Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rick Santorum is tired of you people wanting the government to leave you alone…
Hot Air ^ | January 19, 2012 | MadisonConservative

Posted on 01/19/2012 9:18:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

I mean, really. How dare you peasants tell the government what to do? How dare you tell them to stay out of your lives? Santorum 2012!

(VIDEO AT LINK)

"One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right.

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

- Rick Santorum

First off, the phrase “radical individualism” is something I expect to hear from a Saudi imam. Hell, I wouldn’t be too surprised to hear it from leftists in this country. When I hear it from a Republican candidate for president, I sit blinking for a couple of minutes and then curl up in a ball under my desk, crying softly.

Secondly, I have to wonder: is Santorum insane, or even more out of touch with his base than any of the other candidates? This guy has the balls to whine about people wanting the government to leave them alone? Um, Ricky, I’m pretty sure the top issue for most conservatives is government overreach. There’s this thing called ObamaCare. Heard of it?

However, the true Emmy award winner of this piece is when he disputes the notion that “government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low”. You’re absolutely right, bud. I hope you get up on a podium tonight and deliver, in that notoriously whiny timbre of yours, admonishment to all those non-traditional conservatives who won’t shut up about lower taxes and less regulation. See how that flies in South Carolina. Rick Santorum is a statist theocrat. I’ve said it before, and been challenged on it. I consider this quote to be a follow up to this endlessly disturbing piece from nine years ago. Rick Santorum’s agenda involves using government power to enforce his morality on the American people, based not on political or constitutional ideals, but on his religious views. He is as far removed from the Tea Party, and the concept of small-government conservatism, as Barack Obama.

But lucky us! We can also choose from a socialist who provided the blueprint for ObamaCare, a serial cheater and liar with an ego the size of Neptune, or an isolationist crank who wouldn’t have stopped the Holocaust if it were occurring in present day. Johnnie Walker is my co-pilot.


TOPICS: South Carolina; Campaign News; Issues
KEYWORDS: 2012; biggovernment; biggovernmentrick; obamacare; santorum; santorumstatist; statisttheocrat; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-232 next last
To: JRandomFreeper

“And that is a federal issue.”

I’m just using it as an example of an issue where the federal government is not enforcing their constitutional obligations.

“You were talking about ‘the right to toke’.”

No, you brought up the right to toke. I said nothing before you folks brought it up arguing that it’s an enumerate right just like the 2nd.

No, it’s not an enumerated right, and the 21st establishes limits that apply to cannabis.

“Which is a State issue.”

Anything that the states can regulate isn’t a natural right. This is the principle that I’m getting at, if the state can limit the consumption of cannibis, then you don’t have a ‘right to toke’.

“You really have problems staying on track and being held accountable, and have control issues.”

What’s my faith JRF - since you know everything about me. :)


151 posted on 01/20/2012 12:29:33 AM PST by BenKenobi (Vindicated! Santorum wins IOWA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: AnTiw1

So tell me, if dope pushers are all about ‘letting you be’, why are they in playgrounds pushing it on kids?

It’s never about ‘laissez moi tranquille”. No, if that were the case, they wouldn’t be out there pushing.

It’s a business. You’re lobbying for toker pork, just like all the other businesses.


152 posted on 01/20/2012 12:32:31 AM PST by BenKenobi (Vindicated! Santorum wins IOWA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

All you need are a few thousand more bayonets and all the marijuana smokers are going to come to Jesus...one way or another.


153 posted on 01/20/2012 12:33:39 AM PST by AnTiw1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: AnTiw1

Hey, what’s next,

Free pipes? Free joints? Free methadone?

Oh wait, that’s what they already do in California, so that the addicts rather then having to smash my car and break in, can get their freebies and toker pork.

You want that?


154 posted on 01/20/2012 12:35:42 AM PST by BenKenobi (Vindicated! Santorum wins IOWA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“Radical individualism” is a term I would expect Rush Limbaugh to utter.

However, Santorum is a social conservative but, also, a BIG state nanny.

I don’t always agree with Madison Conservative because sometimes he/she is not a conservative.

So, there ya’ go...


155 posted on 01/20/2012 12:36:54 AM PST by dixiechick2000 (Proud barbarian TEA Party SOB and an evil Capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
You have issues. And are not truthful. You have been caught in several reversals in the last few hours.

I pray that you get relief from whatever demonic confusion you are dealing with.

Losing that relationship over control issues really is difficult to let go of, isn't it.

/johnny

156 posted on 01/20/2012 12:38:10 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
I don't think weed smokers are terrorizing you. I think that's all in your head. Along with some issues, apparently.

I don't know why you have a car, it sounds like you're afraid to leave your house.

157 posted on 01/20/2012 12:44:09 AM PST by AnTiw1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
Personal autonomy is REQUIRED for truly righteous behavior.

WELL SAID. And supported in the New Testament in the Gospel of Jesus Chris.

158 posted on 01/20/2012 12:45:32 AM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

What’s my faith?

You keep avoiding the question.

You say I’m afflicted by demons, but you can’t tell me which church I belong to?

Why is that?

Maybe you aren’t gifted with insight after all. Pity.


159 posted on 01/20/2012 12:45:32 AM PST by BenKenobi (Vindicated! Santorum wins IOWA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Finny

Right alongside, “God helps him who helps himself”.


160 posted on 01/20/2012 12:47:04 AM PST by BenKenobi (Vindicated! Santorum wins IOWA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Don't work miracles on demand without cash up front, slick.

It doesn't matter which church you belong to. "By their fruits, shall ye know them".

And I've seen plenty of untruthful, hateful, controlling fruit tonight.

/johnny

161 posted on 01/20/2012 12:48:57 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: AnTiw1

So you think it’s ok to push dope on kids, and break into cars to feed your habit?

Cause, I know dope dealers who did both. They weren’t sorry for the harm they did to other people until they got caught.

And I haven’t even gotten started yet. :D

I’m really not a fan of pushers and their enablers.


162 posted on 01/20/2012 12:49:50 AM PST by BenKenobi (Vindicated! Santorum wins IOWA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

You’d better get your holy spirit recharged then. You’re drained...


163 posted on 01/20/2012 12:51:54 AM PST by BenKenobi (Vindicated! Santorum wins IOWA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
I’m really not a fan of pushers and their enablers.

Even insane people aren't (obviously). But states make laws about that, and it's not a federal issue.

Pushing dope on kids and breaking into cars is ALREADY unlawful at the state level.

And the Federal government has no enumerated power to control it, except, perhaps, at borders.

How do you feel about federal government over-reach?

/johnny

164 posted on 01/20/2012 12:55:03 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Personally?

I’m pissed off as hell at O-Care being crammed down my throat.

They can put me in jail. I ain’t paying for someone else’s abortions.


165 posted on 01/20/2012 12:56:43 AM PST by BenKenobi (Vindicated! Santorum wins IOWA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Apparently the mirrors in your life are broken.


166 posted on 01/20/2012 12:57:30 AM PST by AnTiw1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
There you go again...

A known atheist appeared on this thread tonight. Who witnessed to him?

Who actually spoke to him of God's love?

Who got at least a minimal positive response from the atheist?

You go be right in your own eyes all you want.

I have things to do.

/johnny

167 posted on 01/20/2012 1:00:54 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Smokin' Joe, that was a FABULOUS post.

Just fabulous. Thank you for writing it.

168 posted on 01/20/2012 1:01:24 AM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: AnTiw1

Imagine how different my opinion would be if it really were a ‘victimless crime’.

Or if they just left me alone.

But that’s not how it works, unfortunately.


169 posted on 01/20/2012 1:01:41 AM PST by BenKenobi (Vindicated! Santorum wins IOWA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Have a good night.


170 posted on 01/20/2012 1:04:13 AM PST by BenKenobi (Vindicated! Santorum wins IOWA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
" So you think it’s ok to push dope on kids, and break into cars to feed your habit? Cause, I know dope dealers who did both. They weren’t sorry for the harm they did to other people until they got caught. And I haven’t even gotten started yet. :D I’m really not a fan of pushers and their enablers. "

So incredibly full of $hit.

171 posted on 01/20/2012 1:04:33 AM PST by AnTiw1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

A number of “conservative” GOP figures say there’s a sliver of law in Obamacare they want to keep. Highly doubtful if the “expungement” that big-gummit Santorum has in mind is different from this.


172 posted on 01/20/2012 2:06:52 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: AnTiw1

Funny such wildings were virtually unheard of back when you could get a dram of morphine at your pharmacy just by asking for it.


173 posted on 01/20/2012 2:08:40 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
So you can show me where your right to smoke pot is in the consitution.

You didn't address your question to me but I will answer it. Show me where in the constitution the government has the right to ban pot smoking? It isn't there. The right to smoke however is in there. It comes under the heading of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Until about the turn of the 20th century people in America had no drug laws shoved down their throats, the drug addiction rate was no higher than it is now and religion seemed to have a far bigger following than it does now.

BTW, before you make some snarky remark, I don't smoke pot or do drugs, in fact I very seldom drink alcohol, but I stand by the right of the individual to do so if they so choose. The government has no right to keep anyone from it.

All the war on drugs has gotten us is a huge loss of freedom and, lately, a sh** load of dead dogs and sometimes innocent people killed in botched raids.

174 posted on 01/20/2012 2:43:11 AM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: calex59

States have the right to limit or not limit drug use. It is not as Federal matter according to the US Constitution.


175 posted on 01/20/2012 3:08:09 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
So now we’re moving to the laundry list of reasons not to support Santorum?

So now you've dropped the futile effort to support Santorum's stupid comments? Smart move.

Glad you agree there's a laundry list of reasons not to support him--welcome to sanity!

176 posted on 01/20/2012 4:48:35 AM PST by Darkwolf377 ( It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.--C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
So now we’re moving to the laundry list of reasons not to support Santorum?

So now you've dropped the futile effort to support Santorum's stupid comments? Smart move.

Glad you agree there's a laundry list of reasons not to support him--welcome to sanity! ;)

Interesting how you can't defend Santorum in these points, so you just attack Newt. 1. That's called dodging--"Well, this person might have cheated/stolen/whatever, but so did THAT person!" It doesn't change the facts. 2. You assume I support Newt, which I don't, so it's rather pointless.

But your maneuver sure shows what an awful 'conservative" Santorum is, and some of the reasons why I won't support him.

177 posted on 01/20/2012 4:50:56 AM PST by Darkwolf377 ( It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.--C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Actually, there’s no evidence for Santorum’s involvement....

Consider the sources, but look at Santorum’s own responses.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-campaign-santorum-idUSTRE8032A020120105

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-20/santorum-lobbyist-meetings-part-of-insider-history-he-rejects.html

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/99323/santorum-corruption-k-street-project

Santorum has made his post-Senate career doing the sort of quasi-lobbying that helped sink Newt Gingrich’s campaign in Iowa. But in fact, while still in office, he was a central actor in an even more sordid venture: The K Street Project. Started in 1989 by GOP strategist Grover Norquist and brought to prominence by former House majority leader Tom DeLay in 1995, the K Street Project was a highly organized effort to funnel Republican Congressional staffers into jobs at lobbying firms, trade organizations, and corporations, while attempting to block Democrats from those same posts. From 2001 until 2006, Santorum was the Project’s point man for the Senate, while House Majority Whip Roy Blunt manned the House side.

In 2006, the K Street Project was effectively forced to shut down amid public outcry; the following year, an ethics reform law made such outfits illegal. But in its heyday, it helped create an unprecedented revolving door between the White House, Congress and K Street, blurring distinctions between Republican policy and corporate welfare. As Elizabeth Drew put it in a 2005 New York Review of Books piece, “Democratic lobbyists have been pushed out of their jobs as a result; business associations who hire Democrats for prominent positions have been subject to retribution. They are told that they won’t be able to see the people on Capitol Hill they want to see.” Nicholas Confessore, in a groundbreaking 2003 Washington Monthly expose of the Project, detailed the goal bluntly: “First, move the party to K Street. Then move the government there, too.”

At the center of all this was Santorum. According to Confessore, Santorum conducted weekly breakfasts with lobbyists, and occasionally Congressmen and White House staff, during which he attempted to match Republican Hill staffers with K Street job openings. As Confessore put it, “Every week, the lobbyists present pass around a list of the jobs available and discuss whom to support. Santorum’s responsibility is to make sure each one is filled by a loyal Republican—a Senator’s chief of staff, for instance, or a top White House aide, or another lobbyist whose reliability has been demonstrated.” The group refused to meet with Democrats, and threatened sanctions against lobbies that did.

Revolving door tactics, until then de facto lobbying policy, were formalized and transformed into a “pay to play” system by the K Street Project. In 2003, after the top post at The Motion Picture Association of America went to a Democrat instead of a Republican, House Republicans reneged on an impending tax break, hitting the movie industry with a $1.5 billion bill. After the Democrat was chosen, Roll Call reported that “Santorum has begun discussing what the consequences are for the movie industry.” (Santorum, though he often denies his involvement in the K Street Project, more or less confirmed his involvement in the MPAA flap.) Later that year, the Washington Post revealed that the House Financial Services Committee pressured a consortium of mutual funds to oust a top lobbyist who was a Democrat in exchange for relaxing a pending investigation. After the smoke cleared, she was replaced by a Republican.

Whether the K Street Project was truly successful is up for debate. Confessore and Drew’s reports portray intimidated and marginalized Democratic lobbyists. According to a 2003 Washington Post story, a Republican National Committee official boasted that 33 of 36 top lobbying jobs had recently gone to Republicans. Former lobbyist Patrick Griffin, now an adjunct professorial lecturer at American University, told me that the project embodied the brazen crudeness of “DeLayism,” but also suggested that most lobbying firms and corporations were not “stupid” enough to purge Democratic staff and risk alienating much of the Hill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rick-santorum-and-the-k-street-project-fact-checker-biography/2012/01/05/gIQAbqwgjP_blog.html

Norquist asked lobbyists for help completing the profiles during a private meeting in June 2002, according to a report that year from the Post. Santorum, who was serving as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, hosted the gathering, the article said.

The previous year, Santorum had started holding twice-monthly conferences with handpicked lobbyists and GOP officials to review job openings in the lobbying world. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette quoted the former senator referring to those discussions as the “K Street meetings.”

Former GOP congressman and lobbyist Rod Chandler explained to Washington Monthly how the gatherings worked. “The underlying theme was [to] place Republicans in key positions on K Street,” he said. “Everybody taking part was a Republican and understood that that was the purpose of what we were doing.”

Santorum acknowledged his involvement with the routine lobbyist meetings, and even admitted to holding conferences with Senate Republicans to discuss the appointment of Democrat Dan Glickman as head of the Motion Picture Association of America.

“Yeah we had a meeting, and yeah, we talked about making sure that we have fair representation on K Street,” he told Roll Call in 2004. “I admit that I pay attention to who is hiring, and I think it’s important for leadership to pay attention.”

Santorum also used the term “K Street Project” at one point to describe his job-placement discussions. “The K Street Project is purely to make sure we have qualified applicants for positions that are in town,” he told the Post-Gazette in 2005. “From my perspective, it’s a good government thing.”

The former senator later said he had thought of the term as a generic reference that could include his outreach efforts, suggesting he believed Norquist’s initiative was separate from his own.

The Senate ethics committee issued a letter in 2002 warning lawmakers not to use the lobbyist dossiers to block people from government access or jobs based on party affiliation, which would violate Senate rules.

Santorum ended his routine lobbyist meetings in early 2006, as the Abramoff scandal sparked public contempt for coziness between lobbyists and politicians, and after Democrats targeted the Pennsylvania senator for a takedown in the upcoming election — they succeeded.

Santorum defended his lobbyist meetings during an interview with the Post-Gazette, saying they involved “no pressure to put Republicans in those roles, period — no pressure.” He added, “I absolutely abhor that.”

As for Norquist, he readily admitted to working on the K Street Project, and even tried to trademark the name. The conservative activist described his program as an effort aimed at “companies and trade associations who are blithely unaware that they are being represented by former aides who passed the laws that are now bankrupting them,” the Post reported.

Norquist told the Post-Gazette in 2006 that he attended one of Santorum’s meetings to explain the K Street Project to lobbyists, but he said the former senator never helped in creating the dossiers.

Santorum’s campaign did not respond to questions for this column.

