Rick Santorum predicts a convention fight with Ron Paul delegates over party platform

Yahoo ^ | 06/08/2012 | Chris Moody

[Responsibility2nd]

ROSEMONT, Ill.—Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have never gotten along, and while the primaries are effectively over, their intraparty rivalry could stretch on through the summer.

With 267 delegates pledged to him so far, Santorum is planning to flex his muscle at the Republican National Convention in August, where he predicted Friday there could be a showdown over the party platform between the social conservative delegates who pledged support for him and Ron Paul's libertarian supporters. Paul's campaign predicts that about 200 delegates will attend the convention on his behalf.

Both want a piece of the party platform, but the candidates agree on very little politically. Speaking to reporters here Friday at a conservative conference, Santorum said his supporters are ready for a "fight" in Tampa.

[EternalVigilance]

Words are frequently ambiguous, having multiple meanings. Do you believe the meaning of the Constituion is fixed at the time it was ratified, according to the meaning attributed to the words by the authors and understood by those who debated and ratified it, or do you belive the meaning can be changed by applying different meanings to the words according to what it is you want it to say?

Please show some evidence that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to exclude certain classes of persons from protection, in spite of the explicit words to the contrary that they used in the Amendment, or that a single one of them ever supported the killing of babies.

[tacticalogic]

Illicit authority.

The Constituion can only be in effect if it was legitimately ratified by the States.

The States ratified a Constitution that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. Could they have ratified a Constitution that doesn't count the unborn as a person?

[tacticalogic]

Please show some evidence that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to exclude certain classes of persons from protection, in spite of the explicit words to the contrary that they used in the Amendment, or that a single one of them ever supported the killing of babies.

They did not outlaw the practice of abortion upon ratification of the amendment.

[EternalVigilance]

They did not outlaw the practice of abortion upon ratification of the amendment.

Again, they also didn't "outlaw" the killing of red-headed step-children between the ages of five and six.

Instead, they explicitly and imperatively protected all persons.

[tacticalogic]

Again, they also didn't "outlaw" the killing of red-headed step-children between the ages of five and six.

They didn't need to. Every state already had laws on the books against murder that would have covered that.

Instead, they explicitly and imperatively protected all persons.

And yet some still allowed the practice of abortion, because they did not define the unborn as a "person". And they did not change that after ratification of the 14th Amendment.

[EternalVigilance]

The States ratified a Constitution that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. Could they have ratified a Constitution that doesn't count the unborn as a person?

One of the key distinctions you, and those like you, seem to consistently miss is the difference between having the ability to do something and having the legitimate right to do so.

Might does not make right.

[hedgetrimmer]

Good! Get rid of the cap and trade global tax platform of the current republican party!

Oh but then Romney won’t want to run!

[tacticalogic]

One of the key distinctions you, and those like you, seem to consistently miss is the difference between having the ability to do something and having the legitimate right to do so.

What you seem to miss is that regardless of whether you consider it legitimate or not, the evidence says they did it.

Once it's done, the options for undoing it are a Constituional amendment which can be accomplished peacfully, or by force which will probably precipitate a civil war.

[EternalVigilance]

What you seem to miss is that regardless of whether you consider it legitimate or not, the evidence says they did it.

What did they do?

They wrote and ratified and Amendment that says this:

"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[EternalVigilance]

Maybe we should start back at the very beginning.

Is it wrong to kill babies in their mother’s womb?

[tacticalogic]

They wrote and ratified that amendment, but they did not define or consider "personhood" to begin at conception.

That's the part you refuse to acknowlege - that the people who wrote and ratified the Constition and the 14th amendment could have considered a "person" as a legal entity, to be acknowleged at birth rather than at conception. The evidence says they considered it to begin at birth, and you refuse to accept that evidence.

[tacticalogic]

Maybe we should start back at the very beginning.

Is it wrong to kill babies in their mother’s womb?

If I say "Yes", you'll claim you've won the argument even though what I think doesn't change the original intent of the Constitution. If I say "No" you'll claim I'm some kind of baby killing monster.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“The Libertarians should try building up their own party and stop trying to co-opt the Republicans.”

I don't mind incorporating some of their ideas. But I don't want to go down their “dope is ok” “we should have stayed out of WWII” nonsense.

[hedgetrimmer]

That’s projection.

The current cap and trade global tax platform of the republican party is already communist.

[Persevero]

“I don’t mind incorporating some of their ideas. But I don’t want to go down their “dope is ok” “we should have stayed out of WWII” nonsense.”

Indeed, and Bradley Manning is not a patriot.

In San Francisco, the locals have decided that public nudity is legal. A stark naked man walked through our neighborhood a couple of days ago. A residential neighborhood. Libertarians think that is just fine.

[HereInTheHeartland]

I used to live in SF in Cole Valley. Great area; but the left wing wackiness is too much.
May be back out for the SF Marathon in late July.

[EternalVigilance]

You can’t even answer the most basic questions of simple right and wrong, because if you do the obvious truth will demolish your own argument.

[tacticalogic]

You can’t even answer the most basic questions of simple right and wrong, because if you do the obvious truth will demolish your own argument.

I can take a loaded question, unload it, disassemble it and hand it back to you in pieces without pulling the trigger. If you don't want that done with them don't hand them to me. Jerk.

[EternalVigilance]

Amazing that such a simple question as to whether it is right or wrong to kill babies can evoke such a response.

[tacticalogic]

Amazing that such a simple question as to whether it is right or wrong to kill babies can evoke such a response.

I hate loaded questions, and the people who think they're being clever by asking them.