Is Santorum considered a fiscal conservative now? He was Mr Earmark in the senate... I haven't heard any pundits from the right refer to him as a fiscal conservative...

If you are unsure if Santorum is a fiscal conservative or not, I can only assume that either you haven't heard a single word he has said about his economic vision, or that you have poor comprehension.

In any event, compared to Obama... Castro, Stalin, and Kim Jong Il are fiscal conservatives. Santorum believes in free market capitalism, small federal govt, and low taxes, allowing for individual freedom and prosperity. Obama is obviously a European style socialist who despises individual prosperity, unless the prosperous person votes Democrat that is.

Santorum isn't a libertarian or anything. But unlike Obama, he knows that you can't spend your way out of bankruptcy, and unlike Obama, he knows you cannot borrow your way out of debt. Unlike Obama, Santorum knows that in this environment, we have no business spending $1.5 trillion more than we take in. Finally, unlike Obama, Santorum concedes that social security and Medicare need fixing in order to be saved. Whenever a conservative statwes that irrefutable fact, Obama says that person hates old people and sick people, and that kind of manipulation works on folks who have zero intellectual curiorisity.

Where am I wrong?

Change a few words above and you could be writing for the Taliban!
Who said anything about atheists? You could believe in god and not be religious. Religion is man made, run by man, all rules created by man. I've studied religion all my life, fascinated by it, but I can never follow an organized religion. I know to much.
I dont for a minute believe someone who is religious is morally better than someone who is not or someone who is an atheist.
But here is what I do know, and this is a fact. 12 yrs of catholic school and asked many leaders of the church and professors this to be sure
FACT - Catholics believe that the sacrament of communion is the ACTUAL body and blood of JC, not a symbol, but actual body and blood. That every mass an ACTUAL miracle takes place and the host is turned into body, then you EAT the body of JC.
Thats the fact.
My opinion? Anyone that believes that is insane. Period. Thus I feel intellectually superior to most hard core catholics. (ps. most catholics dont believe that and dont follow many church rules, but its a FACT that the church does believe and teach that)
So, to each his own.

Because what he says on the stump will be different when he gets into office, based on his track record in the senate. IM Very HO even given my poor comprehension.

Ypo sem to have posted this on the wrong thread...

"Change a few words above and you could be writing for the Taliban!"

Wrong. You've never heard me say men should be killed for not believeing what I believe, or for having beards not to required length. I don't murder innocent people, I don't enslave women.

"I can never follow an organized religion. I know to much."

So you are assuming that the more knowledgable a person is, the less need he has for religion. That's a big assumption on your part.

"I dont for a minute believe someone who is religious is morally better than someone who is not or someone who is an atheist"

Than you're not nearly as knowledgable as you think you are. As I said, there are exceptions. There are horrible people who call themselves religious. But if someone is, say, a true devout Catholic, that almost necessarily means they are a good person.

" I feel intellectually superior to most hard core catholics."

You are entitled to your illusions. Most liberals feel that a mass murderer has a greater right to live than an unborn baby. Thus I feel intellectually and morally superior to every single hard-core liberal.

"Catholics believe that the sacrament of communion is the ACTUAL body and blood of JC, not a symbol, but actual body and blood."

I guess you know more than me, I'm just a Eucharistic minister who hands out communion every week at Catholic mass. I don't believe I'm actually cannibalizing the body of a person who lived 2000 years ago. Nor do I believe I'm simply eating a meaninglesss wafer. It's a symbolic gesture of my willingness, and desire, to receive Christ into my life.

You can paint us all as a bunch of insane pedophiles, as liberals like to do. We are human beings, menaing we are imperfect, and we screw up royally sometimes. But in the end, our religion motivates us to do some great things. At non-religious hospitals, for instance, they will refuse to treat you (for non-emergencies) if you cannot pay. At CAtholic hospitals, if you can't pay, you get treated for free, even if you aren't Catholic.

Do you, seriously, not see how anyone could have voted for Obama after the Wright rants? I had never thought that the association Obama had with Wright or the several other radicals in his life, including his mother, would be enough to stop those who want what he and his party stand for. Being black, no doubt, helped him defeat Hillary, and being Democrat was enough to hold the base, and running against Bush/Mcain/mostlyBush and a collapsing economy
was a strong enough ticket for those who want big and bigger government and thos who were disgusted with Bush.

