downward spiral, and it kept going under Obama because his economic policies were nearly identical to Bush's economic policies in response to the crisis. we Bushites (I was one back in the day) back then were very big on telling people how Bush inherited his economic woes from Clinton, but now we can't see how Obama inherited his from Bush? really? when the first TARP was put in place by Bush, and Obama's increase of the Federal debt simply followed along the path Bush had set in motion? no, Bush, Obama, and Romney all would've done the exact same thing--listen to the Wallstreet tycoons who told them there would be certain disaster if they didn't bail them out and skyrocket the debt Keynsian style. Paul said he put out a newsletter during that time, he didn't say he wrote it. he was focused on being a doctor at the time, I believe he wasn't even in office while those particular newsletters were circulating. it was the early '90s version of today's superpac type of activity, and it was being run by racist anti-semites. when paul talks about the newsletters back then, he's saying they contained information about monetary policy and gold standards and all that stuff, because he had trusted those people to simply stick to his talking points; nowhere is Paul on record saying anything about race wars or any of that garbage, if he had believed it back then he would've talked about it at some point, somewhere, in something other than a newsletter that he did not directly oversee. you won't find a single instance where Ron Paul ever sounds remotely similar to the rhetoric displayed in those newsletters, not in any campaign speech over 30 years, not in any speech in congress over 30 years, not in any interview, nowhere. Just in a newsletter he had entrusted to the wrong crowd of his followers (and yes, some unsavory people follow him, because a truly free society will end up free also for nut-jobs as well so certain nut-jobs would like to see him curb federal power... but so should we, because we believe in a free society despite its pros and cons.) in addition to the point about no instances of Paul directly saying anything remotely similar, why are the only statements to be found in newsletters from 20 years ago that were put out over a period of a few years? (seems like they're all between '90-'93ish)... isn't it possible that the newsletter was, at that time, being run by particular individuals holding those views? why are there no more recent newsletters with those views? you still have Ron Paul, the man you accuse of being the source of those views... isn't it likely that those responsible for those views are no longer connected to Paul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 note: I have looked through and haven't found racist or anti-semitic (et cetera) stuff outside of the time period I spoke of; outside of that time period you can find some stuff that sounds a little conspiratorial, but honestly it's not all that out there. everyone knows money rules the political machine, and that there are elites involved in the parties who can throw their weight around pretty well, so I really don't see much (again outside of that time when some stuff about race and all that was spattered through it) of the rhetoric in them as really being a problem at all. aside from a few anti-semitic and racist things in a very confined period of time (clearly indicating the likelihood that a particular person or group of persons other than Paul were the source of them), the newsletters really don't have anything in them that is that bad (at least the ones I have looked through at your site, I have not read them all, so please feel free to point something out later than or earlier than the rough time period I suggested) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovedSinner Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Dominicansoul, Please read this article on Rick Santorum from Tennessee Right to Life to answer your question. It is a great story. [url="http://www.tnrtl.org/news_center/archives/06052003-02.htm"]http://www.tnrtl.org/news_center/archives/06052003-02.htm[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 that's neat, but just the next year he backed pro-abort Arlen Specter... why did he do this?? http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Santorum-Haunted-Pro-abortion-Specter/2011/12/31/id/422684 *sigh* anyways, didn't mean to de-rail the thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovedSinner Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I read that he got a promise from Specter (who was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time) that he would not block any of Bush's nominees from having a hearing and getting a full vote and also I think he did have a record of voting for all (or nearly all) of Bush's nominees, even though Specter was officially pro-choice. In hindsight it was a mistake, but one could come up with hundreds of good things Santorum did for the pro-life movement, and one should not expect perfection for anyone, especially in politics. I think his decision was trying to be pragmatic and get someone electable who would vote for pro-life judges. This was a mistake of trying to apply pro-life principles, not a clear-cut decision (in my humble opinion). Oh, and by the way, the pro-life challenger to Specter, Pat Toomey, did get elected to Congress in 2010, and one of his first votes was to let homosexuals serve openly in the military. So maybe Santorum should have not endorsed anyone. He literally had no really good choices to make then. Santorum is famously pro-family, to the point that one cannot search for "Santorum" on Google without getting results to a nasty homosexual...um...thing, due to a "Google Bomb" campaign against Santorum by the famous and spiteful homosexual Dan Savage (who also started the "Life gets better" propaganda campaign). Santorum has exactly the kind of enemies that gives me comfort. So I think one needs to view this decision in the context of his entire career. Santorum I think is clearly the strongest pro-life candidate for President, and the strongest proponent of traditional marriage. Would the Sisters of Life give an award to someone who did not do many good things for the issue of life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 If you are looking for a "perfect" candidate, I'm afraid you will be waiting until the Second Coming. [url="http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2011/09/there-is-no-perfect-candidate.html"]http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2011/09/there-is-no-perfect-candidate.