Rick Santorum: "mainline Protestants aren't real Christians"
Santorum actually said that mainline Protestants are no longer Christians:
We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.
Wow.
Stunning.
Basically, all Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformists and Quakers are "gone from the world of Christianity." Santorum just excommunicated about 45 million Americans.
I really, really, really want this guy to be the nominee. We're talking greater than 1964 type numbers.
I'm sure that's gonna play real well. The dailykos article doesn't note that this is actually from a 2008 event, but if this gets some airtime...
Ibs, has Mother Earth not given birth yet?
She's had an awful long pregnancy now.
And I might be in denial, but I swear it wasn't me who got her there....
Ibram, when was the last time you attended a church service? Because I'm here to tell you, the type of Christians who attend church every week--that is, the demographic that Santorum is courting here--do, in fact, believe that most people who self-identify as Christian are not walking the walk. He's not saying they're secret Muslims, he's just saying that the average "Christian's" behavior does not match the tenets they claim to espouse. Example: the 50% divorce rate among Christians isn't exactly Biblical.
He's far more liable to piss off his supporters by his suggestion that the Catholics only had some small influence compared to the Protestants.
Ibram, when was the last time you attended a church service? Because I'm here to tell you, the type of Christians who attend church every week--that is, the demographic that Santorum is courting here--do, in fact, believe that most people who self-identify as Christian are not walking the walk. He's not saying they're secret Muslims, he's just saying that the average "Christian's" behavior does not match the tenets they claim to espouse. Example: the 50% divorce rate among Christians isn't exactly Biblical.
He's far more liable to piss off his supporters by his suggestion that the Catholics only had some small influence compared to the Protestants.
But I think santorum meant - and most people will understand that he meant - that they have become too liberal. Here's a fuller version of quote:
We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it. [...]
Whether its sensuality of vanity of the famous in America, they are peacocks on display and they have taken their poor behavior and made it fashionable. The corruption of culture, the corruption of manners, the corruption of decency is now on display whether it’s the NBA or whether it’s a rock concert or whether it’s on a movie set.
I think moderate, independent christian voters would be pretty turned off by this language. It's one thing to argue that your faith dictates the far-right policies he advocates; it's another to argue that moderate Christians aren't real Christians.
It's the double counting that pisses me off.
Ask a Christian public figure how many people they represent and they'll give you the highest possible figure, based on how many people nominate any kind of Christianity in surveys or the census.
Count how many people go to church weekly and actually live their lives by religious rules ... and you can divide the first figure by around 10.
I think moderate, independent christian voters would be pretty turned off by this language.
Meh... moderate, independent Christian voters weren't going to be voting for Santorum anyway. He's said plenty of worse things to turn them off. The stuff above is basic sermon material, and not even the fire-and-brimstone kind.
Meh... moderate, independent Christian voters weren't going to be voting for Santorum anyway. He's said plenty of worse things to turn them off. The stuff above is basic sermon material, and not even the fire-and-brimstone kind.
So Rick's plan if he gets the nomination is to win ONLY conservative votes? I mean, yes, clearly, that IS his plan, but you'd think he would PRETEND he has moderate appeal, and could win the independent vote.
The Republican M.O. for a long time has been to fire up the base and forget everyone else. It's not about what most people support, it's about who shows up on election day. It worked for Bush, anyway.
Someone on Sky News (WARNING - MURDOCH OWNED*) suggested that the amount of people in this country (GB) who attend church weekly is 3 in 10. And that's higher than I would have thought, just from general experience and conversation.
"They" might fulminate in the press about being marginalised, but if they are treated as a minority it's because they are one. And a pretty tinchy one at that.
* yes usually Murdoch's press are pro-Christian - although the Great Man Himself certainly does not live by the Christian faith, I just mean to admit I have little faith in the figure because of its source.
I've read the headline, the quote, and the quoted commentary several times, and I can't find any connection between them. This is a case of "you won't believe what this guy said!" but when you read the quote--he didn't. I'm pretty sure I have decent reading comprehension, so...
Am I just not going into this with the right attitude? Which color glasses do I need to put on for this to make sense?
You just need frames that don't impede your peripheral vision: you can't read one quote out of context of everything the person has vehemently espoused and wonder what all the hubbub is about. You have to read like, one or two more things.
He was funny on Face the Nation this morning, the master of "that's not what I said well that's what I said but this is what I meant" somehow woven into a fabric of I'LL NEVER BACK DOWN BWAAHAAAAHAAAA.
Bob was as incredulous as he gets when confronted with scary nutjob types.
look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.
"gone from the world of Christianity as I see it" is not a way I would describe a wide swath of the christian electorate if I was running for office.
Rick Santorum is the kind of guy, where if he were getting ready to burn a woman at the stake would quite seriously look up at her and say "I'm sorry if the ropes are too tight."
Rick Santorum is the kind of guy, where if he were getting ready to burn a woman at the stake would quite seriously look up at her and say "I'm sorry if the ropes are too tight."
I'm waiting for Santorum to start speaking in tongues - oh wait! He does that already.
The Republican party seems to deteriorate more with the passing of each year. Santorium is running on a platform of right wing fundamentalism and outright bigotry. He wants to take away the rights that the women of this country have fought so hard to secure. We are not to use birth control - certainly not have abortions, and if a woman becomes pregnant due to a rape, she must thank god for the blessing he has bestowed upon her. Since families today do not require two incomes, women are not to enter the professions or the workforce, but rather should stay home, barefoot and pregnant and scrubbing the floors.
Santorium is surely one of the most odious if not THE most odious candidate the Republicans have ever come up with. :crazy:
I think what you're ignoring in this calculation Ibram is "compared to". Everybody does this, even you. You've commented on your displeasure at some of President Obama's actions...but you continue to support him because COMPARED TO the alternatives, he's the best option.
For those voters that Santorum is courting when he speaks like this, he's saying to them, COMPARED TO Mitt Romney, or whomever, COMPARED TO them, I'm *more* of what you like, in this case protestant-y christian-y aspirant to power.
Of course this has no appeal to moderate voters, christian or otherwise, but he's not talking to them, and when COMPARED TO the other aspirants, this kind of noise is what they want to hear.
I really despise calling names, so I find myself very frustrated with Rick Santorum.
His "rhetoric" is not political rhetoric in today's sense.
Instead it is the extreme religious theology of his church.
John Kennedy found it necessary during his campaign
to draw the line between his politics and his church.
But Santorum is not making any such attempt.
Instead he is using phrases to code the far-right's attempt to make Obama an outsider,
an outsider in his race, in his religion, in his politics, in his care for the well-being of others.
Santorum is being extremely parochial with respect to education, sex,
women's rights, minority rights, and most other issues he discusses.
So, I'm no longer willing to avoid the use of certain terms when it comes to Santorum.
It's just a matter of which term(s) to use...
An [COLOR="DarkRed"]enthusiast[/COLOR] displays an intense and eager interest in something
An [COLOR="DarkRed"]extremist[/COLOR] is a supporter of extreme doctrines or practices, particularly in a political context
A [COLOR="DarkRed"]fanatic[/COLOR] is not only intense and eager but possibly irrational in his or her enthusiasm;
A [COLOR="DarkRed"]zealot[/COLOR] exhibits not only extreme devotion but vehement activity in support of a cause or goal
A [COLOR="DarkRed"]bigot[/COLOR] exhibits obstinate and often blind devotion to his or her beliefs and opinions.
- Bigotry implies intolerance and contempt for those who do not agree
Today, any of these would describe Santorum, but religious "zealot"
seems to me to be the most appropriate, and "bigot" is running a close second.
Santorum is on a religious crusade, and makes no effort to separate
his doctrines from his intentions, should he become President.
I do feel badly in using such terms, but I'm at a loss for alternatives
that come close to describing my reaction to this man.
Whatever his beliefs in regard to religeon, he supports banning birth control. That alone should make him anathema to most Americans.
Hell, even God used birth control. He only had the one kid.
Today, any of these would describe Santorum, but religious "zealot"
seems to me to be the most appropriate, and "bigot" is running a close second.
Santorum is on a religious crusade, and makes no effort to separate
his doctrines from his intentions, should he become President.
But...he wears a sweater vest. He must be safe.
It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis
Full textHis views presently hold sway in the Scranton diocese. There has been a hard push to the right over the last couple decades essentially telling people to submit or leave. I chose the door. What surprises me is that there are people outside the door willing to play this game.
Wow ! ...if I'm reading you right... :headshake:
Saw a video that mentioned something I hadn't heard before--he's not just against employers/government having to pay for birth control, he's also against having to pay for a prenatal test known as amniocentesis, where a large needle is inserted into the placenta in order to collect a sample and do a direct DNA test on the baby. Pretty much the only reason this is ever done is to confirm a suspected genetic disability the baby may carry, and the procedure itself carries a risk of causing a miscarriage. So since the only reason one would really need to know this information before the child's birth is if one were planning to abort the baby if a severe disability is confirmed, he wants to disallow it.
