Rick Santorum on the issues

[rambone]

Don't these type of hit pieces make you wonder if the OP is a trained Main stream media member? Time lines of questionable "facts" and videos with questionable context editing....huh, I am far from sold that this stuff is legit. And so should be you.

Main stream media member? Them's fightin words where I come from.

I spend hours doing research because the MSM does nothing but obfuscate the truth and make these wannabe-dictators look like principled candidates.

Nobody trained me. I work alone. You know that.

 

[rambone]

Santorum ad makes deceptive claims

Santorum has an ad ("Best Chance") that makes some deceptive claims.

Primarily people are upset that he is claiming he "Served 8 years on Armed Services." Most people read this and think that he served in the military. The fact is that he served on an Armed Services Committee.

The rest of his ad can be easily picked apart too.

"Full-spectrum conservative"
>> Except for the whole lack of "fiscal" conservatism.

"Tea Party favorite"
>> Strange considering that he criticized the Tea Party saying he had "real concerns" about them trying to "refashion conservatism."

"Fought corruption and tax-payer abuse"
>> Except when he abused the taxpayers with budget busting entitlements and made the list of most corrupt members of congress.

"Reformed welfare"
>> Perhaps by expanding entitlements across the board.

"Made in the USA jobs plan"
>> May involve a trade war with China.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fKXkAhAFts

 

[rambone]

Santorum: The right to contraception does not exist

He thinks that activist judges are at fault for reaffirming an individual's right to use contraception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kjls0Ln7D4

 

[rambone]

Rick Santorum fights "The Dangers of Contraceptives"; Birth Control is "not OK"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBTLnO7FQM8

 

[Smokepole]

What ever happened to the Tea Party? They were credited with changing Washington during the last election cycle by sweeping in Tea Party legislators. They certainly can't endorse Santorum's record, can they? Or, are they simply laying low, choosing to ignore the big government spending records in favor of a socially conservative agenda? Or, is the grassroots Tea Party movement over like OWS?

Certainly a question that I have been asking during the primary process. Have seen little evidence of them the whole time. My guess is that they don't like any of the candidates either and have decided to keep quiet see where things end up for the Presidential run.

The big question will be: will we see them once a Repub candidate has been determined? Curious to see how that shakes out.

 

[rambone]

Santorum insisted that he was "not a Reagan Republican" (1990)

Rick Santorum Cast Himself As 'Progressive Conservative,' Non-Reaganite In First Campaign

Making his first run for Congress in the early 1990s, this candidate promised not to be a Reagan Republican, fashioned himself a progressive conservative, said he was impartial on unions and stayed vague on abortion rights.

Contest Sparks Election - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - November 3, 1990

Here's where he is cited as calling himself a "progressive conservative."

Pittsburg Press - October 28, 1990

 

[rbsangler]

The videos show the words coming from his mouth. They're all "in context". The fact of the matter is that Santorum is about the worst candidate out there, (and that's saying a hell of a lot, considering Gingrich and Romney). Go ahead and waste a vote on the Ayatollah. If he wins the nomination Obama is a shoe in, (as he already pretty much is anyway, given the "competition").

My point was crystal clear, you missed it, it had nothing to do with any candidate.

 

[rbsangler]

still not sold

I'm still not sold. Maybe the OP works alone, that's fine. The fact that these hit pieces are riddled with MSM work and edited You tube videos simply makes me skeptical as to credibility....that's all I am saying.

 

[rambone]

Santorum warns that Iran may attack North Dakota

More fearmongering as he makes his way through the states.

Santorum to North Dakota: Terrorists 'will bother you'

Rick Santorum warned a quiet North Dakota audience Wednesday that their state’s booming oil industry positioned the region as a prime target for terrorism.

“Folks, you’ve got energy here. They’re going to bother you. They’ll bother you, because you are a very key and strategic resource for this country,” the Republican presidential candidate said. “No one is safe. No one is safe from asymmetric threats of terrorism.”

Santorum pointed to Iran as the source behind future terrorist attacks, ramping up his rhetoric on a country he frequently discusses on the campaign trail.

“That’s what Iran will be all about unless we stop them from getting that nuclear weapon,” Santorum said.

