NBC: Romney Wins Illinois Republican Party [Romney Wins Big In IL]

MSNBC ^ | March 20, 2012

[Steelfish]

NBC: Romney Wins Illinois Republican Party By Michael O'Brien, msnbc.com

Mitt Romney won the Illinois Republican primary with some ease on Tuesday evening, allowing him to likely add at his advantage over his rivals in the tally of delegates needed to secure the party's presidential nomination.

NBC News projected that Romney had won the contest, the lone presidential primary taking place on Tuesday, shortly after polls closed. The primary offered Republicans maybe their best chance yet of a genuine one-on-one battle between the former Massachusetts governor and Santorum, his chief competitor for the Republican nod.

[Norm Lenhart]

No, I mocked you with the term you yourself used to mock others...”Deep thinker’. If you remember, your deep thoughts went on to ‘not care’ who Romney appointed.

I didn’t say you were stupid in any words. You pretty much implied it with your ‘logic’ in your posts.

And calling someone an azzhole pretty well means that you can’t argue something on merit.

Deal with it.

[newgeezer]

I mocked you with the term you yourself used to mock others...”Deep thinker’.

Oh, apparently that hurt. Sorry. I didn't mean it to be personal.

When you damned "to hell" everyone who disagrees with you on this particular subject, should we similarly take that personally? If I should "deal with it", I'll need to know.

[Norm Lenhart]

Since I actually ‘am’ a deep thinker, no, it didn’t hurt at all. I just wanted to point out the cognitive disconnect in your use of the term.

As to ‘hell’, that’s a figure of speech of course, but thanks to all the people here so willing to trade principles, morals, and conservatism itself for the election of a man that stands against everything they ‘claim’ to believe in, We’re all going to get a good look at it shortly.

So I’ll save you a seat. We can do lunch and think deeply.

[newgeezer]

As to ‘hell’, that’s a figure of speech of course

"Of course"? Not so fast. Much more than you believe in yourself as a deep thinker, a great many FReepers believe damning someone to hell (a real place) is judgment reserved by God and not to be mocked. Tread lightly.

[Norm Lenhart]

I haZ a happy. I am having a discussion with the famous giy in the pic ...you know the one It’s a pic of the guy sitting in a dark room with his wife begging him to come to bed and he tells her “I can’t go to bed now!!! There’s someone wrong on the internet!!!”

You are him!!! You’re the guy!!!

I am truly honored.

And me and God have a side deal. He gives me intelligence and the ability to entertain thoughts far deeper than of normal men and I promise to use my abilities for good, never evil ;)

[newgeezer]

My bad. Your sheer brilliance continues to amaze you.

[Norm Lenhart]

And others. I’m that good.

[rodguy911]

Sorry ace logic trumps thumb sucking every time.

[JCBreckenridge]

So you’re willing to forgive Newt Gingrich for his sins, but not Santorum?

[JCBreckenridge]

“You’re comparing apples and oranges”

That’s because the unborn child is just a piece of tissue and not a person - right?

“States make their decisions and you live in a state that supports what you want”

So if a state were to ban gun ownership, you would support this, since state rights trump all?

“What you want is the federal government to TELL states what to do, which in your case is to ban abortion.”

Absolutely. Just like I want the federal government to tell states that they must permit possession of firearms.

“But why do you want the federal government to have such power?”

Because the Constitution gives them this power - to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. At present - liberty is being interpreted, by the federal government to protect a right to privacy (as in Griswald), and that is being extended to provide a constitutional right to abortion as found in Roe.

I am arguing that the constitution ought to protect both the born and the unborn - and that a state can no more permit abortion than it can permit the murder of any of their citizens. That is the principle that I am standing behind and I believe that the federal government does have the power to regulate.

Your argument, like Dred Scott, says that unborn children are children in one state, and across a state line, stop being children in another. This is just as untenable as arguing that a black man is not a black man depending on what state he lives in.

[true believer forever]

So you’re willing to forgive Newt Gingrich for his sins, but not Santorum?

