* * *
Momentum is building for Rick! We’re seeing it across the country, especially on the ground in Iowa! Rick’s message is beginning to resonate with voters because they realize he has the experience, ideas and conviction to turn our country around.
This momentum shift is exciting because we know that this is the best time for voters to be committing to Rick.
I was recently appointed as the National Grassroots Coordinator for Rick’s campaign. At some point, you have indicated you wanted to get involved as a volunteer. I want to make sure you have been contacted and are engaged with the campaign in some capacity.
The best way to make this happen is for you click here and complete this volunteer form at Rick’s Facebook page. Once you’ve done that we’ll have our team leaders get in touch with you.
In the meantime, there are two very important ways for you to get involved right now!
· Call from Home Program: You can help
Rick right now by making voter identification calls into Iowa. You can
do this from your own home, anywhere in the United States. This is a
vital way to help Rick win in Iowa! To get started, please email Steven
Munoz at smunoz@ricksantorum.com
· Ballot Qualification: We need help
getting signatures in the following states: Delaware, Illinois,
Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Virginia. Email me directly if you can help us
with this.
We want to make sure that you find a way to get involved in Rick’s campaign! The Iowa Caucus is just three short weeks away and we need YOU!
I’m counting on you to take a few minutes now and complete this form.
Rick Santorum is ready to be our next president. Let’s make it happen!
Thanks!
Shelley Ahlersmeyer
National Grassroots Coordinator
shelley@ricksantorum.com
P.S. We have a brand new, private Facebook group that is working hard to promote Rick If you’d like to join us, click here and request to join the group.
----------
Paid for by Rick Santorum For President
----------
Paid for by Rick Santorum For President
----------
Post Office Box 37
Verona, PA 15147
United States
Verona, PA 15147
United States
He'd be my preferred candidate. Hope he begins to gain traction.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have heard, he has campaigned in all 99 counties in Iowa. He could surprise some folks.
ReplyDelete"He'd be my preferred candidate."
ReplyDeleteThat explains plenty.
Discussion shut down.
Poor neuro not able to work his craft.
I believe the Jesuits run this blog.
GSNIEDER SAID:
ReplyDelete"I believe the Jesuits run this blog."
Our terrible secret is out.
Back in 2004, Santorum lost a lot of support here in Pennsylvania when he and George Bush refused to support conservative Pat Toomey in favor of Arlen Specter the RINO in the Republican primary. Toomey lost that battle by less that 2%. Santorum eventually lost his own senate seat as a result of that error in judgment, his conservative credentials being damaged. Has the leopard changed his spots?
ReplyDelete"Our terrible secret is out."
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Crafty buggers.
The whole anti-Catholic subterfuge as a cover.
Sneaking the Romanist position under the cover of politics.
Directing the new Jacobites.
(shiver)
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"That explains plenty. Discussion shut down. Poor neuro not able to work his craft. I believe the Jesuits run this blog. . . . The whole anti-Catholic subterfuge as a cover. Sneaking the Romanist position under the cover of politics. Directing the new Jacobites. (shiver)"
1. If only gsnieder were joking. But he's not. See his comments in this thread for instance.
2. By the way, in the same thread, gsnieder made elementary mistakes which I had to correct him on like thinking Charles III was the king during the American Revolution when it was George III.
He also made significant connections between the Reformation, the Constitution, the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms, and Ron Paul, yet all without argument. I've also corrected him on this in the previous thread.
And I've suggested resources for him to check out if he ever wants to expand his own mind and level of knowledge on these matters. Otherwise he continues to parade his own ignorance on this blog.
3. Indeed, it's particularly telling if one hones in on gsnieder's evaluation of the candidates in the previous thread. Here's how he describes the current GOP contenders: "Romney: Typical Mormon willing to say or do anything to gain power so that he can achieve some higher level Mormon heaven. Gingrich: An egomaniac with plans to take over the world. It was kinda fun when Cain was still running because it was like watching new episodes of Pinky and the Brain. Now the Brain is just scary. Perry: Texan. Need I say more? He's like a cartoon character of the stereotype. Bachmann: Manifests every deficiency in Evangelical politics. Santorum: Return of the Holy Roman Empire. Huntsman: Toad."
Later in the thread gsnieder goes on to explain: "I simply gave the underlying motivation and philosophical framework of each of the candidates through which their policy positions can be analyzed."
Apparently in gsnieder's mind making bare statements like "Huntsman: Toad" and "Santorum: Return of the Holy Roman Empire" somehow gives "the underlying motivation and philosophical framework of each of the candidates."
