Senator Rick Santorum backs slots $ for new arena

[DayWalker]

Santorum is a *****bag. This guy, on many occasions, has equated gays
with those that commit beastiality, has said that gay couples shouldn't legally be allowed to raise children, AND brought home a premature-born, dead fetus to show his kids because he thought they should learn from it. And that's only the beginning of where this guy stands...he wants to take away womens rights too.

So how are you any better? Persecuting him for his beliefs? Whether you agree with some of them or not that's how he feels, and he has his reasons for believing what he does.

I get sick of people trying to be PC by not insulting those who are different, but at the same time shooting down be who believe things that are different that themself.

Disagree if you want. I'm not defending his positions, but I'll defend his right to believe what he believes without being labled as "crazy."

Are you serious? The difference is that our friend Tikkanen doesn't want to legislate his beliefs. Santorum is certainly entitled to his bigotry, but he most definitely is not entitled to make his beliefs law.

To summarize: he has the right to think what he wants, but I have the right to call him a ******* for it.

Legislating beliefs?

What?

Isn't EVERY law an imposition of someone's conception of morality or making one's beliefs law? Is it not a "moral" decision or an imposition of one's beliefs to place certain elements of human conduct beyond the purview of government action?

But I digress...

Back to the discussion (and as a Santorum supporter), I think it is good for proponents of keeping the Penguins in Pittsburgh that such a high-profile politician was willing to come out in support of using gambling revenues to finance the construction of a new arena, even if-as some rightly note-it may present a whiff of desperation...

[ivand87]

Isn't EVERY law an imposition of someone's conception of morality or making one's beliefs law?

No. Many laws are simply based out of PURE common sense of what's right or wrong - many of which aren't even debatable - such as murder, fraud, violence, etc.

But when you're talking about morals and religious point of views and their effect on laws, that's where you've hit a grey area. Many of Santorum's point of views here are unconstitutional and are things that should be left to individuals for them to make their decisions as American citizens - one of those laws being abortion of course.

Another good example of this is the ongoing congressional hearings about indecency. Certain people, like Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, want to regulate cable TV and satellite radio because of moral views that are unconstitutional and based on religion (and also because he's being paid by Clear Channel, but that's for another thread).

There's no doubt that Santorum benefits when the state's economy is better, so it doesn't surprise me that he would favor the Penguins' plan for a new arena.

[NIN]

There's no doubt that Santorum benefits when the state's economy is better, so it doesn't surprise me that he would favor the Penguins' plan for a new arena.

He knows how to play the political game very well. He is a treid and true politician and his stance on this issue benifits his party well. He loves the fact that we veiw the democrats so negatively but TRUST ME...if Onorato, Murphy, and Randell were republicans...he would be defending them tooth and nail and saying THE EXACT SAME THINGS THEY ARE SAYING. Voting for him because of this is absurd and I would hope that poeple will try and do more research into who they vote for because THEIR KIDS WILL DIE OVERSEAS UNDER THEIR LEADERSHIP. **** the arena.

[Fast B]

Legislating beliefs?

What?

Isn't EVERY law an imposition of someone's conception of morality or making one's beliefs law? Is it not a "moral" decision or an imposition of one's beliefs to place certain elements of human conduct beyond the purview of government action?

But I digress...

Back to the discussion (and as a Santorum supporter), I think it is good for proponents of keeping the Penguins in Pittsburgh that such a high-profile politician was willing to come out in support of using gambling revenues to finance the construction of a new arena, even if-as some rightly note-it may present a whiff of desperation...

Well, speed limit laws, to give just one example, have exactly F-all to do with any particular moral compass (they are sometimes used as cash grabs, but this is another topic).

Santorum is on record as opposing equal treatment under the law for gay people because of his personal religious beliefs, and wants legislation passed to support these beliefs. The US Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any law based on religion, so of course Santorum and his ilk push for an amendment to circumvent that little obstacle.

Despite my love of the Pens, I will not thank a schmuck like Santorum for his politically expedient "support". Were I still in PA, I would certainly not let his recent statements convince me to vote for him. My principles cannot be bought with a vague promise to support a local sports team. But that is my opinion - I won't speak for anybody else here.

And I'll stop here, because I really don't want to derail this into a political flame war.

[ExPatriatePen]

I've been reading this thread with great interest and amusement.