Well, that's a little tricky - since, according to Santorum himself, he's "been called by God to this" and he also considers himself the only GOOD christian conservative running who can be counted to never lie or never never never... (insert any human frailty or sin, Santorum has never done it and never will). Plus the fact, he has said in terms of Newt, that he, santorum, is the only one with the quality of character and lack of personal baggage who qualifies for running for the WH.

In other words, as soon as Sanctimonium confesses to any sin, or simple itty bitty shortcoming, I will be happy to forgive him, once he repents and tries to make reconciliation for his itty bitty teeny tiny sins, and confesses them publicly, like Newt did with his great great big sins.. it's early, not sure I made myself clear, I doubt it will matter anyway, since most Sanctimonium supporters have cornered the market on piety and holier-than-thou-ness, but you can read this, I wrote it, and it may help you understand ...

 

[JCBreckenridge]

“Well, that’s a little tricky”

Not really. If you’re willing to forgive Newt for his adultery then it stands to reason that you’d also forgive Santorum for what you perceive as his excessive sanctimony. Forgiveness isn’t a one way street.

“he’s ‘been called by God to this’ “

I should hope that the republican candidate for the presidency would feel called by God to the position.

“he also considers himself the only GOOD christian conservative running who can be counted to never lie or never never never... (insert any human frailty or sin, Santorum has never done it and never will).”

I’d love to see a citation of this. Yes, Santorum believes that he’s the best candidate for the position, but I don’t see where he’s said anything at all about being sinless.

Santorum has flaws, there isn’t a perfect candidate out there, so I’m really not certain why you believe that Santorum has claimed this to be the case. I don’t believe this, and I don’t believe any of his supporters would ever say that Santorum is perfect. He’s not.

I do believe that he’s the best man standing.

“that he, santorum, is the only one with the quality of character and lack of personal baggage who qualifies for running for the WH.”

Well, that’s a different ball of wax altogether. Do you believe that a candidate committing adultery exhibits weakness in personal character? I sure do. It’s not going to disqualify them, but it’s a significant black mark. That’s nothing that is specific to Newt Gingrich, it would be the same for any candidate with the same character issues. There’s a substantial difference between arguing that Santorum is free from sins and from saying that Santorum is free from significant character issues that would inhibit his candidacy.

“confesses them publicly, like Newt did with his great great big sins”

Has Newt ever asked for forgiveness? I’d like to see this, sir.

[true believer forever]

For santorum’s statements on his moral superiority, check out the Iowa debate, it’s all there in blazing piety...

Newt has often said he has sinned, repented, and has sought the cleansing faith and renewal of Jesus Christ in his life. for that, check out the faith and freedom forum, where he talks about this humbly and eloquently...

For many many non-self-righteous christians, I wrote the following to answer a person who didn’t understand why ALL christians weren’t united behind Santorum, as he was so obviously such a good christian man.

finally, I am a woman, and finally, finally, I don’t debate this too far with santorum supporters because they have staked out the character counts territory and believe their candidate and God Himself occupy that territory exclusively.If you doubt, search out some of the comments on this board alone, as well as many prosantorum sites.

finally, finally, finally, I think santorum is the typically corrupt politician politician, duplicitous at best, has denied his conservative principles many times in teh past, and seeks to impose his religious beliefs on others via the federal govt without the seeming basic understanding that when you swing the door of govt open to accomodate or forward one religion, it isn’t long before the door swings the other, then may God help us all.
>>>

“On Santorum: No, I’ve never met him. I’ve read about him, some of the corruption he is associated with, I’ve watched him, I’ve listened when he was disrespectful to his mentor for political expediency’s sake. I study his voting record. I know a charity of his gathered millions of dollars, and only spent 32% of their funds on the poor, for whose benefit the charity was formed; and that the normative ethical ratio is for most charities to spend 82% of their funds on their targeted constituency - while most of Santorum’s donations went to give his political friends cushy “charity” jobs. Good Neighbor, I think it was called.
I listened as this so-called “good” Christian man stood on a stage and said his character was the quality of character that Americans needed in the White House, unlike the character of others who had personal baggage in their past, without once mentioning the forgiving saving transforming power of Jesus Christ, who is the center of the faith Sanctimonium so piously professes to live by... and sets his principles upon...

