Linkto text of interview in Lemur866’s post.
Why do you assume I’m for that? For the record, I’m a moderate with libertarian leanings registered as a Republican because in Kansas that allows me to vote against assholes like this twice.
I’m still at a loss as to what his position is on the legality of birth control, which is the subject of this thread.
It’s particularly disturbing to hear his say that you don’t have the right to consensual sex in your own home. There is no doubt that he wants to outlaw certain sexual acts between consenting adults, but I don’t see what that has to do birth control.
He does not directly say it, but reading between the lines of everything he’s said, I gather that he’d like to outlaw sexual acts between consenting adults, including the ability of consenting adults to use birth control.
It’s funny, 50 years ago JFK had to prove to America that he wouldn’t take orders from the Pope now Mr Santorum tells us he wants to impose Catholic doctrine on the entire nation by force of law.
And the evengelicals are eating it up. Santorum, that is.
I think it’s clear that he wants the states to be able to outlaw “Sodomy”. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wanted to outlaw birth control for unmarried couples, but I find it hard to believe that he wants to do so married couples. Not sure how you would go about doing that, but it’s probably possible. All BC methods become prescription, and you have to get a prescription from a doctor to buy them.
Someone needs to clear the air on this and get this man to state, clearly, what his position is. If he even wants to do what I outlined above, he’s toast. If wants to outlaw all BC, he’s beyond toast. And the thing is, he’s famous for trying to trap pre-choice politicians into stating that they support abortion in cases where most people are uncomfortable, so he needs a little of his own medicine here.
When’s the next debate, and how do we get that to happen?
Mr Santorum has gone on record stating that he believes pres. Kennedy was wrong and should not have said what he did. That it did much harm to the country! That Santorum uses his religion to guide what he votes for or against. What bills he sponsored. Basically the complete opposite of kennedy’s and kerry’s presidential campaigns.
Santorum speaks out against the dangers of sharia law, but catholic law is just fine and dandy.
The next debate is Saturday, perhaps you could email mr stephanopolous?
I’d love to see the quote where he said that.
He’s also a big proponent of “intelligent design” and tried to add an amendment to the “No Child Left Behind” legislation requiring schools to teach evolution alternatives.
What a moron.
[QUOTE=Rick Santorum]
“I had an opportunity to read the speech and I almost threw up,” Santorum told the small crowd, “In my opinion, it was the beginning of the secular movement of politicians to separate their faith from the public square. And he threw faith under the bus in that speech.”
[/QUOTE]
From here. Maybe it’s hyperbole, but I doubt he really had to hold back vomit.
Wow. There’s no context to that quote, but I’m at a loss to think of what context could put it in a good light.
He seems to have had an advantage of not being under the microscope during the Iowa caucus. Let’s see how this sort of stuff treats him going forward now that the microscope is aimed right at him.
Yeah, between comment, the comment moldmonkey quoted, and most of the other things Santorum has ever said, it’s clear that he’s a big-government conservative. The kind that, you know, was supposed to be on the wane now that we’re all thinking about the economy and the budget but actually hasn’t gone anywhere at all. He believes in a government that can extensively legislate and enforce morality and thinks that’s what government is for.
That is weird, the RCC thinks evolution is copacetic.
He made the comment at the College of St. Mary Magadalen’s “Faith and Life Forum”, in October. Here’s the questions and answers.
The question starts around 29:25.
In brief, his complaint about Kennedy’s answer is that Kennedy says that he’s not going to let his Catholic faith shape his actions, but that he’ll make decisions based on the dictates of his conscience. But, Santorum says, that’s impossible, because no one is born with a fully formed conscience. Our conscience is shaped by our life experiences and by the values we were taught by our parents and our churches growing up. And morality is important in politics, since pretty much every political issue is also a moral issue. So, since it’s impossible, when politicians say that, he says, it’s code for saying that they’re going to privilege non-religious moral views (secularism, humanism, or what have you) over religious ones. Santorum says he prefers Madison’s viewpoint, where everybody brings their moral views, religious or otherwise to the public sphere, and everyone has an equal shot of convincing the public of the rightness of their views.
It was linked into an article on www.Philly.com by will bunch called the rick Santorum that America doesn’t know. Number 8 on the list.
My computer is unhappy at the moment, or I’d find the link.
Your computer is constipated. More fiber.
Most Catholics aren’t experts about their religion. The people who post here are generally thoughtful, but I know plenty of generic Christians who have expended very little energy to understand the minutia.
Santorum also likes to promote his humble origins. He neglects to mention how he introduced legislation favorable to a couple of corporations that subsequently hired him as a “consultant” once he was booted out of congress, and paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars for his trouble. If that isn’t bribery or kickback, then I’m misreading the definition of the words.
the computer is happy again! here is the link:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/136706293.html
social issues and walmart. there you have him.