Rick Santorum

alright, ive been busy (school and flying to utah is more important than this thread), so i havent read the rest of the thread, but ill respond to some of the people that responded to my post.

You need to reexamine your definition of far right, first off. Far right is libertarianism, and is pretty close to where I am. Youre confusing that with the ultra evangelical christian conservatives, which I do not align myself with.

You talk about freedom of religion, but do you support this mandate to make all businesses and the insurance companies that the Catholic Church uses, provide contraception. That is a government mandate going way against a core belief of a religion. No conservative is talking about banning contraception even though the media would have you believe that. (also, I dont want to get into gay marriage here, but the point about marriage is that the government shouldnt be involved with it to begin with. Even with govt intervention, give all homosexuals the rights that married couples have, just dont call it marriage. Redefining that word is very dangerous).

The right does not want a woman's reproductive system to be mandated. That is what the left is doing with the contraception business. The right wants to let insurance companies, and religions, and other various companies have the freedom to chose whether they want contraception covered. There is no problem accessing contraception and there is no one talking about banning that. That idea is just plain stupid.

With all this said my opinion on Rick Santorum has changed a great deal since I read an article on friday morning before my plane departed. It talked about him enforcing laws to limit porn transactions and basically just having the government start to invade people lives further. This is bullshit. This article changed my perception of Santorum as one who just TALKS about these issues, but does not use the government to act on them to a perception that he is one to take advantage. I am Catholic and the views would align with my personal views, but this has no place in government. Period.

This is all a moot point anyway. Mitt Romney will be the nominee.
 
Maybe I should have used quotations, because the point I was trying to make is that the words, "Separation of Church and State" can't be found in the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson is the one who coined the phrase saying the 1st amendment erects a wall of church and state, but the words cannot be found within the Constitution. That was my point.

You're right, it does say that it can't establish a state religion and it also says it can't prevent the exercise of relgion and the government cannot have religious tests for public office.

Right now, freedom of religion is under attack with mandated contraception for everyone...
 
Oh well he's put us even deeper into debt. Had a healthcare bill that is going to cost 1.76 trillion dollars, almost 2x as much as the dems said it would.

Also, look at unemployment numbers. They are still terrible even though millions of people have given up looking for jobs and all of the seasonally adjusted bullshit the labor department is using.

If obama would allow more drilling on federal land, be supportive of more drilling in alaska, support the keystone pipline, allow more leases to drill in the gulf, constantly favor inefficient and expensive alternative energies over oil, and not have things like moratoriums on drilling in the gulf, then I would have no problem accepting that his actions are not responsible, but.....
 
(this is supposed to be quoting mylittleKONY's post about entitlement) hile this is a good mindset to have, I believe that some people (the lower and lower-middle classes)SHOULD be entitled to certain government benefits (healthcare, free education, etc) if they cannot afford it on their own. Inb4 the inevitable "blah blah thats not government's job" and "people should try harder." well, douchebag, not everyone is as fortunate as you were at some point. Yes, there are mooches and people who abuse the system, but for every scum like that there are most likely 5 people working their asses off to make ends meat. And for those who say it's not government's job to do that, then who is supposed to? a PRIVATE company, who will just do it for-profit? Its sad that you think like that, because a Government should be held accountable for its citizens well being
 
So the government mandating that all insurance companies provide contraception, without giving an exception to religious organizations like the Catholic Church is not an attack on the freedom of religion. If a core religious belief is against contraception, they should have the FREEDOM to choose an insurance company that does not provide it. Also, there is no right to contraception.
 
On top of that, the world SHOULD focus towards rewarding innovation and scientific progress that would help save and heal the rock we happen to live on rather than concerning itself with prosperity, celebrity and fundamental values based on stories generations past.
 
so you think that an organizations rights outweigh an individual persons rights? i think we should tax the churches billions in unreported income(offerings). pretty sure that money would help our economy.

My point was, dont go saying obama is mandating contraception. he is mandating that everyone has access to it. HUGE difference.

 
Quoting atlskier's post on oil and drilling: HERP DERP DRILL BABY DRILL. You know Obama has NOTHING to do with rising gas prices, right? Supply and demand, and contrary to popular belief, our supply is similar to what it has been, its the demand that has brought prices up. If we had some supply shortage somehow, the prices would be WAYYYY higher and faster in rise than it is now (see: europe and its prices re: iran cutting off export). Also, there isn't an infinite amount of oil in the ground, and we're going to run out at some point. If we drill ours now, we'll be paying 10,000 a barrel to some country that still has it. If we keep it, we might be the ones selling it in the future.
 
Favorite quote about Good Guy Rick - "I mean, with the other guys, you can dig into their past and find at least some shred of rational thinking, evne if they're cynically downplaying it now," Gallardo continued. "But I get the sense Santorum is speaking nothing but his completely unfiltered thoughts. I know it's weird to say this about a politician, but I sort of wish he were lying to my face at least a little."

 
one of the best posts i have seen! bravo!

i also feel that the contraception rule is attacking the catholic churches rights, it should be the choice of the insurance company if they want to provide birth control to their customers, and then the church has the right to choose who they go with.

this is what america is about, the FREEDOM to CHOOSE who you want to do business with, for whatever reasons.
 
Quoting ryan66: except for a women's right to choose, and your right to choose your sexual preference, because those are both sins!
 
I think all medical procedures should be available to everyone eually. if they want to have those procedures done, is their choice. but i think we should allow people, not organizations to choose what is right for them.

im sorry you dont feel this way.

 
let me say this. I am a democrat, consider myself pretty far left. But, the republican party needs more people like you. though I do think the gov't should do its best to impose contraception use, as well as allow gays to get married, with the word married, and not just the legal ramifications - you have good points. there is a strong difference between libertarianism and christian conservatism, and the latter is ruining the republican party. I do not hate republicans, in fact I believe that they offer a unique perspective on certain issues that is different from mine - and I like that. but your party has been ruined by the religious right completely. theology is a good tool to inform policy - yet policy is not a tool for advancing theology (santorum). as a republican, i think you have a duty to voice your opinion against the religious right, and keep them from sullying the politics of the american nation.
 
No. I don't think they should outweigh someone's rights. It doesn't prevent people from still getting contraception. If I'm an atheist and work for the catholic church, my insurance doesn't cover contraception, but I can go buy a condom on my own. They aren't forcing people to stop using it.

The point is obama is mandating insurances companies to provide contraception. The point is everyone has access to it. Who doesn't have access to it now? You can buy it pretty much everywhere.
 
condoms =/= the contraception you're thinking of. Jeeze you're almost as stupid as Woozy
 
Thanks man. Much appreciated and I totally agree. I am very Catholic, but my views dont have anything to do with what other people believe and shouldn't be imposed on anyone.

I would like to look at the history of the religious right in relation to the republican party over time, because I dont remember that much stuff about it as a kid (maybe thats just because I was a kid).
 


well the church doesnt have to buy health insurance now does it? you can still go to a hospital anywhere and get treatment it just might be more expensive. the govt isnt forcing the church to buy health insurance.

As long as the govt doesnt infringe on personal rights regarding religon, i have no issue with what they do.

besides, religon gets to keep billions of dollars in untaxed income...aka "offerings". so they have no room to bitch about the money aspect.
 
First off, you are way wrong about the increase in demand, at least recently. In 2007, the United States consumed on average 20,680,000 barrels a day. In 2009, the United States consumed 18,690,000 barrels a day(And there was even a slight decrease since 2004). It seems when you're in a recession and people don't have jobs, they drive less.

Besides, even if demand goes up, we have the ability and the amount of resources to increase the supply. Increase the supply and the cost goes down right. Well you can increase the supply of produced petroleum to the market by drilling for more oil. Obama has done many things that limit drilling and the production of oil. Let's list them: The moratorium on drilling in the gulf, preventing the Keystone Pipeline from happening, limiting leases for drilling in the gulf, support drilling in AK, tons of different things.

Also, we will never, ever run out of oil. We will reach a point where the cost of production is greater than the price people will pay for it. So there will still be oil, but it will be too expensive to produce. We have tons of oil right now and although the supply of oil will diminish at some point, it is not as close as you would believe, and once the prices do go up, you will finally find huge changes in the growth of cities and other technologies to increase efficiency of things that use oil and other alternative energy technologies.

Oh and to the factcheck guy. I barely watch tv, and only time I really tune into fox news is to watch the debates (which is the same reason I watched cnn and msnbc). If you do look at table 2 of the CBO report, the gross cost IS 1.762 trillion dollars...it is offset by some revenues...revenues? What type of revenues? Oh, well just some taxes on the people of American, including those who make under $250,000. These include penalty payments by uninsured individuals, penalty payments by employers, excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and other revenues. Oh and this health insurance plan will cover less people than originally thought.
 
Based on the trends in dependency of oil right now, we will most certainly will run out, and will pay a premium to keep it for as long as possible. But I still don't see why you insist on using our supply of oil. Its like investing in apple, the price of it is only going to go up and up, why sell now? save it for when we really need it, not because you are butthurt you are paying $4/gallon. (which happens to be a steal compared to most countries)
 
and i among many, many others support them. people are fucking stupid, and greedy and are driving around unnecessarily large cars to run unnecessary errands, or to commute unnecessary distances so they can afford an unnecessarily large house. No shit it is driving you bankrupt to fill up your SUV. how bout you drive a fucking civic?!!!

i refuse to support this habit of gluttony that american have, by unnecessarily abusing our environment. Americans want to live above their means, and unfortunatly are willing to do almost anything to maintain that lifestyle. its really sad.

Oil is absolutely NOT the answer to our economic issues. in fact, try taking a long term approach and realize that if we cut our dependence on oil, we also will stop regulating oil production in the middle east, which will lead to us being less involved in disputes and conflicts.

 
‎..............…………………………._¸„„„„_

…………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\

………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì

…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'

……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"

... **¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"

.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"

:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯

.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯

:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"

:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯

:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\

.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,

:.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì

: : : : : : :, : : : : : :/

"-„_::::_„-*__„„~"É
 
dude, the money that the church goes to ends up in free clinics, hospitals, and other various services for people. You tax that, you can kiss those hospitals and soup kitchens goodbye. Same if this mandate passes.

the church doesn't have to buy health insurance, so likely they will drop health coverage for all of their employees. Since hospitals are mandated to provide stuff like contraception, they will close their hospitals. The government has no business telling insurance companies whether what they should provide in this instance. What if an insurance company doesn't want to provide this, shouldn't they have the freedom to choose what they provide?

The government is effectively making it impossible for any organization and any INDIVIDUAL to buy health insurance that provides contraception. So, effectively, they are making those people go off health insurance if they do not want to against their religion. Why is it so important for the government to mandate these insurance companies to provide it, especially since people have WIDE ACCESS to purchase contraception?
 
i have seen plenty of gaudy churches...so not all the money goes to good causes haha.

with the money that the church saves on insurance, it should be able to provide its own type of insurance, one that the govt cant touch because the insurance company is now the same as the church.

dont go down teh road of "what if they dont want to provide this, or that?". do you think all govt regulation is bad? of course not.

In the case of them regulating what services insurance needs to cover at a minimum, i think its a good thing. you are entitled to what you believe on the matter. but dont bring the slippery slope argument into this; its brought up way too much in too many situations. regulation should be looked at on an individual case by case basis, and in this case, i think it is a good thing.

no one is forcing an individual to use contraception. all the govt is doing is establishing a base level of care that the insurance companies need to cover. they develop this baseline without regard for any religon...as all laws and regulations should be developed.

 
Well Boo-fucking-hoo.

