Yakkstr

Santorum's Christian Values

i'll never understand Christian's like Santorum. He rails against the evils of birth control while actively promoting torture. He's a catholic and the Catholic Church has a clear stance against torture. This is from the Catechism:

"Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity... Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. "

Santorum famously called out McCain saying that McCain didn't understand our torture techniques.

Santorum: [McCain] doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative.

And here are the techniques he was talking about

Using dogs to terrorize prisoners; stripping detainees naked and hooding them; isolating people in windowless cells for weeks and even months on end; freezing prisoners to near-death and reviving them and repeating the hypothermia; contorting prisoners into stress positions that create unbearable pain in the muscles and joints; cramming prisoners into upright coffins in painful positions with minimal air; near-drowning, on a waterboard, of human beings—in one case 183 times—even after they have cooperated with interrogators.

What kind of Christian can chastise women for using birth control while promoting the use of torture on humans created in the image of god?

read here for more details

report |
outlander said over 2 years ago ...

Embryonic stem cell research will take more lives than it wills save. And cut the crap, you guys all know our enahanced interrogation or if it makes you guys feel better to call it torture saved lives by thwarting attacks and putting high valued terrorists out of commission. In war the ends always justify the means, there is no right or wrong, it is win or die.

There is nothing Christian about war but take the Christianity out of the people fighting in it and what do you think would happen? What could we REALLY do if we wanted to win a war and win it quick? These people are lucky it is Christians they are fighting because we don't chop people heads and fingers and hands off, we don't drill holes into kneecaps or specifically target woman and children.

sean_renaud said over 2 years ago ...

Embryonic stem cell research won't take a single life. We don't know. I suspect it saves lives but I don't know it. These people aren't lucky Christians are fighting. They're lucky Christians have by and large been silenced by the atheists other than screaming jack asses. Real christians do much worse than drill holes into kneecaps.

grapekoolaid said over 2 years ago ...

"In war the ends always justify the means, there is no right or wrong, it is win or die."

Please see: War on drugs. War on Terror. War on Illiteracy. War on Education. War on Christians.

outlander said over 2 years ago ...

Focus Grape focus!

grapekoolaid said over 2 years ago ...

In war, ends always justify the means. Your words. Emphasis mine.

War on drugs: Drug offenders (even first time, non-violent offenders) are housed with violent criminals. Contributes to overpopulation in prisons (The US makes up about 5 percent of the world population, one-quarter of the entire world's inmates are incarcerated in the United States). Overpopulation degrades the overall condition of incarceration to the point that it borders on human right violation. For profit prisons, and State pens (who gets to claim the inmates in the population census) have management problems, not to mention the degradation of psychological relationships between the inmates and guards (as been shown by the Stanford Prison experiment). This is just a tip of the iceberg.

Ends justifying the means regarding the War on Terror: Indefinite detentions of anyone. Torture. Attack of a nation that had little to do with 9/11. TSA peepin at your junk and fondling your lady's goods. More bureaucratic behemoths like the TSA and the DHS. Erosion of your personal liberty. Warrantless wiretaps. The mouthbreathers who say "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." Janet Napolitano coming on TVs on Walmart telling you to snitch on your neighbors. Big brother knows best.

Once again, a partial list. A tip of the iceberg.

Ends justifying the means regarding the War on Illiteracy/Education: No child left behind. Failure of our education system in general. Schools allowed to close despite the need to serve the community. Those lazy no goodnik unionized state workers getting their bargaining rights stripped. It's not enough that they work from 7am to 3pm watching (babysitting) your shitty, entitled kids training to be little sociopaths, then take their work home until late into the evenings grading poorly worded and horribly misspelled papers.

Tip of the iceberg.

War on Christians: Churches being bombed all over the Islamic world. Nuns getting raped in Sudan. Coptic Christians getting massacred in Egypt. less than 5% of Christians remaining in Iraq as compared to during the reign of Saddam Hussein. (Didn't go the way you thought it did, eh?)

This whole keeping "Christ" in Christmas and a nativity scene and all that is small potatoes. That ain't no war on Christianity. What I mentioned above, is.

Oh and I forgot the last one. Ends justifying the means regarding War on Obesity: Gastric bypass surgery. Where they just take your stomach out, attach your esophagus to your small intestine hoping that would lessen the time of caloric absorption.

That focused enough for you? I could go on and on and on about each and every one of those points. Any one in particular you want me to "focus" on? Do the ends really justify the means here?

outlander said over 2 years ago ...

You've taken the argument completely out of context. We are talking about a specific war, not "war" in a metaphorical sense. The type of war that should be ended as quickly as possible with the enemy not willing and/or able to fight back.