I wasn't going to post this again, but I think it fits the thread now.

Something I posted back in February, (Second half of my post is the relevant part)

http://www.letsgopens.com/scripts/phpBB ... =6180#6180

[DayWalker]

Isn't EVERY law an imposition of someone's conception of morality or making one's beliefs law?

No. Many laws are simply based out of PURE common sense of what's right or wrong - many of which aren't even debatable - such as murder, fraud, violence, etc.

But when you're talking about morals and religious point of views and their effect on laws, that's where you've hit a grey area. Many of Santorum's point of views here are unconstitutional and are things that should be left to individuals for them to make their decisions as American citizens - one of those laws being abortion of course.

Another good example of this is the ongoing congressional hearings about indecency. Certain people, like Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, want to regulate cable TV and satellite radio because of moral views that are unconstitutional and based on religion (and also because he's being paid by Clear Channel, but that's for another thread).

There's no doubt that Santorum benefits when the state's economy is better, so it doesn't surprise me that he would favor the Penguins' plan for a new arena.

Common sense? According to whom?

Is abortion "murder?" Some would say yes; others would say no. Whether abortion is proscribed or not is based upon, well, the moral desires of the voting public, etc. I imagine that you may not believe abortion is "murder" based upon your own moral understanding. That you want such a decision to be left to the individual is reached through your own MORAL calculus as well, no?

Violence? What constitutes "violence?" Again, whether there is a law legislating the legality of certain forms of violence-football, boxing, etc.-is predicated upoin the MORAL understandings of a voting populace.

Seems like a moral imposition to me...

Care to cite the case law suggesting that Santorum's views are "unconstitutional?" Care to cite the Constitution itself to buttress your argument?

I would generally agree with your disagreement with Ted Stevens regarding "indecency," though I am uncertain that his perspectives would be undermined by case law, which is the pertinent point...

Finally, I am unconvinced that Santorum's support for a new arena is necessarily a political winner...

[DayWalker]

Legislating beliefs?

What?

Isn't EVERY law an imposition of someone's conception of morality or making one's beliefs law? Is it not a "moral" decision or an imposition of one's beliefs to place certain elements of human conduct beyond the purview of government action?

But I digress...

Back to the discussion (and as a Santorum supporter), I think it is good for proponents of keeping the Penguins in Pittsburgh that such a high-profile politician was willing to come out in support of using gambling revenues to finance the construction of a new arena, even if-as some rightly note-it may present a whiff of desperation...

Well, speed limit laws, to give just one example, have exactly F-all to do with any particular moral compass (they are sometimes used as cash grabs, but this is another topic).

Santorum is on record as opposing equal treatment under the law for gay people because of his personal religious beliefs, and wants legislation passed to support these beliefs. The US Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any law based on religion, so of course Santorum and his ilk push for an amendment to circumvent that little obstacle.

Despite my love of the Pens, I will not thank a schmuck like Santorum for his politically expedient "support". Were I still in PA, I would certainly not let his recent statements convince me to vote for him. My principles cannot be bought with a vague promise to support a local sports team. But that is my opinion - I won't speak for anybody else here.

And I'll stop here, because I really don't want to derail this into a political flame war.

Uh, what do you think the basis is for speed limits? Because of public safety, yes? Why is the government concerned about public safety? My guess is because there is a value-as reached by the voting population and its elected representatives-in protecting human life (public safety.) That seems to be a moral conclusion, correct?

Again, EVERY law has a moral dimension, and thus, is a moral imposition by the voting public and its representatives. That hardly invalidates any law; it merely suggests that one cannot attack another's positions on the canard of "imposing one's beliefs on others." Every law does it, one way or another (Afterall, why should I be bound by speed limits? Can you proffer an argument that has no moral component whatsoever? I doubt it...)

Santorum's views are illegitimate or unconstitutional because they are rooted in faith? Do you have the case law to support this position? How about a jurisprudential persepctive on the 1st Amendment? When you can cite for me either that suggest that faith may play no role in the public square, then perhaps we can debate the normative component of your claims...

And, uh, you do realize that constitutional amendments cannot be found "unconstitutional," right? Just checking...

Otherwise, yes, I think a political flame war here would be unwise...

[ExPatriatePen]

When you can cite for me either that suggest that faith may play no role in the public square,

/StartTongueInCheekComment

Hmmm... religious beliefs incorporated into public law???
That hasn't worked to well in the Middle East now has it?

/EndTongueInCheekComment

On a side note... did anyone follow the near public execution that was narrowly avoided in Afganistan over the weekend?

A man was nearly put to death for converting from Islam to Christianity.
Seems in strict Islamic societies, that's a capital offense. SERIOUSLY

[DayWalker]

When you can cite for me either that suggest that faith may play no role in the public square,

/StartTongueInCheekComment

Hmmm... religious beliefs incorporated into public law???
That hasn't worked to well in the Middle East now has it?

/EndTongueInCheekComment

On a side note... did anyone follow the near public execution that was narrowly avoided in Afganistan over the weekend?

A man was nearly put to death for converting from Islam to Christianity.
Seems in strict Islamic societies, that's a capital offense. SERIOUSLY

/BeginTtongueInCheekComment

Wow, and how about when RELIGION in the public square played a critical role in the abolition movement of antebellum America and the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's...

And gosh, that all happened without people of other faiths (or no faiths at all) being put to death. Now how could THAT have happened with the pernicious effects of religion playing such a prominent role?

/EndTongueInCheekComment

But yes, it was appalling what happened in Afghanistan. Not quite as appalling as what happened in irreleligious socieities in China and the USSR in the 20th Century, but yes, still appalling...

[ExPatriatePen]

/BeginTtongueInCheekComment

Wow, and how about when RELIGION in the public square played a critical role in the abolition movement of antebellum America and the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's...

And gosh, that all happened without people of other faiths (or no faiths at all) being put to death. Now how could THAT have happened with the pernicious effects of religion playing such a prominent role?

/EndTongueInCheekComment

But yes, it was appalling what happened in Afghanistan. Not quite as appalling as what happened in irreleligious socieities in China and the USSR in the 20th Century, but yes, still appalling...

Agreed, those are great points for incorporating mainstream Jedo/Christain beliefs as long as that's the type of society we have. But what happens if radical political leaders hijack the process?

It's generally accepted that Islam itself is a peaceful religion - In the Mainstream - Unfortunately in many of those Mid East societies the radical clerics have hijacked the political process. (Taliban as opposed to, say, Bahrain, UAE, or Kuwait) I think all religions have their radical component, and that's fine, as long as those radicals aren't making public policy for the masses.

Feel free to respond, but I'm going to try and hold my tongue from here on out... I enjoy LGP and I'd hate to see it fragmented over religious or political views. (We already have enough contention with AO vs Sid and whether CP should be retained next year)

[Draftnik]

Agreed, those are great points for incorporating mainstream Jedo/Christain beliefs as long as that's the type of society we have. But what happens if radical political leaders hijack the process?

It's generally accepted that Islam itself is a peaceful religion - In the Mainstream - Unfortunately in many of those Mid East societies the radical clerics have hijacked the political process. (Taliban as opposed to, say, Bahrain, UAE, or Kuwait) I think all religions have their radical component, and that's fine, as long as those radicals aren't making public policy for the masses.

Feel free to respond, but I'm going to try and hold my tongue from here on out... I enjoy LGP and I'd hate to see it fragmented over religious or political views. (We already have enough contention with AO vs Sid and whether CP should be retained next year)

Are you comparing Rick Santorum to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda?

[ExPatriatePen]

Are you comparing Rick Santorum to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda?

Remember, I know the man personally. (see: my story about working on the mans first campaign in 1990)

But no, not to that degree obviously. I will say he is probably one of the 2 or 3 most radical fundamental right wing religious politicians out there today. Couple that with the power he has in the Senate (#3) and that's a potent mix.

I will admit to feeling a bit betrayed by Rick 16 years ago. He knew I was fiscally conservative but socially liberal. (as if my blond ponytail didn't give that away) and any conversation he and I had at the time (and there were many over the hundreds of hours spent campaigning together), he never let on to the level of his Anti-Gay Anti-Choice agenda.

I don't begrudge Rick his personal beliefs, and his 'right to life' views are fodder for political discussion. But I have a real problem with anyone who wants to advance legislation that dictates what two Adults do in the privacy of their own home.

