• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Santorum the company he keeps?

ecofarm said:
Galatians 3:28



Let's not smear the Bible for its interpreters. Right-wing version of gender roles would suffice.
Click to expand...

Then, of course, there is this:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5:22-24).

Gotta love those biblical quotes, doncha?
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
I didn't say that the article made Santorums' views obvious. He has a record. You should look at it

Santorum beleives that women shouldn't have jobs


He believes that women should not have the freedom to make their own choices wrt contraception.

He also opposes sex for non-procreative purposes
Click to expand...

Let's face it - when it comes to anything involving sex, the guy is bat-feces crazy.
 
Wiggen said:
Gotta love those biblical quotes, doncha?
Click to expand...

The best part is when people leave half of the statement (a mitigating half, nonetheless) off. And there are plenty more women-positive verses and even books in the Bible. Consider Esther, when Mordacai did as she 'commanded'. Sure, it starts of with him telling her what to do, but ends with her being the brave one and telling him what to do. In fact, she gives him land and home - not the other way around as it usually is. Consider Ruth. Now, you can throw Sarah back at me, but I think there's plenty of evidence in the Bible for the support of women in positions of power, telling men what to do, engaging in "man-only" activities such as kingdom-grabbing and being held in high regard. Heck, even a prostitute is a hero (presumably used by God to help Israel). Really, the argument is pretty one-sided and only cherry-picking (and even dividing and omitting relevant adjacent verse) can produce the misogynist version of Bible interpretation so loved by militant atheists.
 
tessaesque said:
I don't like the man and won't vote for the man, but I don't have to assume and distort his messages to justify my dislike.
Click to expand...

I don't think its a distortion.
 
Same as my generalized view in regards to Obama with Wright and Ayers

Is he the company he keeps? No. Does the company he keeps reflect back on him? Yes it does, in the sense that it speaks to his judgement.

Now, there's not a lot one can make from a singular instance. Additionally, every situation needs to be taken into consideration in regards to its relation to judgement. Did Santorum personally hire this person? Did a campaign manager of Santorum's hire them? I'd say both instances may speak of somewhat poor judgement, but the first would inidcate a larger bit of poor judgement then the latter on Santorum's part.

Is this guy a friend? Is he a political advisor? Is he a spiritual advisor? Is he essentially just an employee? This all matters with regards to the level of judge of character.

IE, say there's a guy who has very homophobic views that's associated with a candidate. If his association is that he plays basketball every week with the candidate then my concerns about his judge of character based on the persons views is significantly different than if his association is that the guy is a personal advisor. In the first case, whether or not the guy is homophobic isn't really relevant to the activity he does with him and he may not even know aobut it. In the second case, it does factor in more and becomes a bigger issue.

I didn't have a huge issue with Ayers by himself. I did have issues with Reverend Wright due to Obama calling him a "mentor" in a very broad and wide ranging sense. The varoius associations coming out with Obama over time however did make me question his judge of character in picking those he wanted to associate with, be mentored by, be advised by, etc which to me is problematic for a Presidnet as judge of character is an important quality given all their appointment powers.

As a singular entity, this doesn't raise a huge alarm for me from Santorum. That said, if this kind of thing became a more wide spread occurence with regards to high level campaign officials or those close to him, it'd begin to become a problem with me. However, much like I thought very little in terms of reflections on Obama with the local campaign manager hanging a Che flag up in an office, I don't view these various localized entities as much as those closely tied to the candidates staff. They typically are relatively disconnected from the candidate themselves and in place usually through multiple connections rather than direct from the candidate. If it came out differently, that'd possibly change my mind, but not seeing anything suggesting that yet.
 
Zyphlin pretty much nailed it. Almost every campaign probably has a few staffers or volunteers with nutty personal views. The candidate can't be responsible for everyone under his banner. But the closer and more direct the link between the candidate and the staffer, the more the candidate's judgment can come into question

That said, given Santorum's extreme social views, I'm not surprised this type of person is working for his campaign. Then again, Santorum has said enough nutty things on this type of stuff that we don't need to use the personal emails of some lowly staffer who Santorum probably barely knows (if at all) to raise questions about him.
 
sangha said:
In this case, yes. Santorum obviously agrees with the rightwing biblical version of gender roles which require women to be submissive to men, which rules out their being in charge of the institutions of family, church and the state
Click to expand...