4. Anyway gsnieder's latest comment "explains plenty."
neuro-
ReplyDeleteI had expanded on the motivations of the candidates in the other thread but the blog owner denied the publication. Now it's clear why that was.
But that should serve as an important object lesson. Liberty is much like Grace, it's counter intuitive to our fallen nature. Just as Grace is difficult for people to accept because our fallen nature wants to work it's way to reconciliation with God so also liberty is antithetical to our fallen nature because we feel the need to enslave ourselves to manmade laws which serves to alleviate our guilt and at the same time gives us the opportunity to judge our neighbor.
So it's no surprise that someone like Ron Paul is demonized. It is surprising, considering Reformed anthropology, that so much venom is spewed on this blog. But then maybe it's all a Jesuit subversion tactic.
Actually, gsnieder, you're demonizing others as well. Pity you don't see it.
ReplyDeleteFor example, you're demonizing the other Republican candidates: "Romney: Typical Mormon willing to say or do anything to gain power so that he can achieve some higher level Mormon heaven. Gingrich: An egomaniac with plans to take over the world. It was kinda fun when Cain was still running because it was like watching new episodes of Pinky and the Brain. Now the Brain is just scary. Perry: Texan. Need I say more? He's like a cartoon character of the stereotype. Bachmann: Manifests every deficiency in Evangelical politics. Santorum: Return of the Holy Roman Empire. Huntsman: Toad."
Worse, I think, you're demonizing fellow Christians: "I believe the Jesuits run this blog...The whole anti-Catholic subterfuge as a cover. Sneaking the Romanist position under the cover of politics. Directing the new Jacobites...But then maybe it's all a Jesuit subversion tactic."
So you're guilty of the very charges you level against others.
But neuro, there was an admission to the supposition.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't that change the tenor?
There was no admission. "Our terrible secret is out" was a playful quip in response to your loony allegations.
ReplyDeletePlus by tarring the entire blog, you're demonizing fellow Christians on Triablogue who haven't even said anything one way or the other about Ron Paul.
And it doesn't change the fact that you've demonized other Republican candidates.
I'm surprised. On the other thread you were adamant about the role of evidence yet here you seem to be able to divine motivations.
ReplyDeleteSomehow my description of the candidates motivations were without evidence thus defective yet your unsubstantiated claims are factual?
Back to the subject and some evidence for you.
ReplyDeleteHere's a quote from the rebellious Presbyterian, Patrick Henry:
You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"I'm surprised. On the other thread you were adamant about the role of evidence yet here you seem to be able to divine motivations."
1. You should continue to stay surprised because that's not what happened. It's just your spin on things.
In fact, in the other thread, you were the one who brought up "evidence" in the first place. Nice how you're the one who brings up "evidence," state that I'm "adamant" about its "role" here, then accuse me for not meeting your standard. It looks like you're the judge, jury, and executioner. Ironic since you talk so much about Ron Paul, liberty, and the Constitution.
Fortunately anyone can go back and read or re-read the thread to see what actually transpired.
2. No, I'm not magically "able to divine motivations." It's called basic reading comprehension. Basic reading comprehension is apparently one of the things with which you're in short supply.
Or do you honestly think Steve Hays saying "Our terrible secret is out" in response to you is "an admission of the supposition" that Triablogue is in cahoots with the Jesuits? For one thing, if someone is, why would they publicly admit it?
3. Seriously, dude, you're just making ridiculous accusations. But I suppose someone who thinks saying stuff like "Huntsman: Toad" and "Santorum: Return of the Holy Roman Empire" is equivalent to proffering "the underlying motivation and philosophical framework of each of the candidates" isn't exactly in his right mind.
"Somehow my description of the candidates motivations were without evidence thus defective yet your unsubstantiated claims are factual?"
You evidently just open your mouth to switch feet.
I shouldn't have to explain such a basic concept to you: I'm not the one making allegations like "the Jesuits run this blog [Triablogue]." Instead, since you're the one making these allegations, it's on you, not me, to somehow defend your demonization of others including fellow Christians.
Besides all I've been doing is directly quoting you anyway. So my "claims" aren't "unsubstantiated" (well, unless you don't put any significant weight into your own words!). Rather I'm "substantiating" my claims by quoting your own words. In other words, my claim is you're demonizing others including the Triabloggers, which I "substantiate" by quoting your words to that effect.
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"I had expanded on the motivations of the candidates in the other thread but the blog owner denied the publication. Now it's clear why that was."