On the other hand, at least he's not a hypocrite: he has one child with
Trisomy 18, and another baby that had something else wrong that only lived 2 hours after being born.
Saw a video that mentioned something I hadn't heard before--he's not just against employers/government having to pay for birth control, he's also against having to pay for a prenatal test known as amniocentesis, where a large needle is inserted into the placenta in order to collect a sample and do a direct DNA test on the baby. Pretty much the only reason this is ever done is to confirm a suspected genetic disability the baby may carry, and the procedure itself carries a risk of causing a miscarriage. So since the only reason one would really need to know this information before the child's birth is if one were planning to abort the baby if a severe disability is confirmed, he wants to disallow it.
On the other hand, at least he's not a hypocrite: he has one child with Trisomy 18, and another baby that had something else wrong that only lived 2 hours after being born.
Except that his wife has had a
medically-induced miscarriage to save her life in 1996. Oops. I'd call that hypocrisy. While I obviously not only fully support her right to make the decision, and believe that it SHOULDN'T be our business WHAT sorts of medical procedures she's had, the "Frank Rule" - that anti-LGBT politicians' closeted sex lives become public business, when closeted gay politicians fight against LGBT rights - also applies here: if you believe that women DO NOT have the right to medical privacy, you don't have that same right to privacy as a public figure.
<snip>
So since the [COLOR="DarkRed"]only reason[/COLOR] one would really need to know this information before the child's birth is if one were planning to abort the baby if a severe disability is confirmed, he wants to disallow it.
On the other hand, at least he's not a hypocrite: he has one child with Trisomy 18, and another baby that had something else wrong that only lived 2 hours after being born.
There are many reasons to perform prenatal screening tests,
including high risk pregnancies, etc., and not all lead to abortion.
For just one example: neural tube defects... (from Wikipedia)
Treatments of NTDs depends on the severity of the complication.
No treatment is available for anencephaly because the infants usually do not survive more than a few hours.
Aggressive surgical management has improved survival and functions
of infants with spina bifida and meningoceles and mild myelomeningoceles.
The success of surgery often depends on the amount of brain tissue involved in the encephalocele.
The goal of treatment for NTDs is to allow the individual to achieve the highest level of function and independence.
It would not be hypocritical of Rick Santorum to either have
or not have an abortion because
he did not have the child.
It's whatever his
wife wanted... for whatever was
her own reason.
It would not be hypocritical of Rick Santorum to either have
or not have an abortion because he did not have the child.
It's whatever his wife wanted... for whatever was her own reason.
Touche. But Rick DOES apparently think that his wife's doctor - the one that saved her life - should go to jail for murder. He DOES apparently think that his wife's decision to save her life, rather than that of her unborn child, should not be a decision that his wife had the right to make.
Wow ! ...if I'm reading you right... :headshake:
Within 1 hour of making that post my Dad tried to give me some phone number from his priest to "stop Obama from making the bishops pay for abortion pills." I try not to be frank with Dad about this stuff but I did tell him that he doesn't want me providing my opinion. There used to be talk of stripping churches of their tax free status, I'm ready to listen.
Except that his wife has had a medically-induced miscarriage to save her life in 1996. Oops. I'd call that hypocrisy. While I obviously not only fully support her right to make the decision, and believe that it SHOULDN'T be our business WHAT sorts of medical procedures she's had, the "Frank Rule" - that anti-LGBT politicians' closeted sex lives become public business, when closeted gay politicians fight against LGBT rights - also applies here: if you believe that women DO NOT have the right to medical privacy, you don't have that same right to privacy as a public figure.
Can we get a legit source on that... of course that would ironically enough not respect her privacy.
Can we get a legit source on that... of course that would ironically enough not respect her privacy.
I read it, years ago, in Reader's digest. Reader's digest and me - how much more legit can you get?;)
http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-portland/did-rick-santorum-s-wife-have-an-abortion
Numerous sources report Santorum’s wife Karen had a second trimester abortion in October 1996. The Santorum’s, however, don’t like to describe it as an abortion. Instead, they call it a medically induced miscarriage. Yet for many, this is a distinction without a difference.
In 1996 Santorum’s wife, Karen, became severely ill while pregnant and had to be rushed to the hospital. There, she and her husband Rick were told that if she did not induce her labor, she and the baby would more than likely die. The decision was made to induce labor, and abort the fetus
Continue reading on Examiner.com Did Rick Santorum’s wife have an abortion? - Portland Progressive | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-portland/did-rick-santorum-s-wife-have-an-abortion#ixzz1mxh2JB87
Can we get a legit source on that... of course that would ironically enough not respect her privacy.
The baby had a serious birth defect: a malfunctioning kidney that was addressed through fetal micro-surgery.
But the operation caused a uterine infection, which the doctors said could endanger Karen’s life if she didn’t have the child aborted.
Karen refused the procedure — she later told me she wasn’t thinking clearly — and Santorum abided by her wishes;
her life was saved when she miscarried.
Link"when she miscarried" vs "induce labor". A bit of a chasm of meaning between those phrases.
I've seen it reported as an induced miscarriage everywhere I've seen it mentioned. In fact, Joe Klein's post there is the first I've heard of it referred to as a simple miscarriage without medical induction. I'd love to see more information on that. Obviously without actually invading her medical records, all we have are media reports; again, I've seen it consistently referred to as a miscarriage, yes, but an INDUCED LABOR miscarriage is, in effect, an abortion.
The link I gave, which I think is the same one Spexx posted, claims that the Santorums themselves refer to it as a medically induced procedure. If that's true, then my point holds. If it was an unrelated and "natural" miscarriage, that's QUITE a bit different.
Induced labor does NOT necessarily mean a miscarriage nor abortion.
Two of my children were born after labor was induced.
Many times labor is induced because the baby is getting too big for a vaginal delivery.
There are other reasons as well which have NOTHING to do with "abortion"
[LIST]
[*]The mothers water broke.
[*]Infection in the uterus
[*]Certain risk factors
[*]low amniotic fluid level
[*]Placenta problems
[*]and on and on...
[/LIST]
PLEASE do not spread that type of misinformation.
Induced labor does NOT necessarily mean a miscarriage nor abortion.
Of course it doesn't. Induced labor means induced labor. I'm not equating labor with miscarriage. I'm equating INDUCED MISCARRIAGE with abortion. Inducing labor in the second trimester for a fetus that the doctors recommend should be aborted, that isn't expected to have any chance of survival with the labor is induced, resulting in a miscarriage or stillbirth, is functionally an abortion. Granted, if by some miracle the induced labor had been SURVIVED, the premature and sickly baby would be a baby, yes - but the only difference between inducing labor to cause a miscarriage and an abortion is that in the former case, the fetus, in theory, leaves the body in one piece, out the birth canal.
reading comprehension, dude, before you get all defensive at me. Here's what I said:
An INDUCED LABOR miscarriage is, in effect, an abortion.
here's what I DIDN'T say:
inducing labor is the same as aborting
My understanding of what "medically induced miscarriage" means, is that labor is induced. If "induced labor miscarriage" and "medically induced miscarriage" are not synonymous, I retract my flawed terminology.
If the baby isn't viable (as in this context), then induced labor is abortion.
Eta: What Ibram said.
An INDUCED LABOR miscarriage is, in effect, an abortion.
THIS IS FUCKING WRONG
Not getting defensive at all - If anything, I'm being
offensive...
[SIZE="1"](take it away IM) [/SIZE]:)
Is this relevant? The woman isn't his property. Are we voting for Santorum or his wife?
Yes, neither, I know!
No its not relevant, at all. Its one side continually talking about issues that have nothing to do with what is really important to our country right now and the other side laughing and egging them on.
No, not many people will be voting for Rick. I had more than my fill of him when he was here. He needs to go out and get a real job at a real company now.
OK, I don't believe there's any such thing as 'Induced Labour Miscarriage/abortion'.
If the doctors don't think there's any chance the baby will survive, then they perform a termination. If they think the baby has a chance then they will induce labour (and I'm not sure what the time frame is, but I don't believe they will give the mother drugs to commence labour until the baby has lungs which function, which can't happen till at least 32 weeks gestation. Prior to that, if the baby is to be born early term under a doctors recommendation, I think you will find that in almost every case, a C section will be performed because the baby simply wouldn't survive the upheaval of a natural birth before that age. Of course there are always going to be women going into labour much earlier than they should and in that case, the goal posts are moved substantially.
What I'm trying to tell you men is that there is no hard and fast set of rules you can apply to this situation, so stop bickering about something you clearly don't know much about in the first place other than your own personal belief systems.
In the interview I saw, Santorum got immediately, extremely defensive when the interviewer said he'd had a "stillborn" child, and corrected him strongly that it was not stillborn, that it lived 2 hours before dying.
I'm pretty sure this was the same child being discussed here. I imagine they induced labor, knowing the baby almost certainly wouldn't survive, but the fact that it lived two hours and then died (presumably after a quick baptizing as well) means they get to have a clear conscience.