Do we then get to apply the other edge of the sword to Obama with respect to Ayers and Wright?

I dont believe we do but then I dont believe that OP's source encapsulates Santorum's views.
 
Psychoclown said:
Zyphlin pretty much nailed it. Almost every campaign probably has a few staffers or volunteers with nutty personal views. The candidate can't be responsible for everyone under his banner. But the closer and more direct the link between the candidate and the staffer, the more the candidate's judgment can come into question
Click to expand...

And how the candidate treats the staffer once his/her nutty views are known also matters.
 
Zyphlin said:
Same as my generalized view in regards to Obama with Wright and Ayers

Is he the company he keeps? No. Does the company he keeps reflect back on him? Yes it does, in the sense that it speaks to his judgement.

Now, there's not a lot one can make from a singular instance. Additionally, every situation needs to be taken into consideration in regards to its relation to judgement. Did Santorum personally hire this person? Did a campaign manager of Santorum's hire them? I'd say both instances may speak of somewhat poor judgement, but the first would inidcate a larger bit of poor judgement then the latter on Santorum's part.

Is this guy a friend? Is he a political advisor? Is he a spiritual advisor? Is he essentially just an employee? This all matters with regards to the level of judge of character.

IE, say there's a guy who has very homophobic views that's associated with a candidate. If his association is that he plays basketball every week with the candidate then my concerns about his judge of character based on the persons views is significantly different than if his association is that the guy is a personal advisor. In the first case, whether or not the guy is homophobic isn't really relevant to the activity he does with him and he may not even know aobut it. In the second case, it does factor in more and becomes a bigger issue.

I didn't have a huge issue with Ayers by himself. I did have issues with Reverend Wright due to Obama calling him a "mentor" in a very broad and wide ranging sense. The varoius associations coming out with Obama over time however did make me question his judge of character in picking those he wanted to associate with, be mentored by, be advised by, etc which to me is problematic for a Presidnet as judge of character is an important quality given all their appointment powers.

As a singular entity, this doesn't raise a huge alarm for me from Santorum. That said, if this kind of thing became a more wide spread occurence with regards to high level campaign officials or those close to him, it'd begin to become a problem with me. However, much like I thought very little in terms of reflections on Obama with the local campaign manager hanging a Che flag up in an office, I don't view these various localized entities as much as those closely tied to the candidates staff. They typically are relatively disconnected from the candidate themselves and in place usually through multiple connections rather than direct from the candidate. If it came out differently, that'd possibly change my mind, but not seeing anything suggesting that yet.
Click to expand...

Well said, with the exception of the last paragraph because it is not a singular entity. Santorum has a lot of similar associations
 
OpportunityCost said:
Do we then get to apply the other edge of the sword to Obama with respect to Ayers and Wright?

I dont believe we do but then I dont believe that OP's source encapsulates Santorum's views.
Click to expand...

You can do whatever you want wrt to judging the candidates. As Zyphlins post said well, I think we should take these associations and put them into context. When it comes to Ayers and Wright, I'd say that the Ayers association is slight, and insignificant while the Wright connection is much stronger. Make of that whatever you want

And for the record, I don't think this one example proves anything about Santorum. From my first post in this thread, I've made it clear that this is just one of many such associations that Santorum has.
 
Johnson, who remains on Santorum’s staff, complained that the email was “blown out of proportion” and should not be held against him because it was sent from a personal email account.
Click to expand...

"My opinions only count when I send them from my work computer!"
 
Well: I don't know about the OP - I'm still thinking that over.

But I do know that after watching debate after debate of him doing NOTHING but being rude and constantly interrupt others when they talk is grating my nerves with him. Is this how he is: constantly impulsive and completely and utterly rude?

Honestly - I really try to focus just on politics when I pick my runner . . . but he's pissing me off with this gross habit.
 
tessaesque said:
Is this the type of message Santorum wants to be reflective of his campaign? Do you think the doings of his staff should reflect on him, or should the people he employ have no reflection on him as a person/candidate?

Linky: Santorum Staffer Says Women Shouldn't Be President Because It's Against God's Will | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...

If going to an anti-American church for 20 years didn't harm Obama and neither did working with or allegedly hanging out with a known terrorist didn't harm Obama then this shouldn't harm Santorum or least it shouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom