Skip to comments.Does Rick Santorum Believe in the Nanny State?
Posted on 02/18/2012 12:12:48 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I dont gamble, unless you count investing in stocks gambling. I visit Las Vegas at least once each year. Ive never put a penny in a slot machine, played Black Jack, or spun a roulette wheel. I take advantage of inexpensive hotel rooms (Mon. thru Fri.), great food, shopping, and magic shows. The Hoover Dam is a great visit as well as a number of museums.
Dont forget the pawn shops. The pawn shop is the best friend of gamblers who dont know when to quit and need enough money for their flight back home. If you ever pass through Las Vegas, be sure to visit the World Famous Gold & Silver Pawn Shop, a 24-hour family business operated by the Harrison family, in downtown Las Vegas. You can see them on Pawn Stars on History.com. You can learn a lot of history. Really.
But lets get back to the gambling. While I dont gamble, I dont want to pass laws prohibiting other people for gambling. Its their money. Just dont ask me to bail you out if you go broke. During a recent interview with Jon Ralston, Rick Santorum said the following:
Im someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as weve seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they end to grow exponentially as a result of that. Its one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment; its another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.
Freedoms not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet let everybody have it, let everybody do it. No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldnt have and make available, to make it that easy to do.
This might explain why billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson plans to give another $10 million to Newt Gingrichs campaign.
Its Santorum comments in the second paragraph in his above remarks that are the most troubling. This is the way liberals think and get laws passed to take care of us. The following comments from my friend Mark Horne are worth considering:
I think Nanny Statism is the right word. Children are supposed to be taken care of by adults. The idea is that some day they will grow up and make their own decisions and bear their own consequences.
But there is a never never land view of politics, both on the Left and the Right, that says people are never supposed to grow up. They have to be constrained and watched to protect them from themselves and to protect society from negative spillover.
Go to the book of Proverbs and ask if Solomon thought it was in his job description as king to protect fools from their folly by coercing behavior and eliminating the consequences. He seems to think that, if a fool wont listen to wisdom, then he will become an object lesson for others by the suffering and ruin he brings upon himself.
Instead of a nanny we need a wise teacher who warns us of what will happen to us if we give ourselves up to vice. Ridding society of vice is a program that will rid us of freedom and maturity, but probably leave vice intact.
When will so-called conservatives learn? The good parent prepares his children for independence, trains them to make responsible decisions, knows that he harms them by not helping them to break loose. The paternal state thrives on dependency. When the dependents free themselves, it loses power. It is, therefore, parasitic on the very persons whom it turns into parasites. Thus, the state and its dependents march symbiotically to destruction.
Internet gambling Nanny State PING!
Saturday, February 18
2012 Republican Presidential Nomination Gallup Tracking
Santorum 35, Romney 29, Gingrich 13, Paul 11 Santorum +6
Don’t be silly, Rick Santorum hates puppy dogs.
Oh wait, that’s Romney.
The funds raised in these FReepathons go to pay our current quarter expenses. But we're also going to try to replace some of our older servers and failing equipment this year so we're going to add a little extra to our FReepathon goals. John is estimating ten to fifteen thousand to do this and I'd like to get it all in place and working before the election cycle is fully heated up, so we'll try to bring in a little extra now, if we can, and the rest next quarter.
Cotton Mather for president.
In fact Pope Benedict joined WHOs call for universal health coverage just before its report hit the press. He called health care a moral responsibility of government and an inalienable right, regardless of social and economic status or ability to pay. He cautioned that the privatization of health care should not become a threat to the accessibility, availability, and quality of health care.
I sure would love to hear if Santorum agrees. We already have a 'social justice' president, why change horses? Oh and for the tender footed Santorum supporters answer the question. I support Newt, not Romney's ticket mate.
Attempting to impose ones own personal morality and religious rituals on a free people is Nanny Statism. Better to follow the Ten Commandments in harmony with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
We must elect a true conservative & proven problem solver for POTUS - not a wannabe Pope. People of faith already have vicars, priests and pastors to guide them in their daily lives....which is not a Government function.
Well Rick Santorum does want to throw American men in jail for porn, which is a feminist indicant.
Big-government conservatives often fall in line with liberal feminists in how they deal with society. The fall of the male in America has much to do with the feminist shaping of society and the killing of civilization by displacing men as the primary social-shapers and bread-winners. This came to a head in the 60’s with woman’s rights and contraceptives. I’m not against equal rights, btw, but am against the displacement of gender roles.
But many conservatives misunderstand Rick Santorum’s positions. He is a big government/big-spending “conservative.” Whatever that means. He has voted to subsidize Planned Parenthood in the past. He is PERSONALLY against contraceptives (well he says he is, but he considered it in the case of one of his wife’s complicated pregnancies), which is what this entire media parade has been about. His actions and votes have indicated IS NOT always against contraceptives being used for the public, but conservatives are blindly ascribing their values to whatever Santorum says even when those values do not add up. Santorum is not as conservative as far as policy goes as he lets on. He is just another slick-talking, double-talking politician.
>>>>>Attempting to impose ones own personal morality and religious rituals on a free people is Nanny Statism. Better to follow the Ten Commandments in harmony with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
We must elect a true conservative & proven problem solver for POTUS - not a wannabe Pope. People of faith already have vicars, priests and pastors to guide them in their daily lives....which is not a Government function.<<<<<<<<<
Conservatism is about transformation of mind not psychological conformity and physical coercion. Conservatives value the 10th amendment, which means the states get to decide some moral positions. It’s not exactly libertarianism, but then again, it’s not a national theocracy or liberal secularism. There is a balance to be sought in government. A police state of any kind is an affront to morality as much as forced secularism is a violation of conscience. C.S. Lewis stated that the moral Statist can be worse than the secular liberal in that his wrath will never be assuaged based on his self-righteousness.
We have seen this in history where the church establishment of the state killed and tortured in God’s name. This is actually what the Founding Fathers fled from in Europe. The Founding Fathers were in most part very religious and moral, but they knew that moral legislation was not the best answer to social problems.
Many Nazis were good Catholics.
Gutless union lackey.
Before we get to Santorum, was "compassionate conservatism" an example of the "nanny state"? Was there some relation between the two?
And then, is Santorum still under that influence or has he moved on to where the party is today?
Oh yeah. Slick Rick Santorum is a HUGE pro-union stooge. There is a “Right-to-Work” bill in the works that will pass if the Republicans take control of both houses. Guess who have voted against “Right-to-Work” legislation in the past?
We now know, after he FINALLY released his tax returns, that he has profited big-time from his Washington connections. $3.6 million worth in the past 3 years. He has a mansion in Washington D.C. That is a tell.
***A police state of any kind is an affront to morality as much as forced secularism is a violation of conscience.***
We are witness to that conundrum.
I’m wondering if Rick Santorum is stuck in the mind-set of a young father raising his children. Bossy, bossy, bossy!!!! (p.s. Rick - we are not your kids)
Would much rather have Newt’s mind-set of a grandfather - wisdom, experience and faith in our potential.
That quote tells me more about Rick Santorum than everything I have read or heard since the 90s.
This tells me he is FAR more concerned about what he considers to be right, or wrong, than he is about what what the Constitution says.
What part of: "...The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people...." did he not read or understand? He's clearly referencing Federal Law here...Internet Gaming.
Perhaps the retarded statist could use some help with the ninth Amendment too: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Yep, this confirms Santorum would use the power of the Federal State to impose his moral view. Same as Obama. Zero difference.
(Big-government maternalism = the end of constitutionalism)+(Feminism = the end of the American male)= The end of American civilization
Did you read what you linked to? There was nothing about banning porn. It was a pledge that included saying porn is bad for marriages. I disagree but it’s a quantum leap to say he wants to ban it.
“Many Nazis were good Catholics.”
That is not correct. No Nazis were good Catholics. Or good Lutherans, etc.
Thanks for the ping!
Use some abstract thinking skills. I meant it in an ironic way; much in the same way that many Catholics are being brainwashed into liberalism by the Catholic church.
I’m skeptical of candidates who are only socially conservative too. The Catholic church is marching to the tune of big gubmint statism at their own and our peril. I see where you are coming from. But here is the story from your link:
The Family Leader, a conservative Christian organization based in Iowa, wants all the GOP candidates to sign their pledge, entitled “The Marriage Vow — A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family.” The vow asks candidates to affirm a pro-marriage stance, oppose same-sex unions, defines homosexuality as a “choice” (stating there is no empirical scientific proof that being gay is genetic), and notes that marriage is undermined by adulterous factors like quickie divorces and pornography.
I’m not a Santorum supporter yet, but let’s be fair. Signing a pledge saying something is “bad” is a far cry from using the power of the state to ban it.
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.