Is it morally right to torture someone with the hopes future lives will be saved? Of course the answer is no but technically is it morally right to drop two atomic bombs on a foreign country and kill hundreds of thousands of people in order to save millions in the future? War in itself is a paradox because there can be no morality or good or right and wrong, there can be only victory and often victory is the only choice next to death.

grapekoolaid said over 2 years ago ...

"We are talking about a specific war, not "war" in a metaphorical sense."

No you weren't. You were talking about war on terror. That's a war in a metaphorical sense. That's a war against a "tactic".

Think of it this way. During the time of warring states, you see armies amassed in the field of battle. During the time of an empire, you see insurgencies and acts of terror. By declaring a war on terror, you're declaring war on dissent. Basically, by labeling someone an "enemy combatant", we can throw them in a hole and not charge them with anything, occasionally parade them around for state propaganda reasons, throw him back in the hole. All because he has a different political view than the powers that be. This is groupthink at its finest. It's also very dangerous.

Who are we at war against? Are we at war against Afghanistan(one nation)? Are we at war with the Taliban(multinational)? Are we at war with Islam(ideology)? Our tactics should be very different depending on who our foes truly are. Be careful in answering this question, though. Lest let your inner bigot out (whom I've seen entirely too much of these days).

outlander said over 2 years ago ...

You are being purposely naive. The war on terror is a war against radical Islam. GW Bush didn't want to offend you guys' delicate sensibilities by calling it what it what it is. He also reasoned that all the Islamic terrorist attacks around the world followed by 9/11 ment this was no longer a law enforcement problem but a military problem. This whole notion of equating the war on terror with the war on drugs or the war on poverty is liberal invention designed to smear GW Bush. War makes Liberals go insane, that is a fact.

"By declaring a war on terror, you're declaring war on dissent. Basically, by labeling someone an "enemy combatant", we can throw them in a hole and not charge them with anything, occasionally parade them around for state propaganda reasons, throw him back in the hole. All because he has a different political view than the powers that be. This is groupthink at its finest. It's also very dangerous."

How does a statement like this make you any less of bigot than me? Is every member of our military and Republican and Democrat leadership some ruthless gang of thugs running around the word subjugating people? Quoting a movie "if you are going to serve a blame sandwhich you should be prepared to take a bite yourself." :)

The reason the "war on terror" can never be won is because of you guys. War should either be fought and won or eliminated as an option all together. We never really and truely were at war with Iraq or Islamic terrorism, if we were the way war should be fought we wouldn't still be in the mess we are now.

grapekoolaid said over 2 years ago ...

"The war on terror is a war against radical Islam."

This illustrates how little you really know of the situation. Is it just radical Islam that we're at war with? Radical elements of Sunni? Shia? Alawites? Salafists? Ba'athists? What are the conditions of victory for one? For the other? For us? Where do the Kurds fit into this? What about in relation to the Turks? You can't just say a blanket statement like "radical Islam" That's simply too broad of a term.

Also, what about the IRA? Basque Separatists? They're not Muslim, but they are agents of terror. Are we not at war with them? If not, shouldn't we be? (Since you're so war happy and all)

"GW Bush didn't want to offend you guys' delicate sensibilities by calling it what it what it is."

Then he's a liar, not telling the American public the way things are. Even if he thought that "us" guys couldn't "take it", he should have just came out and presented it as the way it was. He instead sugar-coated it so that it would be easier for you ladies to swallow.

I wonder if he would have gotten the Congress to go along with a war on radical Islam, though. So instead, he lied to get us into war.

War on Iraq had nothing to do with combating terror, by the way. It had more to do with establishing a lasting presence in an oil producing region. It's also the newest incarnation of the Fortress in Acre. Please learn from history so that we may be spared from repeating the same mistakes.

"How does a statement like this make you any less of bigot than me?"

Because you apparently have no idea what that word means. How is anything I said be considered a bigoted statement?

"Is every member of our military and Republican and Democrat leadership some ruthless gang of thugs running around the word subjugating people?"

No. I believe that most of the members of our armed forces are generally good people in it for a financial incentive. They don't set policy. They are in the business of enforcement. If there are bad examples, they need to be publicized and exposed, and the problem fixed so that the same mistakes don't happen again.

I can also make an argument that "hand holding", "nation building" and directing traffic doesn't befit the glory and grandeur of this military. Nation building is not a job of the military. That's the job of the civil enforcement wing, a. k. a., the police. I think our military should be used to destroy our enemies and yes, subjugate their people. Be the occupiers and the empire loyalists that we have the desire for, but not the stomach for.

"Quoting a movie "if you are going to serve a blame sandwhich you should be prepared to take a bite yourself."