If it lives for two hours, is it a miscarriage? Like, I'mi not try'n'a be funny, is the term miscarriage usable if the child survives however briefly outside the body?
Again, my understanding of this situation is that Santorum has used the term "medically induced miscarriage" - which, though classic is loudly denying it without explaining the difference, I understand as functionally being abortive. If the situation is as Clod posits, there isn't much hypocrisy here. If the situation is what Klein seems to imply - that there was a decision NOT to abort, and then she miscarried later - there isn't much hypocrisy here.
If the Santorums decided to save Karen's life at the expense of her unborn child, there is hypocrisy here.
Not it's not a miscarriage if it lives for even a minute. It's considered a live birth.
On a non-Santorum-specific tangent:
OK, I don't believe there's any such thing as 'Induced Labour Miscarriage/abortion'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_labor
Common suggested reasons for induction include:
...
[LIST]
[*]Premature termination of the pregnancy (abortion).
[/LIST]...
It also lists fetal death (and I know I've heard of people inducing labor for dead fetuses), so there are at least two possible reasons to induce labor on a non-viable fetus.
Not it's not a miscarriage if it lives for even a minute. It's considered a live birth.
That's what I thought - if my article is referencing the same pregnancy as Clod, then using the term miscarriage - medically induced or otherwise - is wrong, and the debate is prettymuch over on that count.
Not it's not a miscarriage if it lives for even a minute. It's considered a live birth.
No its not relevant, at all. Its one side continually talking about issues that have nothing to do with what is really important to our country right now and the other side laughing and egging them on.
No, not many people will be voting for Rick. I had more than my fill of him when he was here. He needs to go out and get a real job at a real company now.
Not exactly sure what you mean. The religious right is certainly making an issue concerning the separation of Church and State which IS important to our country right now, and, as has been noted elsewhere, it is exactly these whack jobs who will come out and vote in numbers just as they did in 2008. I can easily see fundamentalists voting strongly for Santorum, especially in the South.
The people residing in states below the Mason Dixon line still fiercely believe in State's Rights and hope for the South to "rise again". In addition, they are just as fanatical about Christian fundamentalism as the Muslims who flew the planes into the WTC were fanatical about Mohammedism. They are incapable of seeing that their stance on birth control, gays, etc is a bias based on the teachings of their evangelical churches. And they can't wait to impose their beliefs on the entire nation.
On a non-Santorum-specific tangent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_labor
It also lists fetal death (and I know I've heard of people inducing labor for dead fetuses), so there are at least two possible reasons to induce labor on a non-viable fetus.
Yeah, I get that, although I think it's very rare for parents to elect to go through a labour in the case of a dead fetus, and I doubt doctors would generally recommend labour as an option for a fetus with no chance of survival. I would think it would only be for theological reasons in general, and those cases would be rare.
So I guess I admit to being wrong about it not being a fact, but I don't think it's a highly common procedure.
I just don't think the term is applicable to the santorum situation either, simply for the fact that he's misusing the term.
I just don't think the term is applicable to the santorum situation either, simply for the fact that he's misusing the term.
Who's misusing which term? At the moment I'm, at least, not sure that Santorum's 2-hour-old baby is the same pregnancy that was EITHER naturally miscarried OR was given an induced miscarriage.
So right now we have three explanations for what happened:
1.) as per the article I linked, the pregnancy was terminated by an induced miscarriage
2.) as per Klein's article, the Santorums decided not to terminate pregnancy, and later, Karen miscarried
3.) the baby was EITHER induced or naturally-born, lived for two hours, and then died - and was thus not a miscarriage at all.
This is the problem with charts.
According to this one, if a fetus is born alive at 23 weeks, but then dies afterwards, it's considered a miscarriage.
Because there's no time limit shown, does that mean if the fetus lives to the ripe old age of 96 it's still considered a miscarriage? ;)
Who's misusing which term? At the moment I'm, at least, not sure that Santorum's 2-hour-old baby is the same pregnancy that was EITHER naturally miscarried OR was given an induced miscarriage.
So right now we have three explanations for what happened:
1.) as per the article I linked, the pregnancy was terminated by an induced miscarriage
2.) as per Klein's article, the Santorums decided not to terminate pregnancy, and later, Karen miscarried
3.) the baby was EITHER induced or naturally-born, lived for two hours, and then died - and was thus not a miscarriage at all.
It is my understanding that for a birth to be considered medically induced, the mother has to be induced with drugs which specifically encourage the onset of labour.
A baby can be induced and still be classed as a natural birth. It is my understanding that the term natural birth simply means born through the birth canal.
You'll need to check up on what's considered a live birth. I don't believe HM's chart is definitive. My understanding is that a live birth means the fetus or baby has a heart beat when it's born.
eta: I think Santorum is misusing the term which is why there is such debate about it.
eta also: No one but the doctors and the Santorum family are ever going to know exactly what happened.
My feeling is they made a choice which goes against what their voters expect of them, and they're trying to cover their arses by using weird terms to confuse the voters and make it seem ok. I doubt anyone will ever know the real truth, and in my opinion, it's no one else's business anyway, even if they are hypocrites.
It is my understanding that for a birth to be considered medically induced, the mother has to be induced with drugs which specifically encourage the onset of labour.
A baby can be induced and still be classed as a natural birth. It is my understanding that the term natural birth simply means born through the birth canal.
You'll need to check up on what's considered a live birth. I don't believe HM's chart is definitive. My understanding is that a live birth means the fetus or baby has a heart beat when it's born.
eta: I think Santorum is misusing the term which is why there is such debate about it.
yeah, sorry, i meant natural as opposed to induced, not natural as in "a natural birth". My sloppy language, there. replace "natural" with "non-induced" where I said it back there.
[...]and in my opinion, it's no one else's business anyway, even if they are hypocrites.
But see, I think that when a candidate wants to use the office of the President of the United States to enforce their theocratic principles, but
doesn't even live by the principles they intend to use the power of the Government to make other people live by - that disqualifies you, right there. You can't make me live by the moral codes of your religion,
especially if you don't even live by them yourself.
I think the people who would vote for him in the first place would probably believe whatever lies he told anyway, so I don't think it matters. That's just what I think. I don't have to worry about voting for him, and thankfully these sorts of issues don't really come into it over here much. Peripherally maybe, but certainly not much.
classic is loudly denying it without explaining the difference,
I bluntly explained the difference. Don't like the answer, fine, but please don't blame me.
If the Santorums decided to save Karen's life at the expense of her unborn child, there is hypocrisy here.
Karen is not running and it was
CLEARLY her decision in each article. There is NO hypocrisy here. Just partisan bullshit from those who want to make a big deal out of it.
You need to read more than the partisan stuff. I know you like dailykos and MM because they tell you what you want to hear, but they slant most everything, just like AM thinker, fox, breitbart and so on.
Rhianne is correct.
If you explained it, classic, I either didn't understand your explanation or missed your explanation. What is the difference between a medically induced miscarriage and an abortion?
HM, nothing personal, but that wiki article is beyond terrible.
I listed more reasons for inducing labor than they had.
I went through this twice and did enough research to know.
What is the difference between a medically induced miscarriage and an abortion?
The eventual outcome is the same in that there is a dead child.
Nothing else matters and I'll not post any more on it. It brings up terrible memories for me. I'm out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IMO, Santorum is not a viable candidate for many many reasons.
This is NOT one of them.
If you explained it, classic, I either didn't understand your explanation or missed your explanation. What is the difference between a medically induced miscarriage and an abortion?
One makes you feel warm and fuzzy and the other makes you feel like a murderer?
It's all a vigorous discussion, and supports my political point,
in that Rick Santorum espouses a religious position that no woman should have any pregnancy terminated
... no how, no way ... no matter if she be pregnant via rape, incest or a loving husband.
I suspect there is rarely, if ever, a definitive, objective, medical basis for choosing
the "life of the mother versus life of the fetus".
It's my understanding the teachings of Santorum's church is to always try to save the life of both.
But Santorum's actions with regards to Terri Shiavo demonstrate that he is quite willing
to use the power of governmental office to impose his own religious beliefs on others.
.
Karen is not running and it was CLEARLY her decision in each article. There is NO hypocrisy here. Just partisan bullshit from those who want to make a big deal out of it.
Does Rick think (if the procedure was option 1 that I listed) that his wife's doctor should be arrested? Does Rick think that the choice was up to his wife and his wife alone? Does Rick think that his wife should have been allowed to decide to have that procedure to save her life, with or without his consent?
When Rick Santorum staked out the position that a fertilized egg is a Person - and
should be legally considered a person, and this that the government should be in the business of regulating the reproductive systems of women, having a double standard when it's his own family is important.
If he was making his opposition to drugs an important campaign issue, but his daughter had a medical Mary Jane prescription, I would have a huge problem with the idea that it's okay for him and his but unacceptable to the general public.
