Rick Santorum Takes Mo, Mn, And Co!

[BG45]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1329016605' post='2385711']
That isnt how rhymes work, im sending you back to remedial kindergarden
[/quote]

Totally not on topic, but my roommate last year failed first grade and was sent back to repeat it. Next month he defends his dissertation for his PhD.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1329016605' post='2385711']
That isnt how rhymes work, im sending you back to remedial kindergarden
[/quote]
Is it like
Don't
Order
No

Sausages
At
Underwater
Lunchcounters

?

[Guest Pharmer]

If health care is a basic human right, there has to be a slave class of health care workers to support this "right". There has to be the forcible removal of resources people to support this "right". Health care is not free. Pretending that it is free, and a human right, requires slavery and stealing.
The difficulty is that people seem to want to coerce charity. This will leave no room for real charity once the government fully institutionalizes the coercion.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Pharmer' timestamp='1329057449' post='2385894']
If health care is a basic human right, there has to be a slave class of health care workers to support this "right". There has to be the forcible removal of resources people to support this "right". Health care is not free. Pretending that it is free, and a human right, requires slavery and stealing.
The difficulty is that people seem to want to coerce charity. This will leave no room for real charity once the government fully institutionalizes the coercion.
[/quote]

wrong, since my father(we are in canada) got stomach cancer, and later a brain tumour, we have seen astounding charity from our community and church. People paying for my mums groceries, organizing fundraisers, donating money for us now that my dad cant work anymore.

they have been a god send to us. But it is also worth noting, that if it wasnt for the healthcare system in canada, either my dad would be dead, or i would be saddled with crippling 6 figure debt for his medical bills.
Having his entire stomach and part of esophagus removed, going back for more surgery immediately after because he was bleeding internally and septic, home care coming regularily, our doctor being an angel and making regular house calls, countless other tests, then having brain surgery, physical therapy to regain use of his left side after the tumour did damage there and starting chemo and radiation in the next few weeks... i dont even want to know what the past year of keeping my father alive would have cost in the states, but i do know we would not have been able to afford the first part of it.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1329012339' post='2385655']
Gee, if only there was a third option who was pro life AND against torture[/quote]

Ironically, that describes John McCain in 2008.

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1329012339' post='2385655']
"Don Saul"
[/quote]

Sounds like someone in the Israeli mafia....

Edited February 12, 2012 by Norseman82

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1329069055' post='2385941']
Ironically, that describes John McCain in 2008.
[/quote]

excepting his choice in running mate, even back in 2008 i would have been very tempted to vote for him over obama or hillary, and i was much more liberal back then than now.
on the other hand, since he lost the election he has totally flipped on all the issues and is just another GOP shill... so not sure if it would have been a good thing.

[quote]
Sounds like someone in the Israeli mafia....
[/quote]

or like that guy in Oceans 11

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1328934316' post='2385288']
Actually, sir, I agree with you. I think unnecessary torture is worse than gay marriage. I don't know when torture might be necessary, but I've seen enough episodes of 24 to not definitely conclude that such a thing is not possible. Still, that's beside the point.
[/quote]

I have been told that this statement does not align with the Church's teaching. While I have yet to be convinced, I will say that I don't know for sure where gay marriage stands in its 'badness' against torture. I will say that I believe the Church is right. If the statement above does not represent the Church's position, then I recant it. If I have time in the near future to research it a little myself, I will.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Pharmer' timestamp='1329057449' post='2385894']
If health care is a basic human right, there has to be a slave class of health care workers to support this "right". There has to be the forcible removal of resources people to support this "right". Health care is not free. Pretending that it is free, and a human right, requires slavery and stealing.
The difficulty is that people seem to want to coerce charity. This will leave no room for real charity once the government fully institutionalizes the coercion.
[/quote]
Not really. I have a right to carry a weapon, as well. I have a right to property. This does not create any obligation for others to provide me these things. This is yet another bad argument we've allowed people to use. I suggest cutting the argument off by agreeing that it is a right, but that there is no right to force people to provide healthcare.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1329164645' post='2386490']
Not really. I have a right to carry a weapon, as well. I have a right to property. This does not create any obligation for others to provide me these things. This is yet another bad argument we've allowed people to use. I suggest cutting the argument off by agreeing that it is a right, but that there is no right to force people to provide healthcare.
[/quote]Good point, and excellent example. Let me provide an obviously superfluous example.
If the Catholic Church was preaching that it believed that providing FREE health was an obligation because access to health care is a right, then why aren't all their hospitals run like a socialist model and is FREE for everyone? How about Catholic schools? Isn't education a basic right?

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328905471' post='2385090']
For all intents and purposes, the United States have a two-party system. This means that not only are we voting for the better candidate, we're also voting AGAINST the poorer candidate.

