I'm going to pull this apart piece by piece.
Jersey he has said these things. He does believe Church and state doesn't have to be separated and he did insult Holland. He wrongly said that old people are involuntarily euthanised if they can't pay medical bills (or however it is up there) and seek healthcare abroad for this reason (which is nonsense). He's also said old people wear bracelets there, special brown(?) ones, that they wear that mean please don't euthanise me. This is the ramblings of a mad man. He insulted the Netherlands, a lot of people were furious by this. Of course he would attack probably the most liberal country in the world though.
Here's the Santorum quote you must be referring to.
"Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, but half the people who are euthanized every year — and it’s 10 percent of all deaths for the Netherlands — half of those people are euthanized involuntarily, at hospitals, because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don’t go to the hospital, they go to another country, because they’re afraid because of budget purposes that they will not come out of that hospital if they go into it with sickness."
Source:
www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/26/but-rick-santorums-sorta-right-about-dutch-euthanasia/The commentary in that article pretty much states that Santorum is spinning the facts in this particular case. It seems he was trying to draw a parallel into a situation (a country in this case) where euthanasia is legal, and then tried to sell his point that euthanasia is wrong. His mistake is that he has no business talking about something or someplace that he knows nothing about. So in this rare instance, you and I are in agreement. While I stand opposed to euthanasia, because human beings do not have the right or power to extinguish the life of another human being, Santorum chose to exemplify his point in the wrong fashion. He shouldn't have done it. He would have been better off simply saying "I stand opposed to euthanasia." It would have been better that way. So in the only instance I can name, we're in agreement.
What he means by Church and state is that he wants to impose christian values and religion on the country.
No. Wrong. What he's talking about is that the government has no right to be imposing IT'S socialistic values on the Church! The idea of freedom of religion in this country is that religions are free to practice and believe as they choose without fear of prosecution and persecution. That is the idea of freedom. Religions should absolutely be free to practice as they choose, and the idea behind the seperation of church and state is that it stays that way. Church doctrine, although this nation was founded on its principles, does enter into the decisions of government or it's officials and government doctrine and ideas do not enter the doors of the church or any other religious institutions. It's a balance that Obama is currently violating severely.
Basically crap like no gay marriage etc. I hope btw you realise that religion is a serious problem in America. You have republicans like Sarah Palin that actually want creationism taught in science class and in 2009 only 39% of America believed in the fact that is evolution.
I've already deduced that you're either an atheist or a theist at minimum, but I'll get to that in a minute. I am also against gay marriage. However, before you label me a disgusting human being, consider this; I am in complete favor of civil unions. Yes. Homosexual couples should be allowed to join together in civil union, which is recognized under all U.S. laws, and they are then afforded all the benefits that come along with it. Which are exactly the same as a marriage between a man and a woman.
Marriage is a religious sacrament. It is holy and sacred to the religions that practice it. In the Catholic Church. It is unreasonable to expect that the Church, which believes that homosexual behavior is a sin, would violate its teachings to appease the homosexual population. And here is why gay marriage is unconstitutional: it violates the seperation of church and state. Yes, the same amendment you claim Santorum would violate. If the government were to legalize gay marriage, it would violate that amendment because then the government would begin intruding into religious institutions and imposing its will upon them. Their freedom to practice their beliefs would be destroyed, and one of the values that this country was founded upon, freedom of religion, would be gone.
This is something it would seem you would support and cheer, since you think that religion is a serious problem and therefore should be destroyed and removed. I finish this with this: if you stand against the freedom to practice religion freely, you stand opposed to freedom. I want you to think about that for a minute. Removing religion is the first aspect of removing freedom and installing totalitarianism. Do you support totalitarianism, i.e. total government control and absence of freedom?
You call evolution a fact, but that's wrong. That's your opinion. The Theory of Evolution has never been wholly proven as fact, which is why it remains a theory. Only when a theory is proven fact does it become Scientific Law. That has yet to happen with evolution. And with creationism being taught in classrooms, isn't it more dynamic to teach two opposing sides on a subject and let students decide themselves? Teaching societal issues from only one perspective can only result in indoctrination.
I hope you realise that in some states you can't even be elected into positions of government whatever if you don't believe in God.
I've never heard of that. I seriously doubt that is factual.