Dude, the reason for people driving so much is not gluttony. You really, really, really, need to research the relationship between transportation and land use and the spatial form of cities. Believe me, the people that I know that commute 1-2 hours each way are not doing it because they own a SUV or a McMansion. They have to drive that far because development has sprawled out so far and they bought a $100,000 house far away because it is what they could afford. Neighborhoods and cities all used to be walkable and close to transit. Now people dont take cars just because they want to. They take cars because they have to. My parents neighborhood, for instance has no connection to a park that is immediately adjacent to their neighborhood. You have to drive 1.5 miles or more to get to it because there is no other connection to it, same with going to a grocery store or any other business. Almost everything is built for cars and almost nothing for pedestrians or other efficient modes of transportation. Im a city planning and urban design student. I can go off for days about how cities have developed into what they are today because of local land use and subdivision regulations.

Where are you getting this unnecessary errands thing from. Ok, so there's a dude sitting in his huge house 2 hours from downtown Atlanta. I'm sure he's thinking, well, I want a burger, Im gonna drive all the way downtown to the McDonalds there instead of going to one near my house...people dont make stupid decisions like that, well, at least your typical american.

America should not make any apologies for our prosperity. If you live above your means and purchase a house that you cant afford and go through foreclosure, that is stupid, and I have no sympathy for that you. But if you work your ass off and build a 15,000 sf house, buy a private jet and all that, then all the more power to you. If people can afford to live where they want and drive what they want, I dont care and its fucking stupid to get pissed off at people for spending their own money (if they can afford that stuff, again). Decrying the multi billionaire for owning an Indycar team, having three houses, and a private jet is nothing more than jealousy and promoting the idea of class warfare. If you think the United States treats the environment poorly, look at China and India.

I never suggested that oil was the solution to our economic problems. I was talked strictly about reducing gas prices. We can cut our dependance on oil by utilizing our OWN resources.
 
no they commute 1-2 hours because they wanted a nicer house/apartment than what they could afford if they lived closer to their job. its a tradeoff, but they dont understand that.

i agree with the above paragraph. if you can afford your lifestyle, then great, awesome for you. but they arent the people bitching about how the price of gas is making it impossible for them to commute to work from their 2500 sqf house 60 miles from work. people dont want to live within their means.

and we cant change indian or chinese policy...only ours. so im not sure why you brought them up. If your girlfriend cheats on you, you dont rationalize it by saying at least shes not as slutty as lindsay lohan...
 
the insurance company in the church most likely cannot operate in the same company of the church. it would have to operate as a separate entity within the church. I am not sure, but as an insurance company, they would likely have to abide by the same mandate. Besides, the church really isnt in the insurance business.

What is it with contraception that is so important that it must be mandated? Why not toothbrushes and toothpaste? They are important to health.

I never brought up the slippery slope argument and dont see a point to. That was never my point. I have solely focused on this one issue in this conversation.

As far as a base level of service. This is a medical device primarily to prevent pregnancy. For the most part, that is what it is about (the use of birth control pills for other medical reasons, whatever, talk about that later). If you dont use it to prevent pregnancy, youre not going to die. You dont need this to live. It is something that is widely available in many existing insurance plans, and widely available to people that dont have insurance. This mandate is essentially treating pregnancy as if it were a disease.

They aren't forcing people to use contraception, but they will force people to drop their health insurance because it goes against their religion. Oh wait, under obamacare, Im gonna have to pay a tax because I'm uninsured. This mandate is essentially taxing people who are in religions that don't believe in providing contraception. Some freedom of religion...

For that other post, the Catholic Church will shut down hospitals over this. The Catholic Church simply will never provide Plan B in its hospitals. The Church has said many times that they would cease operations if they were mandated to provide that, as well as contraception.

What is the point in the government mandating insurance companies to provide a service or medical device that is widely available, already extensively used, is at a relatively inexpensive cost to all citizens(both insured or uninsured) of this country?
 
thank you. maybe it doesn't actually say 'separation of church and state' in the constitution but your an idiot if you think its not intended.
 
i kinda laughed at girlfriend thing in the last paragraph. I use it as a comparison to make the point that the environment is not in dire straits here. We have fairly good air quality standards, emission standards, etc. Sure, there could be less trees torn down for houses and strip centers in sprawled out cities, and I dont like the continuing suburbination of America.