But remember, you are culpable for inaction as much as you are culpable for action. Even if you choose a good act, sometimes you can be culpable for permitting a greater evil to occur rather than trying to prevent it.
[/quote]

I just wanted to say that I agree with this comment.

"All that is needed for evil to succeed is that decent human beings do nothing." -Edmund Burke

If there can be only one of two outcomes...
If one outcome is less evil than another...
If your not having a voice allows the greater evil to come to pass...
Then you vote for the less evil, not to stand for the less evil, but to stand against the greater.
You either stand for something or bow down to everything.

[qfnol31]

From a longtime Santorum supporter (i.e. for a bit during this election series):

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=26736

[quote name='Tom Peters'][color=#585757][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]On the practical and immediate level, having followed the Republican primary since the very beginning, I believe [/size][/font][/color][b]Rick Santorum[/b][color=#585757][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3] is the best candidate to beat Barack Obama in November. Others may disagree and I respect that. But I ask them to unite with me in supporting [/size][/font][/color][i]whoever the Republican nominee[/i][color=#585757][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3] is in the more important struggle to defeat Obama.[/quote][/size][/font][/color]

[Socrates]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328905471' post='2385090']
If you view voting as voting FOR a specific person, then you're right that voting for a particular person carries the responsibility of voting for that person. In a multi-party system, voting for your candidate might be the best move.

For all intents and purposes, the United States have a two-party system. This means that not only are we voting for the better candidate, we're also voting AGAINST the poorer candidate (this is why dUSt can make his comments above). In such a society where only two candidates are viable, not voting or voting for a third candidate is implicitly accepting whichever candidate wins. If the better of the two wins, then you are culpable for his win insofar as you allowed him to win. If the worse candidate wins, then you are culpable for his win because you did not do everything you could to prevent it. This second outcome carries a greater culpability with it because you allowed it to happen. Again, this assumes that there is both voting FOR a candidate and voting AGAINST a candidate. The USCCB implies that such a vote is possible.

Now there are various reasons not to vote or to vote third party, and many of these are legitimate. However, for them to be the appropriate choice, the goods sought must outweigh the evil permitted (as an aside, this isn't Proportionalism because we're discussing remote material cooperation with evil rather than formal cooperation with evil). The change to American society and lasting outcomes from voting third party or not voting at all must be real, truly possible ends. If you really think that by voting either way will truly bring about change, then go for it. I have yet to see how this is a realistic understanding of our country.

But remember, you are culpable for inaction as much as you are culpable for action. Even if you choose a good act, sometimes you can be culpable for permitting a greater evil to occur rather than trying to prevent it.
[/quote]
Just wanted to say that I agree absolutely with what Q said here, and I think he's stated it more clear and precisely than I could.

The Church has always taught that one may vote for a morally imperfect candidate (which imo would include [i]anyone[/i] currently running for president) in order to prevent a person whose positions are more evil from being voting into office.


I get the whole "refusing participate in evil" thing, but really how many more Barrack Obamas (and worse) are we willing to let into office while we wait around for Jesus Christ to come back and run for office?

This country simply [b]cannot[/b] afford another term of Barrack Obama (and I believe this whole HHS thing is just him getting warmed up). The man is a tyrant, and must go.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Socrates

[Winchester]

Apparently has the same voting record glasses as every other Santorum supporter. When I need a sweater-vest wearing psycho to increase the government's child ownership programs and start wars, I'll give that guy a call. Santorum is a big-government, nanny-state mercantilist lunatic that thinks inflation is necessary for the economy to grow.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1329181947' post='2386624']
Just wanted to say that I agree absolutely with what Q said here, and I think he's stated it more clear and precisely than I could.

The Church has always taught that one may vote for a morally imperfect candidate (which imo would include [i]anyone[/i] currently running for president) in order to prevent a person whose positions are more evil from being voting into office.


While I understand the whole "refusing participate in evil" thing, but really how many more Barrack Obamas (and worse) are we willing to let into office while we wait around for Jesus Christ to come back and run for office?

This country simply cannot afford another term of Barrack Obama (and I believe this whole HHS thing is just him getting warmed up). The man is a tyrant, and must go.
[/quote]
Nope. There's quite a few prolife Libertarian candidates. I will vote for one of them if Paul doesn't get nominated. The Establishment had damned well better get on the Ron Paul train because I am done with their lukewarm the essence of cow.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1329182163' post='2386629']
Nope. There's quite a few prolife Libertarian candidates. I will vote for one of them if Paul doesn't get nominated. The Establishment had damned well better get on the Ron Paul train because I am done with their lukewarm the essence of cow.
[/quote]
Write in Ron Paul, any other Libby, the Pope, or Mickey flooping Mouse; it doesn't really matter.

The result will be the same - four more years of Dear Leader.and Marxist banana republic-style dictatorship, while you slap yourself on your backs for your superior righteousness.