Everyone is culpable. No one is innocent. I say this all the time. You're the one that conducts himself as if his shit doesn't stink.

"The reason the "war on terror" can never be won is because of you guys."

Nice. Here I am saying that our military shouldn't be doing police work and looking at peoples' papers at checkpoints and there you are, saying that we should and I'm the reason we can't win the war on "terror"? This is just plain stupid. You know how you win the war on terror? Like sean pointed out, you get it down to an acceptable level, then you ignore it. If it continues to grow, give them a political avenue.

It's called a dialogue, not capitulation. There is a difference. If there wasn't a difference, two words two different definitions wouldn't exist.

"War should either be fought and won or eliminated as an option all together."

I agree. How come we didn't salt the earth in Iraq so that nothing could ever grow again? How come we didn't kill off every man over the age of 12 and enslave all the women and children? I could have used some domestic help, you know?

"We never really and truely were at war with Iraq or Islamic terrorism, if we were the way war should be fought we wouldn't still be in the mess we are now."

Once again. I think you have dreams and desires for an empire, but lack the stomach for one.

outlander said over 2 years ago ...

"This illustrates how little you really know of the situation. Is it just radical Islam that we're at war with? Radical elements of Sunni? Shia? Alawites? Salafists? Ba'athists? What are the conditions of victory for one? For the other? For us? Where do the Kurds fit into this? What about in relation to the Turks? You can't just say a blanket statement like "radical Islam" That's simply too broad of a term."

You are being purposely naive to appear smarter. I have read all this bullshit and stop trying to dodge the premise of the argument or clog the debate with shit I can read on Wiki. There are different types of Muslims all over the world, some orthodox and some moderate and some that have gone way off the deep end. Al Qaeda, Islamic Jiad, Hezzbolah, etc, these groups use terrorism as a tool of war under the name of Islam. This is radical Islam. Now I can you all ready hear you snorting that the Saudis are Muslims and they behead people so they are radical but we not at war with them. The Saudi government didn't sanction the 9/11 attacks and even the Saudis are at war with the same people as we are.

There is a huge difference between the war in Iraq and the war on terror but they are intermingled. We all went into Iraq, it was a bipartisan agreement and even that wasn't needed because Saddam broke his agreement with the UN.

"I can also make an argument that "hand holding", "nation building" and directing traffic doesn't befit the glory and grandeur of this military. Nation building is not a job of the military. That's the job of the civil enforcement wing, a. k. a., the police. I think our military should be used to destroy our enemies and yes, subjugate their people. Be the occupiers and the empire loyalists that we have the desire for, but not the stomach for."

Unfortunatly wars include nation building and most of the time our military is just there for security and its the bureaucrats like Paul Bremer who do the nation building.

Ignoring todays terrorism after 9/11 is just as stupid as trying to fight a peaceful war. If we were going to go to war with Islamic terrorism then the US should have declared war with radical elements of Islam is a war against all Islam itself. If the Saudis thought their oil fields were in jeopardy I'll bet you would see a lot less hate speech and a lot less Saudi terrorists. These people sit quietly hating Jews hoping they can denounce terrorism while still hoping they can solve the "jewish problem." This has got to stop, these people need to pick a side.

There are so many ways we could have ended the Iraq war quick but we choose to be nice. War is not nice. What would Patton have done with an Iraq? Letting Al Jazeera push there bullshit was such a terrible error on our part. Enemies of the US shouldn't be pestered by our military they should fear and respect it.

grapekoolaid said over 2 years ago ...

"You are being purposely naive to appear smarter."

No. I was pointing out the fact that your concept of "war against radical Islam" is a simplistic view and frankly, stupid. It also allows pigeonholing groups of people who have nothing to do with each other, who hate each other in some cases, with different goals and aspirations. Middle Eastern politics is very complex and nuanced. You have to look at history, tribalism, religious divide and the British to start.

“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” -Mark Twain-

"stop trying to dodge the premise of the argument"

Which is?

"Unfortunatly wars include nation building and most of the time our military is just there for security and its the bureaucrats like Paul Bremer who do the nation building."

Nope. Wars (by definition) destroy nations. Nation building should be done by the civil authority and their own people (after we destroy them). It doesn't befit the dignity of the fighting men and women in this country to stand in the middle of the street as crossing guards and check bags and papers. That's not soldier work. It shouldn't be, anyways.

outlander said over 2 years ago ...

Ah but we are a civilized people who generally try to leave a situation better off than when we started. That is usually a joke and yet another one we can pin on Liberals.

Ok, it it is not Radical Islam that is blowing shit up then who is and how do we get them to stop?

sean_renaud said over 2 years ago ...

Step one. Stop making more of them and approach them the same way we do any other criminal organization.