If you are not a Christian, you can’t really appreciate what is so appalling and galling about the man, in light of true christians, who don’t abrogate the work of Christ with attempts at self righteousness attained by their outside of the cup persona and behaviors..

What you are doing, and why so many sincere Christians have great problems with Santorum, is he, as well as you, overlook how the transformative power an encounter with the True Christ impacts a man’s entire soul and being; he becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus, old things pass away, all things are made new.

Newt has confessed his sins, said he did things he is ashamed of, has sought to make reconciliation with the members of his family, and others he has hurt. He has blamed no one else but himself. He has come to a new and apparently cleansing faith in Christ Jesus and, most importantly, there is no evidence of any of the same behavioral sins in his life since this long journey of his repentance, rebirth, and renewal began.

And, yet, people cannot let the man leave his past behind. After 20 years - think of it - 20 years - there are still a majority of people in the press, politics - Santorum, and a lot of his supporters - who consider Newt the same man he was 20 years ago, and dare he try to take one step away from his past, to step into the new, as his faith promises him he can, they are there loudly, hypocritically, self-righteously to pull him right back. They won’t let him step away from his sinful past, though no apparent evidence of that sinful past exists any longer, or any evidence that he is the same man he was 20 years ago. He is being judged as the man he was - while that man no longer exists. He is, I repeat, a new creature in Christ Jesus.

Finally, Christians, who truly fully embrace and receive the saving work of Christ, who are transformed deeply, understand that Newt could have done all those things back then, even worse, and still today be a new creature in Christ Jesus - but no one, not Santorum, nor his minions, will allow for that, or accept that might ever be true.
So, the final finally: it says more about the people who can’t let Newt be this new creature many believing Christians trust he is, if only because they are likewise sinners, great sinners, saved and transformed by the same power that Newt claims has saved and transformed him.
It is religious bigotry, hard hearts, and people like Santorum, who behaviorally have hit many of the right notes in their outward lives, though it is hard to believe that is extensively true - I am sure we will find out - whose self-righteousness - whose pride in their outward manifestations of sinlessness, and acceptable conduct, that causes believing Christians to distance themselves from him, to see him as a hypocrite, saved more by his self-perceived good works than the miraculous, healing work of a Perfect Savior, by his love and tender mercy, towards those who are fully unworthy.

Santorum is about none of that, he is about a gospel of works and self denial, of earned salvation. Newt is simply a sinner being saved by by the gift of grace, he could never earn or be worthy of... through no goodness of his own... the same as most of those Christians who can’t support Santorum’s apostasy.”

[JCBreckenridge]

Hello Ma’am.

“Santorum is about none of that, he is about a gospel of works and self denial, of earned salvation.”

Presumably because he is Catholic? You are aware that Gingrich is Catholic too? I could see you saying this if Newt were a Protestant, but he is not and has not been for some time.

“the same as most of those Christians who can’t support Santorum’s apostasy.”

Well, I’m somewhat unclear as to how Santorum is apostate but Gingrich is not, seeing as they are both of the same faith. Perhaps you can clear this up for me?

“I think santorum is the typically corrupt politician politician, duplicitous at best, has denied his conservative principles many times in teh past, and seeks to impose his religious beliefs on others via the federal govt without the seeming basic understanding that when you swing the door of govt open to accomodate or forward one religion”

In what regard has he sought to impose his religious beliefs through the federal government?

“If you are not a Christian, you can’t really appreciate what is so appalling and galling about the man, in light of true christians,”

Would you regard those Christians who support Santorum as false Christians?