I hope you realise that he is against gay marriage and he's against this b/c of religion and all his decisions will be religious ones.
Nope. His decisions are not influenced by his own religion. But by his strict holding to Constitutional law. Violating a religious sacrament in the name of political correctness or "fairness" is a severe constitutional violation. If homosexuals wish to be equal, they should be joined together in civil union and be thankful for it. But no, they do not accept it because they wish to undermine the Church and see them forced to break their faith and values. In the end, by pushing for their right to marriage they are really pushing to see the Catholic Church destroyed. But I think you like that idea.
As a Catholic, I don't particularly care what homosexuals do in their personal lives. As long as it isn't shoved in my face, down my throat, or forced upon me from a religious standpoint. That's why I support civil unions.
I hope you realise that not only does he embarrass himself frequently and is a victim of Rachel Maddow's awesome show almost daily, he actually speaks against the American dream.
He doesn't speak against the American dream, he stands to restore and preserve it.
Rachel Maddow? Really? She's a communist pig, and a self professed one at that (a commie-lib that supports Obama). Not only did she defend Saddam Hussein and his fascist left-wing totalitarian government, she defends Obama and his fascist left-wing totalitarian ambitions!
If you consider her so awesome, are you a communist yourself? You're at least a communist sympathizer, but I want to hear whether you're a full blooded Red or not.
He actually believes it's snobbery to go to college.
Wrong again. He said Obama was the snob for saying that everyone should go to college. That is snobbery and arrogance at its finest because not every person is meant to go to college. Some people are meant to be blue collar, others white collar. There's room for this diverse population in our country, which helps make it great. Saying that taxpayers should support a college education for every person is elitist and arrogant. It shows Obama is arrogant because he cares nothing for blue collar people, and considers them sub-par and definitely not a part of his elite crowd.
What it all boils down to is more people in college equals more spending, more communists and socialists. I had to survive and be very careful in college, lest I give away my pro-American values and become a laughingstock. It wasn't easy.
Yes, people should have the opportunity to go to college should they so desire it. But it isn't for everybody. Saying that it is for everyone is arrogant and snobbish.
As Michael Moore put it; his father didn't go to college but he worked hard in a factory for years so he could send his child to college.
Ah, another communist. Moore is a disgusting, fat hypocrite! If you think he's so awesome, then ask yourself this. If he's such a staunch supporter of American workers (a communist value) and is a true supporter of wealth redistribution (a socialist value), why has he used his films to make millions of dollars and live in big huge mansions? Why hasn't he given a penny of his money to charities or to the workers he supports? Because he's a fake. A hypocrite. And a true capitalist. He uses his platform to make money and stay relevant.
Moore's father went to work for the same reason we all do. To pay bills, put food on the table, gas in our tanks, and a roof over our heads. To say his father went to work solely to put little Mikey through college is dumb.
That's the American dream, to work hard for your children's future and to reap the rewards.
You hit the nail on the head, surprisingly enough. So why do you stand opposed to it? Meaning, why do you stand opposed to freedom?
[/tr]I'm not too informed w/all his work but he's a bumbling idiot at best and an embarrassment to Republicans. I really could go on properly about other stupid stuff he's said (like his weird speeches in detroit about his cars) but I wont.[/quote]
You don't seem to be too informed on Santorum, that much is truly apparent. You also don't seem to be too informed on the American dream, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the real meaning behind the seperation of church and state, and other American laws and values.
[/tr]i am liberal I guess but i'm not particular in favour of liberals in America (i don't think it's blatantly obvious or perhaps forgotten that i'm from the UK).[/quote]
You are 100% liberal, you definitely lean (if you outright are not) towards communism and socialism, and you oppose freedom. Believe me, you're in lockstep with the American left.
I suppose I shouldn't fault you for your political standpoint for being what it is. I should fault the fact that you've lived your whole life under socialism, with it's values taught in your schools, freedom destroyed and excoriated, and religion all but extinguished.
Yes, the UK is horribly twisted in the trap of socialism, with no real end in sight. And to a degree, Great Britain has always opposed freedom and individualism. Thank God for the American Revolution. Even though my heritage can be traced in Britain to 1500, I can honestly say I'm very happy I wasn't born there. I may visit one day, but that's about it. I won't live under socialism.
I doubt I got through to you but I at the very minimum provided the foil to your beliefs with my own.