This too makes a malicious assumption against "the blog owner." If you Google, Blogger has known issues with publishing certain comments. So maybe it has nothing to do with the blog owner.
Or it could be your comment isn't worth posting. Perhaps you've said something untoward. Perhaps you've violated the rules.
Or perhaps your comment was denied publication but it was for a reason other than they one you're attempting to ascribe to the Triablogue owner(s).
It's not as if anyone has a right to comment on someone else's weblog. Commenting is a privilege, not a right.
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"Back to the subject and some evidence for you."
Of course, you were the one who changed the subject in the first place when you started rattling off your bizarre Jesuit conspiracy theories.
"You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government."
This isn't "evidence" of any of your claims. It's just a quote from an influential revolutionary firebrand. It doesn't do anything to progress your claims about the Reformation, Lutheran 2K theology, the Constitution, Ron Paul, etc.
For starters, you'd have to point out why this quote is relevant to your claims in order for the quote to provide "evidence" for your claims. It's not self-evident in the same way, for example, your words demonizing others is self-evident. Did Patrick Henry's words influence "the philosophy of the Constitution"? If so, to what extent? And so forth.
GSNIEDER SAID: I believe the Jesuits run this blog.
ReplyDeleteNo way.
Tom said: Back in 2004, Santorum lost a lot of support here in Pennsylvania when he and George Bush refused to support conservative Pat Toomey in favor of Arlen Specter the RINO in the Republican primary. Toomey lost that battle by less that 2%. Santorum eventually lost his own senate seat as a result of that error in judgment, his conservative credentials being damaged. Has the leopard changed his spots?
I recall the Toomey/Specter incident, and my recollection was that Rick was being muscled to accept the party line for the sake of the election, rather than for the sake of conservative.
That said, I’ve continued to receive his mailings, and I am aware of his positions on things. Politics is certainly “the art of the possible”. In suggesting his name, I’m not comfortable at all with his Roman Catholicism. However, the frontrunner, Newt Gingrich is a Roman Catholic convert (because of a marriage, I believe, and not necessarily out of conviction), and from a moral perspective, he is not someone that Triablogue readers are very comfortable with. I offered Santorum’s name as someone who is, frankly, still out there and not much discussed.
"I recall the Toomey/Specter incident, and my recollection was that Rick was being muscled to accept the party line for the sake of the election, rather than for the sake of conservative."
ReplyDeletePrincipled men don't operate in that fashion, esp. when feeling they are being muscled.
Principled men don't operate in that fashion, esp. when feeling they are being muscled.
ReplyDeleteTom, I used the word "muscled" and that definitely suggests that Santorum was persuaded somehow. And given the political situation at the time, there is no question in my mind that some firm persuasion was going on. Imagine you are in a room with the President of the United States and the senior senator from your state, and they "want your support". There is every possibility that they were calling in a favor. In that case, maybe Santorum was following the principle of "paying back favors". After all, Santorum did soon afterward rise to become the #3 Republican in a Republican-controlled senate.
I remember a comment that Rick Santorum made at a political meeting. Someone asked him, "what's the best thing that we can do for the pro-life cause?" (or words to that effect). And Santorum's reply surprised me. He didn't say "pray" or "go petition abortion clinics" or anything of that nature.
What he said was (roughly), "elect pro-life people to Congress".
I don't think it's fair for you to suggest that Santorum was somehow not principled in his decision to support Specter. You just don't know, and can't know, the things that were going through his mind at the time.
gsnieder said:
ReplyDelete"I had expanded on the motivations of the candidates in the other thread but the blog owner denied the publication. Now it's clear why that was."
Are you referring to your comment which begins with "I believe what were seeing is a neo-social gospel movement in the 'conservative' American mind" in the previous thread? If so, I've responded here.
"I don't think it's fair for you to suggest that Santorum was somehow not principled in his decision to support Specter."
ReplyDeleteYou suggested he was being muscled. I agree. How does that demonstrate conservative principles?
Tom: How does that demonstrate conservative principles?
ReplyDeleteI am working from memory, but in saying "elect pro-life people to Congress" as the best means of supporting the pro-life cause, there is also the implication that becoming a more senior senator (and he rose to become #3) he could have still more influence for the cause.
I'm not saying that is precisely the best way to support pro-life causes, but it is an effective one.
And I also said that the "muscling" involved Bush and Specter (perhaps) having called in some favors. We might also imagine that Santorum was setting up some favors of his own to be called in.
We just don't know. But you are being unfair, without knowing what his motivations were, in saying he was "not principled", a RINO, and "not conservative". You just have not ever had to deal at that level. And I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.