Sorry, people do understand the tradeoff. In 1999 when gas prices were less than a dollar, that tradeoff made sense. They go that far out because houses are cheaper due to lower land values. You have to understand that closer to most job centers, the land and housing values are usually much higher. Some people can't afford that cost.

The suburbs as they are today, the sprawling of cities, the long commutes would not be what they are today if development regulations and "recommendations" were promoted-or mandated(Certain types and configurations of subdivisions were recommended, but basically if you didn't follow them as a developer, you couldn't get a loan)If regulations had not favored car oriented subdivisions with large lots, cul de sacs, and separation from retail and other commercial uses, living would be much more oriented towards walking and the car would not be the only mode available for most americans to use. The development that you see in Main Street USA or the cool old city districts with bars, restaurants, shops and apartments all together, are largely illegal in most municipalities in America.
 
why doesnt a church have rights? it is a group of people just like any other.

churches employ people thus making them a business also, and business also have rights.

so lets say you work at a job where you have to take an insurance plan that goes totally against what you believe in? would you take it? i bet you wouldnt be to damn happy about it.

and really Mike i dont get why you way in on these topics, since you dont live in american it doesnt affect you, but at least you have some valid arguments.
 
i work in land development in california, the king of urban sprawl, and frankly you dont know what you are talking about with in regards to "mandates and recomendations".

putting that aside, my point is this.

if you cant afford the cost of a nice house close to where you work, you need to move into a less nice house. if you cant afford that, then move into an apartment. cant afford that? cut down on your other living expenses. if you want to try and have it all, realize that there are tradeoffs.

unless you are wealthy, you cannot have it all, no matter how many loans you take out. its people living above their means, and then bitching about the govt when it bites them in the ass.

i hate when people blame the government first, when they could be doing so many things themselves to make their financial situation better.

 
Because both the good and the bad of "American values" are slowly but surely seeping into other Western societies, and even beyond us.

We like to have an opinion and keep a bead on what's going on over there and how to stop the more poisonous stuff from infecting or affecting our systems.

But as my own opinion, all organised religion is cancer. Nothing more, nothing less. At our day and age we should have already gotten rid of anything resembling it, yet here we are, looking at a probable Mormon candidate, a presidential candidate representing one of the most ridiculous religions of all time, aiming for head of the state in one of the most powerful countries on our green Earth.

Now tell me if there isn't something wrong with that and maybe chiming in and criticizing it?
 
i have a hard time taking serriously people who say that religon is a terrible thing, and people who say that religon is the best thing to happen to mankind.

though they are opposing, they are equally idiotic.

who do you think does all the charitable work across the world?
 
Those that make a shitload should be paying more in taxes anyways......................................
 
Uninformed? Please.

If you, or anyone else happens to be religious, as some of my close friends or family, they listen to me and understand where I'm coming from and definitely don't call me ignorant.

If you believe in something, hell, go for it, but organized religion in itself is a plague to society, it always has been and mosr evidently it is today. Some might argue "blah blah, take away religion and you take away values, morals and charities" but actually, no, you just take away that guy in the sky and his so-called water-walking son out of the equation (stricly catholicism) and boom - you're left with everything else except nations swept under the rule of heaven or hell, avoidance of contraception or abortion and the corrupt regime run by the Vatican.

After all that is gone, you've got yourself a shitload of charities and causes to donate to - no churches in mind.
 
wow. for what its worth, probly nothing, i lost a lot of respect for your opinions on here.

its sad that you apply such a negative blanket statement to something that is so diverse.
 
Being brought up in a religious family, studying religion in school and learning about it outside everyday dealings gave me enough both objective and subjective views about the subject of organized religion to build my own belief about the question in hand.

Just proves my point if somehow you think my opinions are not as worthy as you have thought before if my views on religion contradicts yours.

Or do they?
 
when you think that applying a blanket statement to such a diverse and large topic is good reasoning, then yes, you do lose all credibility in my book.

 
Seeing that we do not see things eye to eye about one aspect of life and spirituality, does that really forfeit all other "credibility" about another person in your books?

Because if it does, it sounds quite petty and unreasonable to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top