It's not the decision on the pregnancy I question. It's his double-standard, that the government should ban something that he believes is acceptable when his loved ones do it.
I'll not post any more on it. It brings up terrible memories for me.
[SIZE="5"][COLOR="red"]I'm out.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
They're open questions. If you don't want to answer, fine. I think I have the right to defend why I think this is a legitimate public issue, in spite of the private nature of the history. I can't make you read or reply.
edit: I'm sorry, classic, that came off as harsh. I understand that you don't want to deal with the issue anymore, and it's totally legitimate for you to bow out of the conversation. I'm sorry to bring up rough shit. All i mean by that bit up there is, yeah, I quoted your, but that doesn't mean I'm expecting you to participate.
The difference between a medically induced miscarriage and an abortion is the first actually causes the body to expel the fetus. The second removes the fetus without involving labor, etc.
Regardless of who had what, Santorum is the most extreme candidate out there, still running. A vote for him is a vote to run this country by fundamental religious tenets.
In my personal opinion, of course.
But...he wears a sweater vest. He must be safe.
It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis
Full text
;) And it may be closer than we think with this GOP candidate...
[Start thread-drift]
Newt Gingrich's official web site
Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution
NEWT 2012 Position Paper Supporting Item No. 9
of the 21st Century Contract with America:
<snip>[COLOR="DarkRed"]This NEWT 2012 campaign document serves as political notice to the public and to the
legislative and judicial branches that a Gingrich administration will reject the theory of judicial
supremacy[/COLOR] and will reject passivity as a response to Supreme Court rulings that ignore executive
and legislative concerns and which seek to institute policy changes that more properly rest with
Congress.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]A Gingrich administration will use any appropriate executive branch powers, by itself [/COLOR]
and acting in coordination with the legislative branch, to check and balance any Supreme Court
decision it believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional and to rein in any federal judge(s)
whose rulings exhibit a disregard for the Constitution.
<snip>
In areas of law in which the executive branch believes that the judicial branch has made
decisions that exceeded its constitutional powers, the President can direct the Solicitor General to
join litigation challenging the existing jurisprudence believed to be unconstitutional.<snip>
[/End thread-drift]
But-but-but-the COURTS DECIDE what's constitutional!
I think this warrants a new thread, actually. Could you like, create a new thread with that? I would, or would quote yours to one, but I can't get your quote to copy over into my quote.
Ask and ye shall receive ... a new thread in POLITICS is entitled
Gingrich's plan for America This is the current theme of Santorum's underground campaign...
Santorum certainly is ...
Gingrich certainly is ...
Romney is a Mormon and most Christians don't ...
But Obama ... I can’t say categorically, ...
Under Islamic law, Mr. Graham volunteered,
“the Muslim world sees Barack Obama as a Muslim” because
his father and previous generations were Muslim.
[YOUTUBE]R2cxTSLDE4Y[/YOUTUBE]
Billy Graham once came out in support of Richard Nixon.
He learned his lesson from Watergate, and refused to comment in subsequent elections.
Franklin should have learned from his father.
.
Wow.
Just wow.
Hang on, how many Christians being murdered in Muslim countries are there?
Obama, sorry - President Obama - isn't worried about them.
Neither was I. But now I am. Who are they?
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Joe, Mary..... you know, the usual
I didn't know about Marie Colvin's death when I posted that, obviously.
I just saw her report on AC360 last night too.
I've always enjoyed and admired her reporting.
That woman has STEEL balls. RIP. :(
Yeah, seriously. She was awesome.
Back to Santorum, you can watch him on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer from last Sunday.
Make your own conclusions.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7399318n&tag=contentMain;contentBodyI already knew what he was - a religious zealot. He has gotten worse as he has aged.
He is NOT an option.
I can infer your answer on this, classic, from the last post, so this question is more for the real right wing like UG and Wolf and Merc:
Would you vote for Santorum or Obama given those two options?
eta: I recall wolf being really conservative at least, apologies dear if that's an unfair characterization.
UG and Wolf and Merc, oh my!
UG and Wolf and Merc, oh my!
Not it's not a miscarriage if it lives for even a minute. It's considered a live birth.
Correct.
There is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this discussion. Medicine is not as pure as it looks on the face. I suspect that even Santorum is miss-using the term which is confusing everyone else.
Induced labor of a viable infant where the baby is born and lives for one minute is a live birth. Induced labor of a non-viable infant is not a medically induced abortion, regardless of date of confinement or conception.
The term abortion is restricted to a viable fetus regardless of date of confinement or conception.
I can infer your answer on this, classic, from the last post, so this question is more for the real right wing like ......Merc
:lol2: Now that is funny.
The term abortion is restricted to a viable fetus regardless of date of confinement or conception.
I remember a big hoo-hah about 15-20 years ago, where a woman who had miscarried saw the word "abortion" on her medical papers.
Her body had aborted a perfectly healthy foetus.
I know little about what the exact words mean now, but that did stick in my head.
Induced labor of a viable infant where the baby is born and lives for one minute is a live birth. Induced labor of a non-viable infant is not a medically induced abortion, regardless of date of confinement or conception.
The term abortion is restricted to a viable fetus regardless of date of confinement or conception.
This is NOT true. From the good old Merriam Webster dictionary -
abor·tion noun \ə-ˈbȯr-shən\
Definition of ABORTION
1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus
Another definition:
Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.
An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced.
The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.
From
http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/medical_abortion.pdf
A medical abortion is one that is brought about by taking
medications that will end a pregnancy. The alternative is
surgical abortion, which ends a pregnancy by emptying the
uterus (or womb) with special instruments. Either of two
medications, mifepristone or methotrexate, can be used for
medical abortion. Each of these medications is taken
together with another medication, misoprostol, to induce
an abortion
Doctors here do use the word 'abortion' to describe a miscarriage.
...Count how many people go to church weekly and actually live their lives by religious rules ....
Excuse me I'm confused, which one of those two groups were you wondering about?
Opinion: The movers & shakers running the Republican party are many unpleasant things, but they aren't stupid. They know to win the general election they need a more moderate candidate, but they could put a hard right wacko up for VP to placate the far right base. Santorum, former Senate point-man for K-street, is running for Vice-President.
I'm not so sure Romney would trust Santorum with being just a heartbeat away; however, Santorum might be content with running Homeland Security so he can bring back The Inquisition.
Excuse me I'm confused, which one of those two groups were you wondering about?
One group, those who do
both of these things.
Opinion: The movers & shakers running the Republican party are many unpleasant things, but they aren't stupid. They know to win the general election they need a more moderate candidate, but they could put a hard right wacko up for VP to placate the far right base. Santorum, former Senate point-man for K-street, is running for Vice-President.
It
is hard to believe that anyone who an get to the top of such a big organisation could be stupid as the current mob appear.
put a hard right wacko up for VP...
Worked great in 2008, eh? ;)
One heartbeat away from these idiots being toe to toe.
What makes you think Romney would have a choice who's a heartbeat away? I think he'll do what he's told by the movers & shakers, even though they put the boots to McCain with Ms Airhead, if he wants the chance to run. He can't run, at least on the Republican ticket, without their blessing. If Santorum keeps running his mouth he may become too much of a liability to the ticket, but I think VP is his goal.
One group, those who do both of these things.
Oh that group... the ones that do fit that group, not the ones that claim to, could all meet in my living room.(18' x 14' ;))
It is hard to believe that anyone who an get to the top of such a big organisation could be stupid as the current mob appear.
I saw a recent interview with Clinton, where he stated both Romney and Newt are very smart men who know how to play the game.
The word is "
counterparts"
I remember a big hoo-hah about 15-20 years ago, where a woman who had miscarried saw the word "abortion" on her medical papers.
Her body had aborted a perfectly healthy foetus.
I know little about what the exact words mean now, but that did stick in my head.
Yes, and to this day the terms "spontaneous abortion" remain in medical records, I see them every day, and no one doubts the meaning.
Doctors here do use the word 'abortion' to describe a miscarriage.
Only with the prefix of "Spontaneous". Otherwise it means something else and documented as EAB or Elective Abortion.
This is NOT true. From the good old Merriam Webster dictionary -
Another definition:
From http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/medical_abortion.pdf
Proof that medical experience trumps what you can look up on the internet and people are just more confused by the terms and what they think they mean vs how they are used and documented in medical records and how healthcare professionals understand them. And so far this thread is filled with a lot of mis-understanding....:rolleyes:
Merc, you've had contact with medical people in a number of locations. Did you find that medical terminology is rigid across the board, or variations in use/meaning between national regions? Between countries, (speaking English of course)?
Merc, you've had contact with medical people in a number of locations. Did you find that medical terminology is rigid across the board, or variations in use/meaning between national regions? Between countries, (speaking English of course)?
