Santorum - Thoughts?

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,068
2,029
743
Where else but Stillwater
There are just as many questions that cannot be answered by science either, both have their limits. I agree, that church and state should be separate, as the combination of the two lead to further corruption of both.
And in the case of religion, it can not answer where God came from. Did He come from a big bang incident or was created by a yet higher God or Gods? Where does God think he came from, anyway?
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
16,154
3,980
1,743
62
Edmond
With only Romney failing to expose major vulnerabilities -- I'm wondering if I should reconsider Ron Paul and trust in him assembling a good cabinet and trusting them in the areas where he doesn't seem to have things well thought out.

While I am not totally opposed to the idea of moving to a less militarily entangled international stance the idea of simply pulling up stakes in quick fashion makes me very, very nervous. In analogy; pulling off all the siding on the garden shed may have been ill advised without having more siding (or checking for bees first!) but now that you've done it you need to follow through and purchase new siding to put up.

A good Secretary of State would help keep reality in play in foreign policy.

I'm not totally opposed to Romney. If he is the nominee I'll chose him over the incumbent, but I don't think he's the man to lead us out of this mess. I just don't see him being someone who makes hard choices. He seems to have all of Bill Clinton's foibles (except the office panty-dances) without Clinton's formidable intellect.

We need a leader who can clean up the government (ethically and fiscally) and steer us on a path that maintains our position of world leadership in a sustainable and moral way. I actually think Herman Cain may have been that man, but I guess only Democrats can get away (politically) with playing grab-ass.

I'm kind of all over the map in this post because I don't see a complete candidate anywhere in this process right now.
 

okstate987

Special Teams Coach
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
5,062
4,221
743
Denver, CO
You're not understanding my point. I didn't question that a candidate (who is religious) might use that to help get votes. My point is that there are those who use religion against a candidate who is religious as well to get votes. And I would suggest the second is a prevalent if not more so than the first.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread the first mention of religion in this thread was an attack on Santurom because of his religion.... Not someone using religion to gain votes, but someone using religion as a reason not to vote for that candidate.



So, who uses religion more to manipulate votes?
Have I suggested anywhere in this thread another candidate I am trying to siphon votes to? I don't have a problem with his religion, i have a problem with his methodology which is manipulative at the very least. I have never heard anyone either on this board or talking to people face to face that have mentioned Romney's religion (Mormanism) as a detraction from supporting him. Only the media mentions it as a possible detraction.
As I pointed out in an earlier thread the first mention of religion in this thread was an attack on Santurom because of his religion.... Not someone using religion to gain votes, but someone using religion as a reason not to vote for that candidate.
Did I post that? I have a problem with his substance-less pandering, reread my post.
So, who uses religion more to manipulate votes?
Who do you think? The people who have the most to gain from mentioning it.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,068
2,029
743
Where else but Stillwater
I think he understands that growth is key, keeping taxes low and addressing deficit spending. I believe he'll also see that consumer spending of the past (70% of GDP) is not our way out of this mess but rather manufacturing, or at least I'm hoping.
But I don't see a return of manufacturing unless the minimum wage is abolished, which many conservatives support, so manufacturers can see if people will actually work for as little as .50 an hour.
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
16,154
3,980
1,743
62
Edmond
With only Romney failing to expose major vulnerabilities -- I'm wondering if I should reconsider Ron Paul and trust in him assembling a good cabinet and trusting them in the areas where he doesn't seem to have things well thought out.

While I am not totally opposed to the idea of moving to a less militarily entangled international stance the idea of simply pulling up stakes in quick fashion makes me very, very nervous. In analogy; pulling off all the siding on the garden shed may have been ill advised without having more siding (or checking for bees first!) but now that you've done it you need to follow through and purchase new siding to put up.

A good Secretary of State would help keep reality in play in foreign policy.

I'm not totally opposed to Romney. If he is the nominee I'll chose him over the incumbent, but I don't think he's the man to lead us out of this mess. I just don't see him being someone who makes hard choices. He seems to have all of Bill Clinton's foibles (except the office panty-dances) without Clinton's formidable intellect.

We need a leader who can clean up the government (ethically and fiscally) and steer us on a path that maintains our position of world leadership in a sustainable and moral way. I actually think Herman Cain may have been that man, but I guess only Democrats can get away (politically) with playing grab-ass.

I'm kind of all over the map in this post because I don't see a complete candidate anywhere in this process right now.
What vulnerabilities does Mitt Romney have? I'm sure there are some but I would not shy away from voting for him because they haven't been aired. There are simply too many things that would have to come about for me to have any sort of a comfort level with Ron Paul. The only way I could vote for him is if he is the only option against obama, which I do not expect to occur.
That said, I will support whomever the opposition party puts up against the sitting occupant of the Oval Office.
 

OrangeAggie

Assistant to the Moderater
A/V Subscriber
Feb 6, 2004
19,959
14,806
1,743
Edmond
That can be your little secret. I think the rest of us are going to be willing to trust the balance of mainstream academia rather than taking only the negative opinions. I'm going to guess that, once satisfied that a portion of Josephus' history was altered you became satisfied, stopped investigating and didn't learn that only the portions declaring divinity are widely considered to be alterations.