Now, I've said more than I meant to on a hockey board in answer to your direct question. And I'm going to try harder to keep my views to myself next time if someone posts a related comment. Please don't be offended if I don't answer anymore about this subject. I just don't think it's appropriate for a Family Hockey Board.

[Draftnik]

Remember, I know the man personally. (see: my story about working on the mans first campaign in 1990)

I remember when he took down Doug Walgren. That was an impressive upset with a strong grassroots campaign/organization.

I worked for a DC lobbying firm and on a Presidential campaign back in the late 80s. Politics is an interesting business but I didn't have the passion for it to make it my career and I become less interested in it as I grow older.

[HomerPenguin]

Remember, I know the man personally. (see: my story about working on the mans first campaign in 1990)

I remember when he took down Doug Walgren. That was an impressive upset with a strong grassroots campaign/organization.

Yes, I remember him taking down Doug Walgren by arguing that Walgren was completely out of touch with his district and for all intents and purposes lived in DC. It was a powerful argument against the perceived fat-cat incumbent who never leaves the confines of the greater Washington area.

I wonder, where does Rick live these days? I mean, he'd have to be a total hypocrite to...oh, nevermind.

[Draftnik]

Yes, I remember him taking down Doug Walgren by arguing that Walgren was completely out of touch with his district and for all intents and purposes lived in DC. It was a powerful argument against the perceived fat-cat incumbent who never leaves the confines of the greater Washington area.

I wonder, where does Rick live these days? I mean, he'd have to be a total hypocrite to...oh, nevermind.

What would he be if he lived in DC and left his wife and 5 (is it 6 ot 7) kids back in Pittsburgh? Is being an absentee father better than living inside the Beltway?

Was Harris Wofford honest in 94 when he claimed Santorum was threatening SS for current seniors when Santorum's proposal didn't affect anybody older than 35?

I have no idea what Walgren''s family status was back in 1990 but if he lived in DC for family reasons he and his campaign should have easily diffused that issue.

There is no idealism in politics on either side of the isle. The motives/messages from all politicians are self serving. Santorum is not unique in that regard.

I don't want to turn this into a political thread but you and other Santorum haters do realize the Democratic strategy/candidate to take Santorum down this fall involves an anti-abortion/pro gun candidate in Casey. The Dems are using the "if you can't beat them join them strategy."

I'm glad to see our Governor has made keeping the pens in Pittsburgh a political issue. If he gives the Pens a free arena with very favorable lease terms I will vote for him this fall.

[HomerPenguin]

What would he be if he lived in DC and left his wife and 5 (is it 6 ot 7) kids back in Pittsburgh?

Not a hypocrite? I don't know what answer you're looking for.

Is being an absentee father better than living inside the Beltway?

Is being a liar and tax cheat better than, you know, not?

There is no idealism in politics on either side of the isle. The motives/messages from all politicians are self serving. Santorum is not unique in that regard.

Ah, the "everybody does it so it must be OK" defense. That doesn't carry much water with me, sorry.

I don't want to turn this into a political thread but you and other Santorum haters do realize the Democratic strategy/candidate to take Santorum down this fall involves an anti-abortion/pro gun candidate in Casey. The Dems are using the "if you can't beat them join them strategy."

Oh, please. As though Santorum's nuttery can be distilled down to "anti-abortion, pro-gun." Bob Casey is not my favorite politician, but he's actually fairly progressive on everything aside from those two issues.

[positive_pens_fan]

the problem is nobody knows what bob casey stands for because he doesnt take a stand on anything. furthermore, the only issues that he does take a stand on are ones that senator santorum forces upon him. bob casey is a man running on a name and anti-santorum sentiments. he is a suit without known beliefs. i am interested, for those of you who will be voting for bob casey....tell me why without referring to senator santorum.

[positive_pens_fan]

additionally, how is senator santorum a tax cheater?

[Draftnik]

additionally, how is senator santorum a tax cheater?

He had his kids enrolled in an online PA cyber/charter school based on the 2 bedroom house he owns in Penn Hills. I think it was ruled that he had to pay back tuition when his residency was challenged.

[positive_pens_fan]

well before one could get the tax funding for the schoools program it had to be reviewed by the school board. this reviewing process happens every year to every participant. this is i belive the fourth year that he has been doing this. if the school had a problem with it why did they keep allowing it to continue for four years. isnt it kind of ironic that this issue was not challenged until the lady who brought it up was up for re election along with senator santorum

[Draftnik]

What would he be if he lived in DC and left his wife and 5 (is it 6 ot 7) kids back in Pittsburgh?

Not a hypocrite? I don't know what answer you're looking for.

Is being an absentee father better than living inside the Beltway?

Is being a liar and tax cheat better than, you know, not?

There is no idealism in politics on either side of the isle. The motives/messages from all politicians are self serving. Santorum is not unique in that regard.

Ah, the "everybody does it so it must be OK" defense. That doesn't carry much water with me, sorry.

I don't want to turn this into a political thread but you and other Santorum haters do realize the Democratic strategy/candidate to take Santorum down this fall involves an anti-abortion/pro gun candidate in Casey. The Dems are using the "if you can't beat them join them strategy."

Oh, please. As though Santorum's nuttery can be distilled down to "anti-abortion, pro-gun." Bob Casey is not my favorite politician, but he's actually fairly progressive on everything aside from those two issues.

This is politics. All politicians will say whatever it takes to get elected. I am not looking at Santorum from a partisan perspective but more from the perspective of someone that has worked on political campaigns. He is very effective at defining a core issue or two and hammering away it it until it gets him to 50.1%. It is also fascinating to see the PA Dems try and beat him at his own game. In 00 they put up a pro gun candidate in Klink. In 06 they are putting up an anti-abortion, pro-gun candidate in Casey. They are doing the very thing DNC chairman Dean decries by trying to move to the right and copy Republican positions in order to curry favor with voters. If the Dems don't beat Santorum in 06, their candidate in 12 will be a 100% Santorum replica.

[Draftnik]

well before one could get the tax funding for the schoools program it had to be reviewed by the school board. this reviewing process happens every year to every participant. this is i belive the fourth year that he has been doing this. if the school had a problem with it why did they keep allowing it to continue for four years. isnt it kind of ironic that this issue was not challenged until the lady who brought it up was up for re election along with senator santorum

I'm not disagreeing with you. I have a good laugh at the partisan venom directed at Santorum.

[positive_pens_fan]

ok so it came out in 04. if what he was doing was so wrong then why did it take 4 years for the peopel on the board to have a problem with it?

[ExPatriatePen]

ok so it came out in 04. if what he was doing was so wrong then why did it take 4 years for the peopel on the board to have a problem with it?

Whoa Nellie!!!!

Just because he got away with it for four years doesn't make it right!

On this issue the rules are clear. You have to be a resident of PA to be able to take advantage of PA tax money for your childs education.

Sounds reasonable doesn't it?

They created a process by which a board could review individual cases and grant exemptions on a case by case basis. This was done so that the "Intent" of the law was followed, not just the "letter of the law". Since they were dealing with childrens education they didn't want to make any mistakes.

Ok, so along comes Santorum who's ABSOLUTELY outside the INTENT of the law (He was a fulltime DC resident as were his children - who was RENTING out his Penn Hills home.) This is clearly outside of what was a reasonable exemption.

But because Rick was a US Senator he was given special priveledges by a political board. It wasn't until the media found out and the Taxpayers of the Penn Hills School district complained that anything was done.

So he got away with his political cronyism for four years and for those four years was technically a TAX CHEAT.

That makes it right because he got away with it for four years?

Whew.

Other than that... no worries

[ExPatriatePen]

What would he be if he lived in DC and left his wife and 5 (is it 6 ot 7) kids back in Pittsburgh? Is being an absentee father better than living inside the Beltway?

I have a high level of respect for you Draftnik, However, in the early/mid 90's I lived in Hopewell and spent Mon thru Fri on the road (Mostly in the DC area). My family was back in Hopewell.

You're not implying that in my effort to provide for my family I wasn't a good husband or parent are you?

Rick campaigned on an issue (Walgrens absenteeism) agressively (I know, I was there with Rick knocking on HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of doors with this message) yet within years, he was doing the same thing!

You'd think someone who would make an issue a keystone of their campaign would at least have the dignity and ethics not to do the same thing. In fact, can you believe him now or trust him not to change positions on any of his current beliefs when he did that?

I think you and I both dropped out of politics for similar reasons though. Its a dirty shady business that I just couldn't be associated with.

By the way... what do you call a busload of politicians at the bottom of the ocean?

Answer: A good start!