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 [quote name='LovedSinner' timestamp='1325812257' post='2363693']one of his first votes was to let homosexuals serve openly in the military. So maybe Santorum should have not endorsed anyone. He literally had no really good choices to make then. [/quote] You say this as though letting gays in the military is as morally offensive as abortion. How is allowing homosexuals to serve in the military any different from allowing them to drive Fedex trucks or teach high school or play the oboe for a living? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) exactly. there is nothing in Catholic morality that requires people to oppose letting homosexuals openly serve in the military. in fact, one could argue that it is more in line with CCC 2358 "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." that's not to say that there isn't a good argument against homosexuals being open in the military, however that argument does not stem from Catholic principles. Catholic principles do not say one way or another whether it is ok for them to be open in the military, the only thing Catholicism directly opposes is same sex marriage. so yeah, nothing wrong with Toomey on that front. Abortion is actually an issue of Catholic morality that is non-negotiable (unlike openness of homosexuals in the military which is not an issue of Catholic morality), and Santorum chose political expediency over supporting a candidate who could have joined him as a pro-lifer. Specter was a powerful political ally for Santorum on many issues; having a veteran senator as an ally was better for him than a rookie senator ally, so he sold out the pro-lifers who were trying to replace Specter. again, that doesn't mean he's not legitimately pro-life. he is indeed, I won't begrudge him his pro-life credentials. but I will acknowledge that he is sometimes willing to make concessions to pro-choicers for political expediency. to bring it back to the thread topic, my problem with Santorum is foreign policy. he's willing to continue escalating into war with Iran. Edited January 6, 2012 by Aloysius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParadiseFound Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 [quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1325739931' post='2363175'] Bold talk for a one-eyed fat man [/quote] Are you sure you're not thinking of Gordon Brown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovedSinner Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I cannot believe what I am reading here! Letting homosexuals serve openly in the military is not "unjust discrimination!" Good grief!! No one has a human right to serve in the military. To "serve" is not a right. This is about changing the culture, and making homosexuality the norm. The day after Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed, the day after, Vice President Joe Biden gave a gloating speech about how this step will lead eventually to gay marriage. It is about the battle for the public sphere. Now we have pictures just a week or two ago, that were heavily covered by the media, of the first official kiss by a returning Navy ship which was between two lesbians. Homosexuals are allowed to work for a living. They should not be allowed to work in positions like teaching children, or positions which imply endorsement by the public (like this), or other top government positions. Even St. Thomas More resigned his position when he felt being Chancellor to King Henry VIII was a public scandal. Working for the king implied a certain amount of endorsement, and the king was in schism. If even St. Thomas could create a scandal, how much more of a scandal does these active homosexuals create? Do not tell me how St. Thomas would endorse and bless these homosexuals, and how these things are different. They are indeed different, as the modern day scandal created by this is far worse. How pro-life will it be for Iran to launch a nuclear warhead and kill a million people in an instant? And by the way, is this a non-negotiable issue? Just because the Catechism does not mention this specific issue, does not mean that it is right to support it. The Catechism is a broad document, and does not mention specific application of these issues. I have a feeling no one will listen to me. Even phatmass is in favor of the pink mafia. Still looking for a conservative Catholic forum. Where is the modern day St. Athanasius? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 [quote name='LovedSinner' timestamp='1325812257' post='2363693'] I read that he got a promise from Specter (who was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time) that he would not block any of Bush's nominees from having a hearing and getting a full vote and also I think he did have a record of voting for all (or nearly all) of Bush's nominees, even though Specter was officially pro-choice. In hindsight it was a mistake, but one could come up with hundreds of good things Santorum did for the pro-life movement, and one should not expect perfection for anyone, especially in politics. I think his decision was trying to be pragmatic and get someone electable who would vote for pro-life judges. This was a mistake of trying to apply pro-life principles, not a clear-cut decision (in my humble opinion). Oh, and by the way, the pro-life challenger to Specter, Pat Toomey, did get elected to Congress in 2010, and one of his first votes was to let homosexuals serve openly in the military. So maybe Santorum should have not endorsed anyone. He literally had no really good choices to make then.[/QUOTE] It always astonishes me how contingent the support lent to the troops by the religious right is. It's wonderful of them to go fight for American interests overseas. Unless, that is, they have any sort of propensity to find attractiveness in individuals with the same set of genitals. At that point the devotion turns to an attitude of 'floopy those homos. (for many of the more virulently anti-homosexual religious, this is also an earnest if unacknowledged wish)' This fickleness is truly disgusting and it really is sad that some individuals are so pathologically obsessed with homosexuality that it will lead them to spurn even those who go overseas to risk life and limb for the nation. [QUOTE]Santorum is famously pro-family, to the point that one cannot search for "Santorum" on Google without getting results to a nasty homosexual...um...thing, due to a "Google Bomb" campaign against Santorum by the famous and spiteful homosexual Dan Savage (who also started the "Life gets better" propaganda campaign). Santorum has exactly the kind of enemies that gives me comfort.[/QUOTE] That neologism is wonderfully apt. Santorum pontificates and moralizes but when he got booted from office he was sure to hand out political favors so he could get some sweet lobbying and consulting positions. He sold political favors for post-political monetary compensation. Making him quite the political whore. Let's not even get into his attempts to cover up for his friend Sen. Ensign when he got caught cheating on his wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 [quote name='LovedSinner' timestamp='1325812257' post='2363693'] I read that he got a promise from Specter (who was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time) that he would not block any of Bush's nominees from having a hearing and getting a full vote and also I think he did have a record of voting for all (or nearly all) of Bush's nominees, even though Specter was officially pro-choice. In hindsight it was a mistake, but one could come up with hundreds of good things Santorum did for the pro-life movement, and one should not expect perfection for anyone, especially in politics. I think his decision was trying to be pragmatic and get someone electable who would vote for pro-life judges. This was a mistake of trying to apply pro-life principles, not a clear-cut decision (in my humble opinion). Oh, and by the way, the pro-life challenger to Specter, Pat Toomey, did get elected to Congress in 2010, and one of his first votes was to let homosexuals serve openly in the military. So maybe Santorum should have not endorsed anyone. He literally had no really good choices to make then.[/QUOTE] It always astonishes me how contingent the support lent to the troops by the religious right is. It's wonderful of them to go fight for American interests overseas. Unless, that is, they have any sort of propensity to find attractiveness in individuals with the same set of genitals. At that point the devotion turns to an attitude of 'floopy those homos. (for many of the more virulently anti-homosexual religious, this is also an earnest if unacknowledged wish)' This fickleness is truly disgusting and it really is sad that some individuals are so pathologically obsessed with homosexuality that it will lead them to spurn even those who go overseas to risk life and limb for the nation. [QUOTE]Santorum is famously pro-family, to the point that one cannot search for "Santorum" on Google without getting results to a nasty homosexual...um...thing, due to a "Google Bomb" campaign against Santorum by the famous and spiteful homosexual Dan Savage (who also started the "Life gets better" propaganda campaign). Santorum has exactly the kind of enemies that gives me comfort.[/QUOTE] That neologism is wonderfully apt. Santorum pontificates and moralizes but when he got booted from office he was sure to hand out political favors so he could get some sweet lobbying and consulting positions. He sold political favors for post-political monetary compensation. Making him quite the political whore. Let's not even get into his attempts to cover up for his friend Sen. Ensign when he got caught cheating on his wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 [quote name='LovedSinner' timestamp='1325878432' post='2364025'] I cannot believe what I am reading here! Letting homosexuals serve openly in the military is not "unjust discrimination!" Good grief!! No one has a human right to serve in the military. To "serve" is not a right.[/quote] Contrary to what some early 20th century government propaganda would have you believe, serving in the military is not cause for canonization. It's a job. Is it a dangerous job? A job that, in some capacities, can be noble? Sure. But it's only a job. It's a very bizarre (and frightening) notion that a man becomes holier solely by virtue of having a rank before his surname. [quote] It is about the battle for the public sphere. Now we have pictures just a week or two ago, that were heavily covered by the media, of the first official kiss by a returning Navy ship which was between two lesbians. Homosexuals are allowed to work for a living. They should not be allowed to work in positions like teaching children, or positions which imply endorsement by the public (like this), or other top government positions. [/quote] A. Could I requisition a copy of the list of approved careers for gays? I recall that florist, cosmetologist, and devil worshipper are among them, but I can't remember for sure. B. What positions are other sinners allowed to hold? For instance, I know a guy who is an adulterer. He's an accountant. Is this a suitable position, or do I need to tell him to start looking for different work? Thanks in advance for these lists. [quote] How pro-life will it be for Iran to launch a nuclear warhead and kill a million people in an instant? And by the way, is this a non-negotiable issue? Just because the Catechism does not mention this specific issue, does not mean that it is right to support it. The Catechism is a broad document, and does not mention specific application of these issues.[/quote] [img]http://sfw.chanarchive.org/content/14_x/7912119/1307920724378.jpg[/img] [quote] I have a feeling no one will listen to me. Even phatmass is in favor of the pink mafia. Still looking for a conservative Catholic forum. Where is the modern day St. Athanasius? [/quote] For the forum you're looking for, try here: firstshiitefundamentalistbiblebelievingcatholicchurch.kjv.com/forum.php . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovedSinner Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]For the forum you're looking for, try here: firstshiitefundamentalistbiblebelievingcatholicchurch.kjv.com/forum.php[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]How outrageous!![/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]You should be banned for this[/font][/color] USAirwaysIHS!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 [quote name='LovedSinner' timestamp='1325879853' post='2364039'] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]For the forum you're looking for, try here: firstshiitefundamentalistbiblebelievingcatholicchurch.kjv.com/forum.php[/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]How outrageous!![/font][/color] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]You should be banned for this[/font][/color] USAirwaysIHS!! [/quote] What the hell are you babbling about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now