Not at all. I spent 6 weeks in Hong Kong with the British at their hospital on an Officer Exchange program in the late 1980's, it was a completely other language but once you learned what the terms were the medicine was the same. A common culture separated by a language. There is very little variation between Aussies and Brits for obvious reasons, Canadians are easier to understand, but internationally the French is the common language.
Edit: IN the US it is pretty standard. The problem is that people with a little bit of understanding are the ones who spread the most mis-information.
Well yes, that's why I asked if the people who actually do know, have any confusion in what those terms actually mean and/or imply. Thanks.
Only with the prefix of "Spontaneous". Otherwise it means something else and documented as EAB or Elective Abortion.
I'm speaking from experience.
I'm speaking from experience.
So am I.
Would you vote for Santorum or Obama given those two options?
I'd have to hold my nose and vote the same as the last election.
I cannot think of anything that could possibly convince me to vote for Santorum.
I don't understand why everyone - not just in the Cellar, but in the country - has gotten distracted by the arguments on birth control, abortion, women's rights, etc. put forth by one of the worst right wing whackos to run for office in a very long time. Santorum obviously has suffered from childhood on due to the brain washing which resulted from a fanatical Catholic upbringing. He lacks the capacity to think for himself, and he will never be presidential material no matter how much the religious right adores him.
The major problems facing this country seem to be getting largely ignored. What about the continuing high rate of unemployment? How can we move the US economy out of the worst recession since the 30's? How can we encourage US corporations to not only stop outsourcing American jobs, but to bring those outsourced jobs back to the US? Is the ever widening gap between billionaires and the working class (and everyone else) a serious problem? If so, how do we resolve it? How can we balance the budget without under cutting programs essential to the nation's well being? Are corporations REALLY people? Are super pacs Constitutional? How can we reform campaign funding? And on...
Somebody want to tell me Santorum's position on these things? Someone want to tell me what solutions the Republican Congress has put forth, other than to "just say no"?
Why are we arguing about the definition of an abortion versus a spontaneous abortion versus a miscarriage? Why do we give legitimacy to the ideas of some ignorant rabble rouser by spending 60 or 70 or however many posts arguing what he has said when what he has said is pure bullshit not worth a second thought?
Just my humble opinion.
What makes you think Romney would have a choice who's a heartbeat away?
Romney is used to doing things his way. He knows that the far right is already in the ABO camp which is why, for as much as he changes his tune, he isn't trying to be a Santorum. The gains to be had running with Santorum for VP in the general election are minimal since Santorum will neither sway more moderates nor convert liberals and could be as divisive in the White House as the Tea Party is in Congress. Romney and the GOP would be better off with even Gingrich as a VP running mate to charm the moderates during the election and advocate for a strong Chief Executive to get their agenda moving afterwards. They'd have a greater chance of prevailing over infighting (as hindered the Obama administration) since Gingrich could be to Romney as Cheney was to Bush Jr. while Santorum would just continue to be a pacifier. I'd be surprised though if either was actually the first choice for VP and it will probably be offered to one of those the party wished had run for President; but, declined. The national campaign experience of being on the ticket would be invaluable to any of them open to running for President in the future, win or lose now.
Someone want to tell me what solutions the Republican Congress has put forth, other than to "just say no"?
Ask the man in charge ...
25 House-Passed Jobs Bills Stuck in the Democratic-Run Senate
LinkOh, come on Classic. Surely you can dig up something a little less partisan than Republican House Speaker Boehner’s blog! If you want to read a lot of whining, that blog will keep you entertained, but if you want a serious unbiased view of the issues, you’re better off watching Jon Stewart.
Plan for America’s Job Creators – requires Congressional approval of any major government regulation. I’ve been wondering about these elusive “job creators” every since I first heard the Republicans bandy the term around, but we have yet to be informed of who these people or corporations (I guess they’re the same thing now) are and what they have been doing for the American worker. I guess with “no regulations”, they will be even more free than before to send American jobs overseas, pollute the environment like the big uranium companies who killed off large portions of western Colorado, and whatever else they feel like doing at the expense of the American people and the Nation. God forbid that a corporation be accountable to any regulations or laws. Yep, can’t see why the Dems didn’t vote unanimously for THAT one.
The Workforce Democracy & Fairness Act (H.R. 3094) passed last week stops the Obama administration’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from circumventing Congress to allow job-threatening “ambush” union elections. In other words, let’s weaken the unions even more before finally outlawing them. Heaven prevent that the American worker get a fair shake. In fact, let’s bring back the 14 hour day (Hey! I’m already working that), abolish the minimum wage, and make OSHA a thing of the past. Those Republicans – so slavish in obedience to their Super Pacs!
Regulatory Flexibility Act: As far as I can figure, this Act will force the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and certain Indian tribes to throw out the National Environmental Policy Act and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act in favor of small businesses (less than 500 employees) who wish to set up money making ventures on public lands. Logging and mining companies will have a field day, and, as usual, slither out of making even the smallest attempt to repair the damage they cause to forests, rivers, ecosystems, wildlife, etc. How nice for them. I’m sure our children will enjoy visiting mine tailings sites and eroded mountainsides.
I could go on, but why bother? If you can’t read this stuff with an analytical mind and a critical eye, why waste your time? These are NOT job bills. They are anti-regulatory bills. Hello?
Ask the man in charge ...
25 House-Passed Jobs Bills Stuck in the Democratic-Run Senate
Link
You beat me to it. Not to mention an actual Budget which also passed the house and Demoncratically controlled Senate and Hairy Reed refuse to even discuss. Why? Because he would have to compromise and pass some stuff the Repubs want to get done and he doesn't want to even bring it to the floor for discussion. They could pass a budget with a simple majority if they wanted. I think he is just hanging on hoping Obama gets re-elected.
Oh, come on Classic. Surely you can dig up something a little less partisan than Republican House Speaker Boehner’s blog! If you want to read a lot of whining, that blog will keep you entertained, but if you want a serious unbiased view of the issues, you’re better off watching Jon Stewart.
<snip>
Here, here !
You beat me to it. Not to mention an actual Budget which also passed the house and Demoncratically controlled Senate and Hairy Reed refuse to even discuss. Why? Because he would have to compromise and pass some stuff the Repubs want to get done and he doesn't want to even bring it to the floor for discussion. They could pass a budget with a simple majority if they wanted. I think he is just hanging on hoping Obama gets re-elected.
Why is it the Dems who are always supposed to compromise? If you bothered to read that link, you would see that those Republican REGULATORY bills do not concede so much as a single inch. All of them are about giving free rein to the robber barons and allowing them to ride rough shod over everybody else. Tell us just how many jobs even one of those regulatory bills is supposed to create. Tell us just how many jobs the "job creators" have created since they got all those Bush era tax cuts. And I mean jobs here in the US, not off shore somewhere. And please, please do not present us with a 250 word cut and paste from some ultra right wing "think tank." Stretch yourself. :eyebrow:
Sam - Did you not read the sarcasm in that? REALLY????
No, REALLY I didn't (and neither apparently did Merc). Sometimes you seem to play both ends against the middle which can make you interesting, but hard to figure out. :confused:
Thought for sure you'd get it after reading the "bills."
No worries. There actually were a few in there, but the majority were pretty much just BS.
Did you read the comments? I was shaking my head at times and literally chuckling at others.
Sometimes you seem to play both ends against the middle which can make you interesting, but hard to figure out. :confused:
I don't play for either team. [strike]Not[/strike] sorry.
Thought for sure you'd get it after reading the "bills."
No worries. There actually were a few in there, but the majority were pretty much just BS.
Did you read the comments? I was shaking my head at times and literally chuckling at others.
The comments were the best part. I left one myself, but it hadn't shown up yet the last time I checked.
Demoncratically controlled Senate and Hairy Reed
Wow. You really have given up on being taken seriously.
Has anyone here EVER taken Merc seriously? :right:
I keep thinking this thread is about Santorum mainlining protestants.
I realize it has become repetitive, but Rick is not letting up.
CBS News
Leigh Ann Caldwell
2/25/12
Santorum: Church/state separation not absolute
I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,"
Santorum said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
He was referring to a 1960 speech by then-presidential candidate
John F. Kennedy on religion and governance,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]which Santorum said "makes me throw up."[/COLOR]
"Because the first line, first substantive line in the speech says, 'I believe in America
where the separation of church and state is absolute," the former Pennsylvania senator said
"You bet that makes you throw up."<snip>
Kennedy gave the speech during his campaign for presidency
because of concerns about his Catholic faith.
He assured the public, including concerned Protestant leaders,
that he would not be "the Catholic candidate for President [saying]
[COLOR="DarkRed"]I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic."[/COLOR]
.
Look where it got Kennedy ... :shotgun:
:lame:
Sorry Classic, but you know (I hope) that religion had nothing to do with the assassination.
Oh ferchrissakes...
:dedhorse:
Yes Classic, I know....
I've been quite impatient with the world these past few days.
No particular reason. Time for a hiatus from (or on ?) politics for me.
