The Cellar - Rick Santorum

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Rick Santorum - PA Senator (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=10222)

Rick Santorum - PA Senator

Another religious extremist who endorses torture is PA's Rick Santorum. Santorum expects PA residents to do what they always do. 98% of PA's incumbents are reelected - probably because most PA residents even wanted their State government Congressmen to be highly paid - until good Americans and some newspapers kept pointing it out. At one point, this religious extremist Senator was so worried as to declare a moratorium on meeting lobbyists. How does a religious person lie? Repeatedly.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer of 9 Mar 2006:

Quote:

Santorum and lobbyists resume talks
Gatherings were on hiatus. Now, aides say the focus is different.

After saying in January that he would suspend his regular meetings with lobbyists, Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum ... has resumed meetings with many of the same lobbyists at the same time and on the same day of the week.

Santorum ... suspended his biweekly encounters Jan. 30. His decision came as Democrats named him their top target in November's Senate elections, and after the guilty plea of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff to charges of conspiring to corrupt public officials.

Now, his aides said, he has resumed the meetings with lobbyists. The purpose of the gatherings is to help his reelection effort, but some of the same topics are discussed, aides and participants said.

In the month since his announcement, Santorum has held two meetings attended by the same core group of lobbyists, and has used the sessions to appeal for campaign aid, according to participants. Both meetings were convened at the same time as the previous meetings - 8:30 a.m. - on the same day of the week - Tuesday - and lasted for about as long as the earlier gatherings - one hour.

Instead of being held in the Capitol, however, the recent meetings were conducted nearby. The first was held about three blocks away, at the headquarters of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The second was around the corner from that building, at the Heritage Foundation.

The Capitol meetings had been convened to advance the Republican cause by enlisting lobbyists to back the party's agenda. The meetings were largely information exchanges during which Santorum and other Republicans gave speeches and fielded questions from the lobbyists.

Well, if he hides these meetings where we will not discover them, then he was not lying? Nixonian logic? Sounds like the Dover PA religious extremists who Sen Santorum encouraged and supported. They too have this problem with god's commandments: thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Quote:

Although Defendants attempt to persuade this Court that each Board member who voted for the biology curriculum change did so for the secular
purposed of improving science education and to exercise critical thinking skills, their contentions are simply irreconcilable with the record evidence. Their asserted purposes are a sham, and they are accordingly unavailing, for the reasons that follow. ...

Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distancethemselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose ...

Any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a sham and are merely
secondary to a religious objective.

But according to the moral Rick Santorum, these were good people? Clearly the judge must be wrong about people that Rick Santorum approves of.

And if he did not see the torture, then torture did not exist? He cannot even be honest about who he meets with. Another of god's chosen politicians? Clearly the Philadelphia Inquirer must be lying. One chosen by god would never lie - even to pervert the government of the United States.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

How does a religious person lie? Repeatedly.

Are you serious?

My coverage is focused on trying to keep Cheney out of trouble now anyway. There isnt time in the day to keep up on everyone.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll make note of this.

Oh, and it's God....not god...thanks

That's only if it's your god.
(It ain't mine!)

Ricky, Ricky, he's our man.
If he can't steal it, nobody can. :blush:

Well, you can't say he's against the best public education money can buy, at least when it involves his children.

Quote:

When Santorum first was elected to Congress, he lived in Mt. Lebanon. But Santorum and his wife Karen sold that house in 1995 and purchased one in a Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., that year. They since have sold that home and purchased another Virginia home assessed at $757,000.

In 1997, the Santorums bought a Penn Hills home -- located next door to Santorum's in-laws -- for $87,800.

In between the Mt. Lebanon and Penn Hills homes, Santorum said yesterday, he listed his Pennsylvania address as the Penn Hills home of his in-laws.

Nick Trombetta, chief executive officer of the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, which is based in Midland, Beaver County, said he received a copy of the Dec. 8 letter Penn Hills sent to the state Department of Education questioning payments for the Santorum children in 2003-04 and 2004-05.

Some of the Santorum children, who previously were home schooled, have been enrolled at the cyber school since 2001-02. Until the start of this school year, the bill totaled $67,013. This year would have cost $37,754, but the children attended only for the start of the school year.

I think Pennsylvania is being selfish in denying Virginia the potential services of a fine public servant like Rick Santorum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by God

Oh, and it's God....not god...thanks

Uh oh. I'm talking to God. Does that means there's a bed waiting for me in Norristown. Nah. Maybe it means he will be recalling me and Pat Robertson soon.

When I leave, tell the Pope not to canonize me. I don’t look good in a halo.

Santorum is a good indicator that the entire united states senate needs to be taken out and shot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carbonated_Brains

Santorum is a good indicator that the entire united states senate needs to be taken out and shot.

From the API New Service: The Federal Bureau of Investigation announced today that it has detected unsubstantiated threats to kill the Senate. Officials did not say if they are taking special measures to avert a potential attack. Citizens are urged to be especially vigilant while these threats exist.

Homeland Security Chief Chernoff said that he was not raising the threat level to Orange just yet.

I had an email exchange with John Featherman, the gent running against Santorum in the primary.

What you didn't know Santorum had a primary challenger? Well that's the Featherman style unfortunately, but he's a good guy, a far better choice than Santorum. I know him from the Libertarian days. I expect him to get about 10% in the primary.

There is a possible independent challenger, Kate Michelman of NARAL, but she will not be able to get on the ballot.

Tom Martin is running for the LP. The absurd number of signatures will probably keep him off the ballot as well.

from a March 9th press release
"There is no way I'm going to ask the Libertarian Party to attempt to collect over 100,000 signatures to get my name on the ballot", Krawchuk explained during a brief address to convention delegates. Third-party candidates such as Krawchuk must receive their party's nomination, then collect a minimum of 67,070 signatures to get on the statewide ballot this November, plus an extra 30,000 or more to ward off challenges. Democrats and Republicans need no further signatures after receiving their party's nomination.

The system is very effectively rigged for Santorum.

It's a good system. Keeps those do-gooders from getting elected and setting an example that would be impossible for the rest of the Senators to live up too. :rolleyes:

I saw some of his statments about liberals, or more specifically liberalism being responsible for child abuse by priests in Boston.

Quote:

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

Actually, in a way he might be right. Liberals are more likely than some conservatives to blindly question authority, so that makes them more likely not to let the subject drop. Liberals did not cause the problem, but they were most likely the ones who forced the issue into the open.

My picture of an investigation into clergy child abuse by Santorum goes something like this.

Santorum hears rumors of abuse by priests in Boston and opens investigation.
Santorum meets with Cardinal Law, possibly kisses ring.
Cardinal Law assures Santorum that such abuse is 'rare' and being investigated by church.
Santorum poses for photo opportunity with Law.
Santorum brings back signed photo and closes investigation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy

Actually, in a way he might be right. Liberals are less likely than some conservatives to blindly question authority,

I'm guessing you meant more likely. Or less likely to blindly follow authority without question.

Quote:

Liberals did not cause the problem, but they were most likely the ones who forced the issue into the open.

That seems to be the current Republican definition of a problem- someone brings a crime out into the open.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm guessing you meant more likely. Or less likely to blindly follow authority without question.That seems to be the current Republican definition of a problem- someone brings a crime out into the open.

Mea culpa. I did mean 'more likely'. Blind obedience is not a good attribute in someone who is supposed to be representing the interests of a diverse group of constituents.

Well, you see, that's the problem. It's almost impossible to represent a bunch of diverse groups.
That's why we must hammer these groups into conformity. One goal, one party, one thought process, one religion and one uniform. :rolleyes: