[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Internet gambling Nanny State PING!

[CainConservative]

No he didn't.

Latest Poll

Saturday, February 18

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination Gallup Tracking

Santorum 35, Romney 29, Gingrich 13, Paul 11 Santorum +6

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Don’t be silly, Rick Santorum hates puppy dogs.

Oh wait, that’s Romney.

[onyx]

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.

Jim Robinson

Click to Donate!

[hinckley buzzard]

Nanny state? Not exactly. More like a puritanical theocracy.

Cotton Mather for president.

[Just mythoughts]

http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/social-justice/2011/01/papal-prescription

In fact Pope Benedict joined WHO’s 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.

[sodpoodle]

Attempting to impose one’s 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.

.

[Force of Truth]

Well Rick Santorum does want to throw American men in jail for porn, which is a feminist indicant.

http://ziprage.com/news/national/rick-santorum-pledges-to-ban-porn-same-sex-marriages/

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.

[x]

You have to recognize the context. Santorum was Senator during Bush's "compassionate conservatism" years. Now the worm has turned and all that is out of fashion.

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?

[Mariner]

"Freedom’s 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 shouldn’t have and make available, to make it that easy to do".

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.