Voting for a candidate is so much more than voting for his character. You vote for his party, its apparatus, its mission and political philosophy. And the latter is far more consequential than his character. If that great middle, the independents, vote merely on the basis of character or some other personal disgust with the previous administration, they also make the mistake of "voting for the man" rather than his true political mission.

I don't know what off-the-cuff remarks Santorum made that deeply troubled you. Were they mission statements to the effect that he would work diligently to fulfill as President?

What do you do if both candidates in the general election lack the character that you demand?

im not going to tell you or explain how people could have voted for O after hearing Rev Wright. I said I cant see how they could. not for me to explain
I've stated above what Santorum said, I cant vote for someone that believes they are morally superior because of their religion.

I wont argue w/Jim, he is entitled to his opinion. my whole family were devout catholics, most are divorced, many cheated on their spouses. They are imperfect. we all are. But are they happier and more successful, not in my experience. Jim - check me on the sacrament of communion - you'll see Im right.

Oh - and one more. You frequently ( and I agree with you) state the fact that states/cities with the lowest incomes and most poverty are always democratic. Change that to religious and look at the global population. The countries with the most devout religious followers are also the poorest, most backwards countries on the globe.

:devil2:, literally

For Jim -

First written by an archbishop

Is The Eucharist Really Christ's Body and Blood?

reviewed for catholic doctrine

Christ in the Eucharist | Catholic Answers


http://www.americancatholic.org/News.../CU/ac0996.asp
I told ya so!

I saw the bishop last week before school. He was talking to the kids as they were lining up - he shows up every few months. Bishops are the only people left who can really pull off wearing a cape - that's gotta be some kind of miracle.

No, I'm saying there is no need for the Feds to collect for the States then
turn around and refund it to them as they see fit. Costly and Controlling.
The Fed can collect what they need for public transportation and interstate.
The States can collect their own gasoline tax for their own needs.

Who knows more about what is needed for a State's road system and infrastructure,Washington or the States? Obvious.

Seems like they do it like this already.

The Fed could tax less and have increased oversight into State funded projects...you'd still have controlling.

If the States increased their taxes to compensate...you'd still be costly.

Perhaps with a little better oversight and no bridges to nowhere pork you could make the system a bit more efficient.

-spence

"Federal money? The Federal Gvt. has its own money? "
You understand the context of what I was saying, right? :rolleyes: Go vote for Santorum in the primary please. It is best for the country if he wins the primary.

1. Obama has never said a person who thinks medicare needs fixing hates old and sick people. By extension, the intelectual curiousity garbage.

2. Castro, Stalin, Kim JOng Il are "conservative" compared to Obama. Yes, they are closer to Santorum, than Obama, but it is they are insane, not conservative.
3. Obama despises individual prosperity. Completely untrue and a juvenile analysis of his positions.

Yes, I understand the context of what you where saying. I was pointing out that the entire context is wrong to begin with. The context of the Federal Government unconstitutionally usurping State and individual rights and powers is the problem, not just that all the politicians, including Santorum, operate in that context. In that context what ANY congressperson or president does is beyond the power that is consented by the governed. In that context, they are all acting as dictatorial bureaucrats. And I was more curious that you were objecting to Santorum's attempt to legislate in that context, but not to the actual existing laws and regulations that comprise that entire context and make possible what you see as some danagerous Santorum ploy.

Yes, I look at it from the same perspective if he were Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever. I am more concerned by his agenda to incorporate his religious beliefs into education than the government's attempts to raise the standards of education. I agree, both are wrong. Only one is fundamentally scary to me.

If you think what he attempted is scarier than the vehicle that allows him to attempt it, perhaps you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

The Founders intentionally precluded the central government from legislating or interfering not only in religious matters, but the great bulk of matters that pertain to our personal lives and the function of our local and State governments. It was a pre-eminent concern that the central power was limited to specific functions that would solidify the union but not infringe on State and individual rights. They had just freed themselves from a tyrannical government, and there was a great fear of unchecked central power, so they carefully, purposefully, crafted a form of government that would prevent such tyranny. What has evolved is the government they feared. The only reason Santorum could propose what offends you, is what the Federal Government has become. There are no ground rules, no constitution defining what it cannot do. It has abandoned the Constitution it pretends to follow, or that we think it does. There are no limits to its power except the fear that it may offend too many of us. It has the power to tell you what you can grow in your garden, how much, and whether you can sell it, and how you do so. It believes it can tell you what to buy. Santorum's attempt to introduce a counter balance to such power by instilling in our youth the possibility that there is another power and purpose in this life than that of the Federal Government is puny compared to what that government has become. That you can feel that Santorum's gambit is fundamentally scary, but that what the government has become and which allows him to attempt it, is not fundamentally scary, is puzzling.