Take care... Peace.
nah. Its just the election year rhetoric. Seems to be in high gear already and it
isn't even March yet. Gonna be a long year and I'm not really looking forward to it.
Oh ferchrissakes...
:dedhorse:
That horse can’t be beaten enough. I remember all too well the times when abortions were illegal and birth control could be difficult for a woman to obtain. In college and high school I had teachers and professors who felt women were not equipped to study science and mathematics. In high school I had a chemistry teacher who believed that women's brains could not grasp the fundamentals of even introductory chemistry. The first day of class he would announce that no woman in the class would receive a grade lower than a "C" (since our brains didn't work like a man's). Nor would a woman receive a grade higher than a "B" (since our minds didn't work like a man's). Santorum is living proof that the old bigotry against women is still alive and well.
In Santorum’s 2005 book, "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good," his opposition to contraception (as well as to abortion, even in the case of rape) seems part and parcel of a deep hostility toward women. Santorum has stated that " Life beginning at conception is not a belief, it is not an article of faith, it is an article of fact. It's a biological fact that life, in fact, begins as conception…”
Errr… wrong. All those little wigglers that we call sperm are very much alive BEFORE conception. And they can stay alive for a day or more. What an outrage that all those potential human beings aren’t provided an egg (also alive all by itself) to penetrate, so none of that DNA goes to waste and those poor little HUMAN sperm have to die. Tisk, tisk.
Santorum’s little diatribes may seem beyond the pale to most of you, but not all that long ago, abortions were illegal and women died in back allies at the hands of butchers, as a result. I remember those days. In Colorado, the only way a woman could get an abortion was if the woman’s life would be endangered by carrying the fetus to term. You either found an understanding shrink and told him that you would kill yourself if you had to have the baby (and thus went on record as being mentally unstable), or if a woman had the money, she flew to California which had just legalized abortions. And remember that back in the 60’s, it was shameful for a woman to have a baby out of wedlock – not like today where it seems like there are more single mothers than married ones. I knew several women my age who suffered terribly because of the laws against abortion then on the books.
In addition, Santorum has shown nothing but contempt for what his book called the "radical" feminist "pitch" that "men and women be given an equal opportunity to make it to the top in the workplace." Obviously, women should live at home and be supported by their parents until the knight in shining armor shows up to whisk her away and keep her pregnant and working in the kitchen. After all, the Bible says that. Somewhere.
Then there’s the book's dismissal of programs to help impoverished single mothers improve their job prospects by returning to school: "The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong." Oh, really? So what are these women supposed to do? Work for minimum wage at some dead end job? How will they support their children on such low wages? I guess these women and children deserve what they get for not having a man around to support them. After all, the Bible says that. Somewhere.
Santorium’s world view is shared by the religious right who have already proved they can get out the vote, and by Southern state’s rights whackos like Merc. “Oh, Georgia (Alabama, South Carolina, etc.) are going to prove that the South can rise again by exercising their state’s “right” to make birth control and abortions illegal. Don’t think it couldn’t happen. It could.
So take your dead horse and ride him off into the sunset.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/14/opinion/coontz-santorum/index.html
http://www.womenarewatching.org/candidate/rick-santorumWTF are you babbling about?
Santorum is never N.E.V.E.R. getting elected to anything... EVER.
Now stop wasting you breath.
10 Reasons Why We Will Miss Bush
[YOUTUBE]DyS5L8nFCEs[/YOUTUBE]
Figured a little OBVIOUS levity was needed.
How dare you belittle her response by saying she is wasting her breath.
Sam that was a great post.
I didn't even read past the first line or two.
Her rant, however eloquent had nothing to do with my conversation with Lamp.
I didn't belittle her at all.
Again since YOU appear rather slow on what I said. Try to focus this time...
[COLOR="Red"]Santorum [/COLOR]is [COLOR="Red"]NEVER [/COLOR]EVER going to get [COLOR="Red"]elected [/COLOR]to ANYTHING.
So the fuck what. His message, the bullshit he spouts regarding women, needs to be challenged..
Maybe santorum is an avatar created to demonstrate to the religious whack jobs in the middle east that they don't hold the
patent on "crazy-ass leaders" ?
Also just wondering if this guy recalls that Ceausescu outlawed
abortion?
And satan infiltrated academia a long time ago. Mean old satan.
But The Tampa Bay Tribune's PolitiFact news service is reporting that Santorum -- since 2008 -- has linked higher education to the work of Satan. In a 2008 talk at Ave Maria University, Santorum discussed the way Satan has attacked "great institutions of America."
Where did Satan start? According to Santorum, "The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first -- first successful was in academia. He understood pride of smart people. He attacked them at their weakest. They were in fact smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different -- pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it because they’re smart. And so academia a long time ago fell."
Santorum's broadsides against higher education are producing considerable blog commentary -- and may even prompt some college presidents to speak out in ways that they normally avoid. Brian Rosenberg, the president of Macalester College, normally has a strict rule about not speaking out about politicians or policy debates, believing that the role of a president is to provide a space for all views to be heard, not to endorse a particular position or imply that a college has an official position on such issues. Rosenberg feels so strongly about this that he made it the subject of a convocation address that he adapted for an essay in 2009 for Inside Higher Ed.
But Santorum has tested Rosenberg's limits. He wrote in The Huffington Post that statements Santorum is making about higher ed are so wrong that it's appropriate for a college president to condemn them. "It is not much of a stretch, I would submit, to see the claims that (1) wanting to see more students attend college is bad for our country and (2) colleges are indoctrination mills, as ones with which a college president should publicly disagree, and that a presidential candidate who makes such claims is at least as much a threat to our collective mission as any law or court ruling," Rosenberg wrote. "So with all due respect to my responsibilities as a fundraiser and as a guardian of open discourse on my campus, I am prepared to make the case that stating publicly that I am appalled by the views of Rick Santorum is not only my right but my responsibility."
He added: "I am appalled by the views of Rick Santorum. Now excuse me while I go check on the water flow in the indoctrination mill on the northeast corner of the Macalester campus."
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/02/27/santorums-views-higher-education-and-satan#ixzz1naDd1lLP
The guy is a whacked out nutjob.
Maybe he's upset with higher education because Obama wants everybody to go to college.
link
It's snobby to want everyone to go to college. It's not stuck-up, though, to pursue a higher education.
Rick Santorum parsed the difference Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet The Press."
Appearing at a campaign stop in Troy, Mich., Santorum -- his voice thick with derision -- said on Saturday: "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard everyday and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that [tries] to indoctrinate them."
Really man? A snob? What does that make Santorum with his college degrees?... A hypocrite?
Oh yeah, he's a hypocrite.
Rick Santorum, however, is doing so. As far back as December he was calling colleges "indoctrination centers" for the left, and he has questioned the idea that scientists know what they are talking about with regard to climate change. Starting a few weeks ago -- much to the amazement of many academics -- he started challenging the idea that more Americans should go to college. He has now repeated his criticisms, this time in front of cameras in an appearance Saturday in Troy, Mich. Santorum again called President Obama a "snob" for wanting all Americans to go to college. There are "good, decent men and women," Santorum said, who are proud of their skills that were "not taught by some liberal college professor." He added, comparing himself to President Obama: "He wants to remake you in his image. I want to create jobs so people can remake their children into their image, not his."
Talking Points Memo, a liberal news site, on Saturday reported that Santorum -- in his unsuccessful re-election campaign to the Senate in 2006 -- seemed to endorse higher education policies remarkably similar to those of President Obama today. The site found a copy of Santorum's campaign website from that year, which said: "In addition to Rick's support of ensuring that primary and secondary schools in Pennsylvania are equipped for success, he is equally committed to ensuring [that] every Pennsylvanian has access to higher education. Rick Santorum has supported legislative solutions that provide loans, grants, and tax incentives to make higher education more accessible and affordable."
Not only did the website include Santorum endorsing higher education for all (Pennsylvanians), but it even quoted him as supporting federal spending for that purpose: "Rick Santorum supports increased funding for Pell Grants, and since 2001 funding for the Pell Grant program has increased by 47 percent. Pennsylvania students have benefited tremendously from Pell Grants; providing a college education for our state's youth who otherwise might not be able to afford one."
But Obama isn't pushing for hoity toity education like Snotorum implies:
While Santorum's implication is that President Obama wants everyone to have a college education like his (a liberal arts degree followed by a law school, attending elite institutions), most of the Obama push for expanded higher education has been about community colleges and job-training programs. He has spoken far more about the need to give working class people tools to advance their careers (through certificate and associate degree programs) than he has about four-year liberal arts degrees.
The man is a menace to society and seriously needs to be stopped.
And I bet dollars to doughnuts he's in the back pocket of some for-profit.
How dare you belittle her response by saying she is wasting her breath.
Sam that was a great post.
Why, thank you, Pico!
WTF are you babbling about?
I'm talking about what the women of my generation went through and how we fought to make sure our daughters and grand daughters didn't have to endure what we did. You can call that babbling if you want, but I am disappointed in you if you do.