“After 20 years - think of it - 20 years - there are still a majority of people in the press, politics - Santorum, and a lot of his supporters - who consider Newt the same man he was 20 years ago,”

Do you believe his accomplishments of 1994 - 18 years ago are relevant to his candidacy? If he’s not the same man he was back then - why should we support him for the presidency? This is when he was Speaker of the House. From what I can see we are being asked to judge him on the merits of 20 years ago, but not on the demerits of 20 years ago.

That makes no sense. We have to consider all of it - warts and all when assessing any of the candidates, be it Newt or Santorum. That to me seems the only sensible means to determine the fitness of a candidate to serve as president of the united states.

[MissouriConservative]

“That’s because the unborn child is just a piece of tissue and not a person - right?”

Hmm, did I say that? Oh, that’s right, you like to assume things don’t you? It makes everyone fit into your cute little world.

“So if a state were to ban gun ownership, you would support this, since state rights trump all?”

Thing is, that guns are SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Bill of Rights, which are limits on the Federal Government...but you knew that already before you sent this pitiful straw man out to die. Try reading the 10th Amendment, it might help you out a bit on the issue.

And sorry but the rest of your argument is rather childish and full of straw men...rather dumb ones at that if you ask me.

It’s really simple. Before Roe v. Wade, states decided on the abortion issue. That is the way it was, and is, supposed to work. I don’t like abortion, I think it’s a deplorable thing to do to an unborn child...but if I’m against liberals forcing their beliefs on people through the force of the federal government, then I cannot be a hypocrite and say it’s ok to force my beliefs on people. States rights is a principle that I will not give up for anything. For too long we’ve give up our states rights to the federal government and look at what you have now.

All you want to do is do what the liberals do. You want to use the power of the federal government to take your beliefs and force them on everyone, even if they don’t agree with you...and that’s simply not Conservative.

[JCBreckenridge]

Show me where the constitution permits the states to fund abortion.

[true believer forever]

It doesn't really seem like you read what I wrote, or maybe didn't understand what I was trying to say; either way, if you do your research and check out some of the sources I gave you, I would think a discussion would be more worthwhile. too many santorum supporters discuss with invective and unsubstantiated points - I have learned that the hard way.

I don't really care if Santorum or Gingrich are Catholic or Presbyterian or Methodist, and so on - I am talking about rick santorum minimizing the atoning work of Jesus Christ and his Position as the Only One that saves... and his clear public assertion regarding Newt, similar to yours, that once a sinner, always a sinner... the Cross is there for a reason... we are all sinners, whether we can recognize that or not...

I wrote this, also, maybe this will help:

 

[JCBreckenridge]

It would help if you didn’t use anti-Catholic arguments to argue in support for Catholics.

I’ve yet to see you actually quote Rick Santorum saying anythng to substantiate what you’ve attributed to him.

[true believer forever]

I have nothing against Catholics, I was raised one, educated by nuns. I simply consider myself a Christian, saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, whom I consider the Lord of Lords...

For the third time, the Iowa debate has all of rick’s sanctimony clear for all to see. If you don’t care enough to look for that, or my other link, then I don’t see how we have anything to discuss. I have done my homework. It’s time for you to do the same. don’t defend your candidate with platitudes or dismissive responses to others who can defend theirs, and make their case.

Again, did you even read anything I wrote? I have the time and patience for about one more go-round with you ... bring some specificity and depth to the discussion. I have.

[JCBreckenridge]

I asked 5 questions in the hopes of better understanding you, for which you’ve not actually answered any of them.

If Santorum did in fact say what you claim he did, it would be great if you could actually provide the citation.

This is your claim. All I am asking is evidence for your claims, nothing more nor less.

Now, you said that Santorum believes in ‘earned salvation’, presumable through works? I find it surprising that someone purporting to be educated by nuns would make this claim. Catholics believe as the book of James teaches - that faith without works is dead and works without faith is useless. Ergo, it stands to reason unless evidence exists to the contrary that Santorum does not actually believe in works-based salvation.