"Obama has never said a person who thinks medicare needs fixing hates old and sick people. By extension, the intelectual curiousity garbage."

A few months ago, Paul Ryan said that we needed to overhaul Social Security and Medicare, in order to save those vital programs. Obama responded by saying that Ryan wanted to take benefits away from old people and sick people. Although to be fair, Obama has also hinted that those programs need to be cut in order to be saved...

"Castro, Stalin, Kim JOng Il are "conservative" compared to Obama. "

Ever hear of hyperbole Zimmy? OK. I'll keep it objective. Obama is adding more to our debt than any president in the history of our country, and to make it worse, he's wasting that money. Instead of helping entrepeneurs grow businesses and actually create wealth, he gave the majority of it to unions, saving public sector jobs that can only be saved again next year by raising taxes, ie, by destroying wealth.

"Obama despises individual prosperity. Completely untrue "

Obama has repeatedly said that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share. That is what is completely untrue. I have also posted several times that even if we eliminated the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, the extra tax revenue would take more than 500 years to pay down our debt. What that means is, we cannot tax our way out of this, but taxing is all he talks about. not only does he not want to talk about spending cuts, he is increasing spending.

You go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong, OK?

I don't need to... you said it yourself

SANTORUM should run as Romney's VP
at the last minute

Marco Rubio will be the VP pick, regardless of who wins the primary. Rubio might be the most valuable VP in the history of presidential politics. He gives the GOP Florida, which is a huge swing state. He energizes the conservative, Tea Party wing of the GOP, which Romney especially would need. And most importantly, he gives the GOP a shot at the Hispanic vote, which is invaluable. If Rubio convinces Hispanics to lean to the GOP, watch how fast liberals change their tune on immigration.

I'm personally not a huge Romney fan. But a Romney-Rubio ticket will have the best shot at defeating Obama.

you've mentioned that b4

allot of it is merely how "Catchy" it sounds

Romney/ Rubio is very Catchy sounding

Romney seems to be outta money ??

I've been saying it since I first heard Rubio give speech when he was running for US Senate. He's impressive, and because of his Hispanic roots (and Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the US population), I believe Rubio is the most important Republican in the nation. If Republicans can't get a foothold into the Hispanic vote, we are doomed.

Is Romney having money trouble? I still believe it'll be Romney. Whether or not Obama gets re-elected will largely depend on what happens to the economy between now and November.

I think Christie will be the VP pick, he has been out pushing for Romney

Christie is a darling of the GOP, due to his willingness to stand up to public labor unions. However, he is very liberal on some social issues, not sure if that turns off the power brokers of the party. And NJ doesn't carry as many electoral votes as FL. I agree Christie is likely on the short list.

I wish, but knowing him as being Governor he's not the type of man that wants
to be second in command.
He takes no prisoners, says what he means and
means what he says but has a knack for negotiation.

I like when he went ballistic over that woman who called in and challenged him on cutting education when he sends his kids to private school...real leadership there :yak5:

And now Santorum thinks Obama is a "snob" because he wants our kids to go to college.

-spence

Romney/Rubio? Would the conservs. vote for 2 Mormans?

I was suprised to hear he didn't know when his family left Cuba.

Rubio calls himself a Catholic, i've heard folks doubt that, never heard he was a Mormon. I'd vote for a voo-doo practicioner if they believed in fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, and that all life is sacred..

I'm guessing Rubio embellished his family history for dramatic effect. It didn't hurt Hilary when she lied about snipers shooting at her, so why should it hurt Rubio if he got a date wrong?

But when Obama stated he was Christian a huge % of the teabaggers doubted him. To this day the Repub. leaderships says garbage like "if he says he's a Christian I have no reason to not believe him"

His middle name is Hussein.

-spence