Posted on 01/19/2012 4:09:17 PM PST by kristinn
And then there were three and a half minds left campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.
Hosted by CNN's John King at the North Charleston Coliseum.
Let me ask you this hypothetical. What if Newt wins SC with over 30% and Santorum comes in with less than 15% and 4th place. What should Santorum do?
Although I knew my statement might come across negatively, it wasn’t meant that way at all. I had 3 years in the Catholic school, with a few more years in catechism.
There is no organization in the history of the world that has come close to the size and scope of the Roman Catholic Church. Some historians would say the Roman Empire never fell but simply changed form.
I appreciate your information and in theory, Subsidiarity is something that we, as Conservatives, would support. In practice and history, a different story is told. Catholic Charities might be one example of social services performed by the Church on a grand scale. The CYO, another.
I would like a better reference if you could supply, as my quick search was to Wikipedia and found this principle to about 100 years or so old. Again, not something of an historical teaching. I might also say it could be a response to the rise of totalitarianism and the government replacing the Church as social care taker.
Thanks for taking the time to respond ...
I came up w a new word too. After watching Juan Williams and Newt Gingrich. And now Matthews doubles down. “Raceploitation”
The catechism is very clear on the issue...
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c2a1.htm
“Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative.”
In your defense, many Catholics are also very confused on this issue because of mixed messages put out my Catholic Charities and other organizations in the church.
However, the teaching of the church is very clear, and we all need to do a better job of following that teaching.
Oscar Wilde
Excellent
Without a doubt!
No offense taken.
—I would like a better reference if you could supply, as my quick search was to Wikipedia and found this principle to about 100 years or so old. Again, not something of an historical—
The Church doesn’t prescribe a specific form of government, but instead upholds the eternal, foundational moral principles which societies must recognize. In practice, the Church acts negatively with regard to various forms of government and political theories, rather than positively.
There are many important encyclicals from the past two centuries that reflect this practice, particularly, “On the Doctrines of the Modernists” and “On Atheistic Communism.” Similarly, popes have warned against the dangers of the bureaucratic State and Western materialism.No offense taken.
Thanks for the link. It was informative and my first thought was of the infiltration of the Church by less than savory forces around the world. Communists in Europe and Marxists in Latin America to undermine the foundations of the Church.
Have you not followed the prior debates and various Gingrich interviews? He has explained multiple times that he and the Republicans in Congress (with, IIRC, the blessing of the Heritage Foundation) had pushed the mandate as part of a plan in opposition to Hillarycare back in the early 90s.
It was the lesser of the two evils then available. It became moot when Hillarycare was shot down, and the GOP took over Congress. It’s not as if Santorum didn’t know exactly what was going on at that time. So these things have to be held in context.
Gingrich is better than Romney (I think) and Obama (definitely) but he’s a mixed bag IMO and I think unpredictable once he’s in power.
***
And Obama isn’t? Can you imagine how “unpredictable” this marxist nut case will be with a second term?
If you fear Gingrich, then ELECT a conservative Congress that will reign him in! It’s called the balance of power ...if we follow it, it will work!
I don’t feel Gingrich EVER did anything dangerous or out of control while Speaker. Look at what he DID, not what your’e afraid he’ll do — or what RINOS and libs tell you he’ll do.
Thanks, Finny !!!!
Hence my statement:
Gingrich is better than...Obama (definitely)...
I agree with you totally.
I don’t know exactly what it was, but Perry’s presence added some class and dignity to the people on the debate stage.
It wasn’t there last night. There was a big gaping hole of goodness.
But I think he did the right thing. It had become obvious it was not his time. My husband and I have discussed it. We think he should have skipped the first debate when he was still ill and my husband thinks he shouldn’t have mentioned Texas so much.
Although he had an incredibly fine record in Texas, people seemed to be tired of Texas and Texas governors.
He endorsed Newt and I’m going with Newt.
We could have done better.
Santorum should drop out and endorse Newt after S. Carolina. Staying in after such a loss will just split the conservative vote and allow Romney to win.
Santorum is bitter. Much as I hate to say it, he will endorse romney out of pure spite.
I agree that Santorum would probably endorse Romney. Santorum is living in a fantasy land where he is pure and wonderful and Mother’s little helper (since Mother is the state, this is not a good thing). He’s angry that people are not more impressed by this.
That said, his stupid answer about his taxes...they’re on his home computer and there’s nobody there to get them...should have had him laughed off the stage. Somebody that naive and non-professional (not to mention non-technological) thinks he’s qualified to be President of the US?
Indeed we are at war with the enemy within. We, the Patriots of America, palpably feel this fight is afoot. Newt realizes this. He will fight. He relates to the Founders more than anyone and knows what must be done.
Sometimes I want the zot button for my very own.I've got bj blocked because s/he is a Gingrich-hater and a royal pain in the a**.
Oooh, got to order more tea for my son! I can’t even drink it - can’t do caffeine - but it’s good and it is the only bottle I don’t mind getting left in my car. Lol.
No, rush is clearly Not for Romney. However, when he got called out on that yesterday by a Romney caller, he backtracked and said positive things about R. So as not to appear against him. I would bet $ rush is only trying to appear impartial.
Take more D. If you are Ill you must need it. Zinc and C too. Poor thing. Hugs.
“Santorum should drop out and endorse Newt after S. Carolina. Staying in after such a loss will just split the conservative vote and allow Romney to win.”
And he doesn’t care - his ego trumps doing what’s best for the cause. I hope I’m wrong, but I predict he’ll endorse Romney. Only in this case, his followers will NOT do the same (thankfully). Santorum seems to greatly resent Newt. Of course, when you examine RS’s voting record, you see that he’s much more in tune with Mittens politically - both are big government guys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.