Santorum is never N.E.V.E.R. getting elected to anything... EVER. Now stop wasting you breath.
Never, huh? Santorum was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives on behalf of Pennsylvania in 1990. Santorum was then elected as a United States Senator for Pennsylvania in 1994 and served there until 2006. Sure sounds like someone elected him to me - as a matter of fact you folks from PA kept him in office for what - 16 years?
Despite running in the bottom tier of candidates for several months in the current Republican primaries, he won the caucuses in Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado and the Missouri primary, and quickly rose to the top of national polls.
Given the current set of Republican clowns, plus the uncertain state of the economy, Santorum certainly has a chance in the 2012 elections. You are being overly complacent.
I disagree. Santorum is running on a social conservative base, not economics. He would get crushed by Obama.
I'm talking about what the women of my generation went through and how
we fought to make sure our daughters and grand daughters didn't have to endure what we did
Noble, to be sure. not disputing that at all. Calm down.
"The guy is a whacked out nutjob." "he's a hypocrite."""crazy-ass"
Santorum was elected to the House in 1990. Then Senator 1994 and served there until 2006.
Sure sounds like someone elected him to me.
Very different situation then. I'm from PA and this is not what he ran on AT ALL 20 years ago.
Given the current set of Republican clowns, plus the uncertain state of the economy,
Santorum certainly has a chance in the 2012 elections. You are being overly complacent.
No he does not. No I am not, I am being realistic. You are buying into some insane fear mongering.
The BEST thing for those who want Obama to win would be for Sanitorium to get the nomination.
I disagree. Santorum is running on a social conservative base, not economics.
He would get crushed by Obama.
Thanks, agreed. Z.E.R.O chance.
Santorum is NEVER EVER going to get elected. N.E.V.E.R.
I'm beginning to think that if we want President Obama to be re-elected a republican should be nominated to oppose him. It really doesn't matter which one.
WTF are you babbling about?....
Now stop wasting you breath.
I didn't even read past the first line or two.
Her rant...
Again since YOU appear rather slow on what I said. Try to focus this time...
... Calm down.
...
Stop being such a condescending asshole. She borrowed your 'beating a dead horse' as a bullet point to expand upon the dangers of Santorum, which she expressed very eloquently.
Again since YOU appear rather slow on what I said. Try to focus (really hard) this time...
The dead horse was between Lamp and I. It had NOTHING to do with her, nor you.
Yet the reality remains . . .
Santorum is NEVER EVER going to get elected to ANYTHING.
OK, so you were and still are just practicing being a jerk.
no dear - That is your game.
You are the one who has been insulting and calling me names.
You have interjected yourself into a conversation that had NOTHING to do with you.
You own it.
You are buying into some insane fear mongering.
You can never go wrong by predicting the American voter will choose the candidate who is the worst possible leader for the nation:
According to a new USA Today/ Gallup survey, in a head-to-head match up against President Obama, Republican presidential contender Rick Santorum performs slightly better than his GOP rival Mitt Romney. The poll undercuts Romney's electability argument against Santorum just one day ahead of a critical primary in Michigan.
Nationally, Santorum beats Mr. Obama 49 percent to 46 percent, the poll shows, while Romney ties with the president at 47 percent. The national survey, conducted February 20-21, has a four-point margin of error, meaning both GOP candidates are statistically tied with Mr. Obama.
In a survey of voters in 12 swing states by USA Today and Gallup, Santorum's lead against Mr. Obama widens. He beats the president 50 percent to 45 percent. The swing state survey, conducted February 14-21, also has a four-point margin of error. In this poll, Romney bests Mr. Obama 48 percent to 46 percent.
SourceI'll reserve judgement for at least another month.
Polls at this point are pretty meaningless.
Lets just wait and see.
You can never go wrong by predicting the American voter will choose the candidate who is the worst possible leader for the nation:
Keep in mind that Santorum has never really been attacked by anyone yet because no has taken him seriously until now. If he wins the primary and the discussed topics switch back to economics from social issues, I'm willing to bet he will get overrun. Santorum would help as a VP, not president.
I don't think those polls have any legitimacy in this particular situation.
It weirds me out that he could even be considered as a VP.
This man's political views are faith-based. Just, wow.
I don't think those polls have any legitimacy in this particular situation.
agreed
Santorum would help as a VP, not president.
Even in that role I think he will be a hindrance more so than a help.
The radical right will fall in line with whomever the R choice is.
The moderates and the Independents will not.
They will not vote for his level of extremism.
He has said far too much already and IMO has voided himself from any shot.
Poll: Given Choice Between Romney and Santorum, Most Voters Choose Suicide
DETROIT – With just one day until the key Republican contests in Michigan and Arizona,
a new survey of likely voters indicates that in a match-up between former Massachusetts Governor
Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, a majority would choose suicide
over either candidate.
The poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, shows
Mr. Romney drawing 21%, Mr. Santorum 18%, and various forms of suicide 61%.
“Throwing yourself in front of a speeding city bus” was the most popular means of suicide at 22%,
with “jumping off the roof of a really tall building or bridge” coming in second at 17%.
According to pollster Davis Logsdon, the surging popularity of suicide bodes ill for both Gov. Romney
and Sen. Santorum as presidential candidates in 2012.
“It’s still early, but even at this stage of the game the prospect of one of those two being nominated
shouldn’t be making voters want to kill themselves in these numbers,” Mr. Logsdon said.
Reached on the campaign trail in Lansing, Mr. Romney pointed out that while he did not do as well as suicide,
he still polled higher than Sen. Santorum, adding, “That’s better than a sharp stick in the eye.”
But Mr. Logsdon was quick to throw cold water on Mr. Romney’s upbeat assessment:
“In a head-to-head match-up, a sharp stick in the eye beats Romney by a two-to-one margin.”
Elsewhere, Academy Award voters hailed “The Artist” as the ultimate fantasy film, since it depicts
a world in which the French are silent.
Link This is a couple days old, but I just saw it.
[ATTACH]37567[/ATTACH]
You can never go wrong by predicting the American voter will choose the candidate who is the worst possible leader for the nation:
W got a second term, I understand the Shenanigamns by which this was achieved but still cannot fully beleive it.
re:VP's, well they picked Palin, I also don't understand who might have thought this was going to get them votes. sooo many people could just not put her anywhere near the Whitehouse, it was a couple of solid nails in the coffin of McCains campaign.
Oh, come on people! The headline I posted was funny. Where's the love?
Santorum ... behind ... Three way
Love for you here, Big G.
Made me snicker.
Love for you here, Big G.
Made me snicker.
Made me snicker snack! ;)
Oh, come on people! The headline I posted was funny. Where's the love?
Didn't Santorum say love is only between a man and a woman? Santorum in a three way? Doesn't Alabama have plenty of hate laws to make such things illegal?
Made me snicker snack! ;)
Swords into ploughshares, please!
I LOLLed at Glatt's headline.
Didn't Santorum say love is only between a man and a woman? Santorum in a three way? Doesn't Alabama have plenty of hate laws to make such things illegal?
I think if you sign the divorce papers mid-coital you can go trey er maybe Newt told me that.
This is a couple days old, but I just saw it.
[ATTACH]37567[/ATTACH]
I got this in my e-mail 2 days ago, cropped out the good part. Feel free to save and repost.
Google Santorum!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/us/politics/from-nominal-catholic-to-clarion-of-faith.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
This might belong in the politics as psychology thread. Follow his wife's development... if you dare. The Opus Dei involvement is very troubling, unless you're into 30's Spain.
*shudder* 30's Spain? more like 16th-century Spain. Santorum only gets more and more unacceptable, more and more unelectable as more information reaches the public. If he survives the attacks long enough to get himself nominated, I'm almost certain - or at least desperately hopeful - that the American public, as low as opinion as I have of it, CAN'T be crazy enough to elect him once the General Election attacks and reveals set in. Once they know who they're REALLY voting for, all but the most disturbed and extreme theocrats will lose their enthusiasm for him.
*shudder* 30's Spain? more like 16th-century Spain.
Well the thought is 16th century but the Opus Dei crowd was pretty tight with the Generalisimo.
yeah, yeah. I just happen to consider the comparison to 400 years ago more damning than the comparison to 80 years ago, and at least equally accurate.
Santorum only gets more and more unacceptable, more and more unelectable as more information reaches the public.
He has always been unelectable, Its just that more people are realizing it the more he talks. ;)
If he survives the attacks long enough to get himself nominated ...
Fear not - never gonna happen.
I hope he DOES get the nomination, because he's the easiest target in the general. But the idea of him being PRESIDENT is more than terrifying.
not a chance in hell.
He has a fairly clear path to the nomination. I still think Romney is more likely, but it's a close race still.
I hope you're right, classic. I'm with Ibram...scary scary thought.
He has a fairly clear path to the nomination.
Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaa - Not a chance in hell.
but he's winning in lots of polls! I would HOPE that that's a trend that'll reverse as he gets more and more exposure, but right now it seems like he has at least almost as good a shot as Romney.
I think classicman is a secret Santorum supporter, and is hoping he'll sneak in without being opposed.
but he's winning in lots of polls! I would HOPE that that's a trend that'll reverse as he gets more and more exposure, but right now it seems like he has at least almost as good a shot as Romney.
Puh - Who answers poll questions?
If he is the nom, Obama wins like 56 of the 58 states )
I think classicman is a secret Santorum supporter, and is hoping he'll sneak in without being opposed.
I'd sooner put a bullet in [strike]his[/strike] my head.
I hope he wins the nom and loses by 15 points in the general.
That will convince the hardliners that continuing the culture war is a loser.
This is like the one chance the hardcore social conservatives get to speak their mind...because I don't see Rick Santorum being able to peel off enough moderates and independents to topple Obama.
But we elected Santorum to 2 terms as senator in Pennsylvania...a state that has leaned blue the last 20 years and is still doing so. Stranger things have happened.
I was never one of those "if Bush gets it again I'm moving to Canada" people, but I would have to strongly consider whether or not I would feel safe in a country run by a nutjob like Santorum. Maybe Vermont would stay safe enough, but I know queers across the country who literally fear for their lives if that man is given a big enough platform long enough. The last thing this country needs is someone stirring up more hate.
I was never one of those "if Bush gets it again I'm moving to Canada" people, but I would have to strongly consider whether or not I would feel safe in a country run by a nutjob like Santorum. Maybe Vermont would stay safe enough, but I know queers across the country who literally fear for their lives if that man is given a big enough platform long enough. The last thing this country needs is someone stirring up more hate.
The president has power, but not that much power. If Santorum gets the nominee gays and other 'undesirables' aren't going to get rounded up and people aren't going to suddenly act on homophobic prejudices. People didn't change after Obama got elected and people aren't going to change if Santorum gets elected.
I hope he wins the nom and loses by 15 points in the general.
That will convince the hardliners that continuing the culture war is a loser.
Agreed. Its a losing battle for them on multiple fronts.
if Rush Limbaugh has 16-year-old, non-sexually-active girls being
ruthlessly and disgustingly bullied for daring to take birth control, I shudder to think how having someone like Santorum in office will motivate bigots to take their bigotry public. Maybe you think nothing will change; I still fear for the safety of queers everywhere if a hatemonger of that calibre makes it to the presidency.
Ibs - I mean this in the best way possible.
STOP playing into the fear tactics of MM and their ilk.
You are starting to sound like the same people who said the sky was falling when Obama got elected.
You are too smart for that.
I was never one of those "if Bush gets it again I'm moving to Canada" people, but I would have to strongly consider whether or not I would feel safe in a country run by a nutjob like The Pope. Maybe Vermont would stay safe enough, but I know queers across the country who literally fear for their lives if that man is given a big enough platform long enough. The last thing this country needs is someone stirring up more hate.
FTFY
The president has power, but not that much power. If Santorum gets the nominee gays and other 'undesirables' aren't going to get rounded up and people aren't going to suddenly act on homophobic prejudices.
Don't be so sure.
People didn't change after Obama got elected
Gun sales soared, and the tea party movement gained momentum.
Don't be so sure.
When Bush was still in office, Penn Jillette said the Democrats are the party of hate, and the Republicans are the party of fear.
This is you trying to reverse that condition.
Gun sales soared because people thought Obama was going to ban all future gun sales, not because of hate. Also, the Tea Party is an economic movement, not social.
When Bush was still in office, Penn Jillette said the Democrats are the party of hate, and the Republicans are the party of fear.
This is you trying to reverse that condition.
Is it?
Gun sales soared because people thought Obama was going to ban all future gun sales, not because of hate. Also, the Tea Party is an economic movement, not social.
All I'm saying is that people changed.
Is it?
Yes, you see:
If you ACTUALLY BELIEVED that there was ANY REMOTE CHANCE that people were going to be rounded up, you would come up with something more than "Is it?"
I will give you the benefit of doubt, and say if you actually believed that, you would be working a LOT harder to prevent it.
All I'm saying is that people changed.
If you broaden to that, then yes, people can change or be more upfront with certain views from a presidential election. But just because people will join a protest movement does not mean people are going to start acting differently by openly displaying homophobic bigotry.
Remember the bullshit postulation of a post-racial United States after an Obama victory? Didn't happen. Why? Because people aren't going to act out bigotry (or lack of bigotry) from the person sitting in the oval office.
The only argument that
could be made (from what I thought of) is the subtle effects from exposure to bigoted comments and perspectives. The best example would be the Islamaphobic comments since September 11th. But, the influence from Santorum will be at a much much lower level.
Remember when Johnny Carson caused a month-long toiler paper shortage?
It would be just like that if Santorum got elected.
Rick hasn't seriously put his foot in his mouth for about a week. Do you think his advisers finally told him 'Just shut the fuck up, we might actually win this thing'?
Still, it's going to be hard to put the crazy back in the bottle for the general election if he's nominated.
I have faith (I just hope it's not misplaced! lol) in the American people that they wouldn't actually vote for this maniac as the Republican candidate, nevermind the President. If he actually gets elected, maybe the world really will end in 2012.
Hmmmm. Now that's the most compelling comment I've heard about the 2012 thing.
I have faith in the American people that they wouldn't actually vote for this maniac
Faith is what inspires the most religious to believe only what they are told to believe. Faith is what inspired Santorum to intercede in a private family matter to save a dead woman in FL. Consider another (better) word.
The Westboro Baptist Church is a Santorum supporter. Another example of the faithful.
Ok, screw it ...
Gingrich/Santorum 2012!
If you're going to crash the train, crash it hard.
Ok, screw it ...
Gingrich/Santorum 2012!
If you're going to crash the train, crash it hard.
sigged
Santorum Wants To Ban Porn
Let's ban religious cults that molest little boys while we are at it.
Oh GAWD, there was a truck at a neighbors, think it might be one of the toothless neighbors: one of those beat up little tiny trucks, rusty pieces falling off, no head rest so in an accident their head can go through the back window. Big old window sticker "SANTORUM."
I wanted to ram into them but I had the rental car. SERIOUSLY? This guy is WINNING?
*calls Canada*
Or, hey aussies, got room for a disgusted 'merkin over there?
[YOUTUBE]HJV85DLBL40[/YOUTUBE]
I'm sorry I can't find it on youtube, and if you don't want to watch the commercial I'm also sorry.
But this woman is finally saying something that needed to be said. The irony is noted.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/jansing-and-co/46706450/#46706450I'm sorry I can't find it on youtube, and if you don't want to watch the commercial I'm also sorry.
But this woman is finally saying something that needed to be said. The irony is noted.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/jansing-and-co/46706450/#46706450
That was a good commercial!
And I completely agree with what the woman is trying to do.
Faith.
America.
Restored.
I've watched that video five times now.
Senator Turner is great.
I didn't hear the comment, but on NPR this morning, they were reporting that Santorum lost Puerto Rico because on a recent campaign stop there, he said that Puerto Ricans need to learn to speak English if they want to join the US.
That may play well with his base in the conservative South, but you don't go to Puerto Rico and say that. Dummy.
I'd heard about the Puerto Rican comment then heard on the radio that he got trounced there. Idgit.
Saw a clip on the news this morning some guy, some politician I think, said Santorum is using the secret service (can they do that?) on his campaign now. He said "It's the first time he's used protection." :lol:
I'm sorry I can't find it on youtube, and if you don't want to watch the commercial I'm also sorry.
But this woman is finally saying something that needed to be said. The irony is noted.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/jansing-and-co/46706450/#46706450
Truly brilliant!
Has Santorum made his views clear on contraception? Perhaps he just pulls out.
Run for president. Suspend the campaign. Ask supporters for money to get out of the campaign debt:
"I know there's been a lot of articles written that somehow we dropped out because we ran out of money. That just is a little, very, very small piece of the story," Santorum said. "The bottom line is we wanted to take this race as far as we could to the point where we felt that we could be successful."
But shortly after he suspended his campaign last Tuesday, an e-mail was sent to supporters asking for help to retire his debt. Debt would burden Santorum's goals going forward, the e-mail read – the same argument the call's moderator and campaign adviser Mark Rogers made to supporters Monday night.
Debt would burden his goals going forward? Too fucking bad. I don't know a lot of people down here on the actual real earth whose debt isn't burdening goals of moving forward. :mad:
Oh, and 'there HAVE been a lot of articles written..."
Dumb, and greedy, and dumb. WTG Rick. We hardly knew ye.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/16/11235492-santorum-money-was-not-the-main-reason-for-dropping-out?lite
I agree with that senator Sanatorium [sic] who says if we let this stuff go too far, pretty soon we'll be fucking dogs.
six years ago, he was being used as an example of backwards bigotry. Way to move BACKWARDS while the rest of us move forward, rick.