Step two. Find out what they really want and assume that anything they've said about Isreal or America is a recruiting slogan and not an actual desire. If proven false on this assumption repeat step one with much more vigor.

Step three. Praise, recruit, protect non radicals.

Step four. Ignore.

outlander said over 2 years ago ...

Step one-No, didn't work up to 9/11 and won't work now. Step two-we know what they want which is kill everyone that is not Muslim. Step three-all ready doing that. Step four-hilarious and exactly what Bill Clinton did which opened the war to 9/11.

sean_renaud said over 2 years ago ...

Step 1: Fuck yeah it was working rather well up until 9/11. Besides for the most part we'd been just skipping to step 4 because Step 1 was too much damn work until 9/11. Step 2: Nope. That's fairy tale bullshit. Step 3: No we're not. Step 4: Nope. 9/11 is a freak occurance that turned a complacent nation into a nation of cowards who can only lash out blindly while thinking it's absurd that someone else would do the same. I swear I wish we could lock the kids away for a few decades while actual adults deal with this mess. Even if we'd outright just ignored 9/11 or spent the entire time crying about it we'd still be ahead pretty much no matter how you do the math. I'm glad we bothered with Afghanistan it's worth getting the message out on occasion that's not cool but really if we'd literally just walked it off we'd likely be better off than we are now.

Join our friendly Yakkstr community in 1 Easy Step
  • Meet Like Minded People
  • Share your thoughts with others who share your interests
  • No assholes to deal with, we keep them out
Join Now by writing your first comment below


Related Posts
Would Santorum's agenda be about America or the Bible?
Obama's agenda is "not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology," Santorum told supporters of the conservative
17 comments Last Page
last by reckoner almost 3 years ago
I Would Love To Nominate Santorum
The amazing thing is that the Liberals / Democrats / Socialists can run a total loser like Obama who has zero experience, goes to a racist church for years, hangs with known terrorists like Bill Ayers, bows to Muslims, snubs and criticizes Americans a
2 comments
last by alienated almost 3 years ago
The Not So Great White Hope
The Republicans were not guilty of looking for a "white" president as long as Herman Cain was in the race to become the Republican presidential candidate. But, alas, he has been railroaded to the sidelines. He did get a few wasted votes in Iowa
2 comments
last by alienated almost 3 years ago
My Problem with Religion
Santorum staffer believes it is against God's will for a woman to be President. Rival presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s Iowa coalitions director, Jamie Johnson, sent out an email saying that children’s lives would be harmed if the nation ha
62 comments Last Page
last by feather almost 3 years ago
With friends like these...
A Sheriff in Arizona named Paul Babeu resigned as a co-chair of Mitt Romney's campaign in Arizona on Saturday after he was accused of threatening a former male lover with deportation to Mexico if he talked about their relationship.
25 comments Last Page
last by outlander over 2 years ago

Remember me

New? Sign up here.
reckoner commented 4 days ago on
So which one are you?
Did know what? That Americans like the policies in the bill when asked about them individually? That "death panels" was a lie? That it is the same as romneycare and started as a republican plan from heritage? What is it your willing to admit read the rest
reckoner commented 4 days ago on
Alan Watts on ideology and principles
Read my link alien. I think you'd agree with half of it. I want to know what you think about the other read the rest
reckoner commented 5 days ago on
Alan Watts on ideology and principles
You can google it. That was what heritage was promoting and it was the basis of the republican alternative to the Clinton proposal as well as romnetcare. The reasoning behind it is solid and I want to know which part you disagree read the rest
reckoner commented 5 days ago on
Alan Watts on ideology and principles
So you are denying read the rest
reckoner commented 6 days ago on
Alan Watts on ideology and principles
The heritage plan had an individual mandate just like romneycare. [See read the rest
reckoner commented 6 days ago on
Settled Science? Not so much!
Wow this is too funny. So I googled and read the study. It says that 0% of scientists believe the climate is not changing. 3% believe it is changing solely due to natural causes, more than 30% believe it is changing due to human activities and natural read the rest
reckoner commented 9 days ago on
So which one are you?
Premiums have gone done. Insurance companies changed their plans. This happened to people before read the rest
reckoner commented 9 days ago on
Democrats giving up on Obamacare
Requiring hospitals to care for people that can't pay is welfare too, right? Do you want to remove that read the rest
reckoner commented 9 days ago on
Democrats giving up on Obamacare
I think we should have single payer, and it would still be insurance. So you want a system were people are denied for preexisting conditions and hospitals are required to care for sick people if they can't pay? An individual mandate is so much better read the rest
reckoner commented 9 days ago on
So which one are you?
Please specify one thing you believe to be a read the rest