 

[rambone]

Santorum: The right to privacy doesn't exist (2003)

Here's an infamous 2003 interview where he suggests that activist judges created that pesky "right to privacy" and condones government prohibition of bedroom acts between consenting adults.



USATODAY.com - Excerpt from Santorum interview
April 23, 2003

SANTORUM: And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

Here he condones bedroom laws against things like sodomy. He is against "homosexual acts."

He suggests that homosexuals are destroying society and relates them to "man on dog" relationships.

Most importantly, he says that the right to privacy doesn't really exist.

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

 

[rambone]

Surging Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed?

Rick is taking a beating for choosing to fight such idiotic battles.

He's the most divisive candidate by far.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsquCopESig

 

[rambone]

Santorum flip-flops on Social Security

He used to say that the retirement age should be at least 70, and he'd "go even farther if he could." Today he sings a different tune.



www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZX6XCT3Z8E

 

[rbsangler]

C'mon

The Op of this thread has made a hit piece out of it, just as they have done in several other strings.....while the op has tried to remain objective....unfortunately they have not. I have only tried to gently expose the outright hypocrisy and the questionable agenda of the op. You see, just as the op has run down the Main stream media, they have , without fail, chosen main stream media sources as means to support a point. The op has been corrected on several historical facts, and has corrected them properly within their posts. Good for them......but credibility does suffer when historical research is proven to be lax. In other words.....you can't just make stuff up, even if it is the internet.
,
It just doesn't hold water when they constantly use articles and videos created by others to support their point.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

He thinks that activist judges are at fault for reaffirming an individual's right to use contraception.

I have read the Constitution and do not see any language referring to contraception. In which article or amendment does it say that contraception is a right again or are we using the living Constitution?

 

[rambone]

I have read the Constitution and do not see any language referring to contraception. In which article or amendment does it say that contraception is a right again or are we using the living Constitution?

Amendment 9. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It just doesn't hold water when they constantly use articles and videos created by others to support their point.

You want me to write my own articles?

 

[sepe]

The Op of this thread has made a hit piece out of it, just as they have done in several other strings.....while the op has tried to remain objective....unfortunately they have not. I have only tried to gently expose the outright hypocrisy and the questionable agenda of the op. You see, just as the op has run down the Main stream media, they have , without fail, chosen main stream media sources as means to support a point. The op has been corrected on several historical facts, and has corrected them properly within their posts. Good for them......but credibility does suffer when historical research is proven to be lax. In other words.....you can't just make stuff up, even if it is the internet.
,
It just doesn't hold water when they constantly use articles and videos created by others to support their point.

You know, many times you can expose the BS in the MSM by using various sources of "respected" MSM on the same type of subject. You could show the bias by each, show their research flaws, etc. If you have EVER listened to the majority of MSM (and politicians), historical research is not needed for credibility. All you have to do is give your side and get angry when people challenge you, after all, far too many idiots in this country find that an acceptable strategy in a presidential debate.


rambone, if you started writing your own articles to expose things, you'd probably be added to another list (especially if you jotted ideas on paper, as that is a sign of being a terrorist). If you make too many more lists, they're coming to kick in your door, burn your couch, shoot your dog, and violate you in ways, you'll wish it was only your rights. Nobody wants that.

 

[PINski1015]

Religion and Government don't mix. History has proved that time and time again. I'm religious and believe in God but I think it has no place in government.

 

[mrjarrell]

Apparently all of America's troubles can be laid at the feet of a bogeyman. This guy is one of the gop's best? You guys are screwed.

DRUDGE: SANTORUM'S SATAN WARNING

 

[level.eleven]

Apparently all of America's troubles can be laid at the feet of a bogeyman. This guy is one of the gop's best? You guys are screwed.

DRUDGE: SANTORUM'S SATAN WARNING

I may support Santorum. We would be guaranteed four great years of SNL skits.

This is apparently the new face of the Republican party. Rick legislated some prayers for rain, Michelle thinks the coastal hurricanes were a devine message on federal spending, and Santorum thinks the country is being attacked by Satan.

 

[rambone]

"I Was Basically Pro-Choice All My Life, Until I Ran For Congress" (1995)

Santorum In '95: 'I Was Basically Pro-Choice All My Life, Until I Ran For Congress'