None of those sources can remotely lend evidence or proof that Yeoshua was Christ, but they clearly demonstrate that there was a man and that there were people who believed him to be the Christ. I gave you a list of Jewish and Roman writers who mention the man and you have just roundly denounced the lot on the basis of some fragmentary forgeries in Josephus' histories.

As I tell the creationists I debate; running around with your hands over your ears and chanting "La, La, La" won't make the evidence go away. There is sufficient extra-Biblical documentation of the existence of the man to make it quite reasonable to say that the gospels refer to an actual person who did live.
1. Tactitus: Forgery. The statement didn't show up until the 15th century, which is curious considering how desperate early Christian leaders were for evidence of Jesus' existence. We have massive amounts of Tactitus' writings, and the writing style is wrong, he calls Pilate a procurator, rather than a Prefect, and it's interesting that it's the only few sentences in all of his works that even mention Christianity.

2. Pliny the Younger's letter in 112 CE is worthless as evidence because he never even mentions Jesus. He mentions Christians, and references Christ, but that's hardly evidence. Plus, the authenticity of that letter is widely doubted.

3. Suetonius wrote a sentence in Lives of the Twelve Caesars something about "Chrestus", which is not a known synonym for Christ. Is this really something you consider to be evidence?

4. Testomonium Flavianum was altered by Catholic scribes to support the existence of Jesus. This is the consensus among historians, so if you want to stick your head in the sand, feel free, but I'll go with the expert opinion.

5. Mara bar Sarapion mentions a "Wise King", but that's it. Never mentions anything about Jesus.

The rest of your sources are all so absurd that I'm not even going to bother debating them.
 

okstate987

Special Teams Coach
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
5,062
4,221
743
Denver, CO
other accepted facts:

gravity, evolution, expanding universe (likely due to big bang, although the exact moment of big bang is still theory), 4.5 billion year old earth, earliest hominid ancestor 6-7 million year ago.
The above are still Theories. They may have supporting evidence, but still have many many holes. There is one big myth that many fall into, and that is the Myth of Certainty.
 

okstate987

Special Teams Coach
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
5,062
4,221
743
Denver, CO
But I don't see a return of manufacturing unless the minimum wage is abolished, which many conservatives support, so manufacturers can see if people will actually work for as little as .50 an hour.
That is because the cost of living readjusts to every increase in the minimum wage. Things like milk, bread, and other necessities increase in price on the heels of an increase. The only thing that changes is the number of dollars being exchanged, the purchasing power stays the same. (I was working @ minimum wage at the time of the last increase)
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,068
2,029
743
Where else but Stillwater
With only Romney failing to expose major vulnerabilities -- I'm wondering if I should reconsider Ron Paul and trust in him assembling a good cabinet and trusting them in the areas where he doesn't seem to have things well thought out.
I doubt that Paul can overcome his allowing racial bigotry to come out in his newsletters. Besides, so unlike Paul, surely most Republicans feel that the USA needs to step up military spending, not reduce it. No doubt, they're looking forward to trashing Obama for not wanting to do so.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
50,997
17,632
1,743
Have I suggested anywhere in this thread another candidate I am trying to siphon votes to? I don't have a problem with his religion, i have a problem with his methodology which is manipulative at the very least. I have never heard anyone either on this board or talking to people face to face that have mentioned Romney's religion (Mormanism) as a detraction from supporting him. Only the media mentions it as a possible detraction.

Did I post that? I have a problem with his substance-less pandering, reread my post.

Who do you think? The people who have the most to gain from mentioning it.
You don't have to be siphoning votes to any particular candidate to be speaking out against another candidate or trying to sway public opinion.

Yes, it's the ones who gain the most from mentioning religion. Does one side have more to gain than the other?

Every candidate is trying to manipulate votes? And every candidate uses religion to do it, either in a positive way to reflect their values over another candidate or in a negative way to suggest negativity on a candidate because of his religion. What candidate, either a person of religion or not hasn't used religion to manipulate votes?
 

PokesPeak

scentless apprentice
Aug 21, 2009
17,265
21,870
743
OKC
The above are still Theories. They may have supporting evidence, but still have many many holes. There is one big myth that many fall into, and that is the Myth of Certainty.
you realize they still call it the "theory of gravity"... do you not believe in that?

the·o·ry

[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
Show IPA

noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonlyregarded as correct, that can be used as principles ofexplanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law,doctrine.
 

okstate987

Special Teams Coach
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
5,062
4,221
743
Denver, CO
You don't have to be siphoning votes to any particular candidate to be speaking out against another candidate.

Yes, it's the ones who gain the most from mentioning religion. Does one side have more to gain than the other?

Every candidate is trying to manipulate votes? And every candidate uses religion to do it, either in a positive way to reflect their values over another candidate or in a negative way to suggest negativity on a candidate because of his religion. What candidate, either a person of religion or not hasn't used religion to manipulate votes?
Can I not have an opinion? The title of this thread, once again, was "Santorum-Thoughts?" I will not repeat it again, I have a problem with Santorum's pandering (which happens to be religious in nature), not with his religion. If you cannot/choose not to understand that, I am sorry.
[quote="Cimarron, post: 1766763, member: 2767
What candidate, either a person of religion or not hasn't used religion to manipulate votes?
[/quote]
To my knowledge, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, and Ron Paul have not pandered in this manner, they have only addressed this topic when asked about it.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,068
2,029
743
Where else but Stillwater