THE PINOCCHIO TEST We can’t prove definitively whether or not Santorum collaborated on the K Street Project. He did and he did not, depending on how you define the initiative.

No one has established that the surging GOP candidate threatened to limit government access for Democrats, but we know that he took steps to improve the odds of a strong Republican presence in the lobbying game.

Still, Santorum’s remarks about Norquist don’t match the facts. Norquist himself acknowledged that he attended at least one meeting with the former senator to discuss the K Street Program. Santorum earns two Pinocchios for denying his connection with the lobbyist initiative and one of its primary leaders.


178 posted on 01/20/2012 4:59:11 AM PST by Darkwolf377 ( It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.--C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If any of the guys running now wins the presidential election, the ruling class will be happy.


179 posted on 01/20/2012 5:01:53 AM PST by mewzilla (I'll vote for the first guy who promises to mail in his SOTU addresses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA
In last night's debate, Santorum proudly chided his fellow candidates for all stating that there should be no ‘government protections’ afforded to intellectual property on the net. All the other candidates (except for Ron Paul who trailed off to paths unknown with his answer) stated there are copyright laws already in place and copyright owners, a.k.a. Hollywood and the recording industry, should use them. Santorum spoke for government intervention. He's too pro big government for me.
180 posted on 01/20/2012 5:25:31 AM PST by liberalh8ter (I don't like what the world has become....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
There is NOTHING in the Obamacare bill that is worth redemption. Nothing. It blows me away that there are so-called Freepers here who suddenly profess love for one-tenth of Obamacare simply because Noot embraces it.

I thought McCain was bad enough four years ago. But now I see Republicans doing something far more vacuous.

By supporting Noot, you may get your opportunity to witness the great debate between Obama and Gingrich. But you will be doing so at the expense of seeing four more years of Obama in the White House. If the Dems play it right, they may even retain control of the Senate with Noot on the GOP ticket.

181 posted on 01/20/2012 6:47:51 AM PST by Hoodat (Because they do not change, Therefore they do not fear God. -Psalm 55:19-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
Santorum spoke for government intervention. He's too pro big government for me.

So other than wacky RuPaul, who is the small govt' candidate? The one against mandates and such.

182 posted on 01/20/2012 8:06:43 AM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

who has examined the byzantine thing to be in a position to vouch that nothing good was tucked into its colossal badness? not you apparently.


183 posted on 01/20/2012 8:42:26 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Rick believes that without moral *underpinnings* shared by most people in a society, that society will collapse. That’s patently true. If I have a beef with his comment, it’s that he is trying to guard a horse that has left its barn many years ago.
If YOU don’t believe in the Founders’ ideal that government exists to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and property perhaps), YOUR argument is with the Founders. Rick explained his position very well on Beck on Wednesday. The Declaration is the “why” of America, and the Constitution is the owner’s manual which uses the Declaration as its preface. Bob


184 posted on 01/20/2012 8:43:42 AM PST by alstewartfan (27 of 36 of Romney's judicial appointments were DEMOCRATS!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

“moderation” not in evidence


185 posted on 01/20/2012 8:52:00 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

One of the vital functions of any government is protection of private or intellectual property. I’m sorry that so many here believe that they are *entitled* to another’s creation for free. SOPA sucks, but that doesn’t mean that absolutely nothing can or should be done to curb piracy. Bob


186 posted on 01/20/2012 8:52:23 AM PST by alstewartfan (27 of 36 of Romney's judicial appointments were DEMOCRATS!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
What Rick Santorum is doing - is showing that the government has a constitutional obligation to defend the constitution.

LOL. What a delusional statement. I have studied Santorum. He has the spirit and beliefs that are the polar opposites of our Founders.

Our Founders had an instinctive and outspoken hostility towards anything but a "severely limited" government.

Rick is a pure-breed Statist that would use the power of the State to forcibly bend the individual to be subservient to "his" view of the State.

The biggest thing Rick Santorum fears is true Liberty and limited government.

When this Conservative fraud drops out, Liberty can breathe a sigh of relief.

187 posted on 01/20/2012 8:56:21 AM PST by sand88 (Hey Rove et al, I will, with great pleasure, NOT cast a vote for the Statist Mitt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

Is piracy illegal? Are media companies not pursuing and prosecuting them?

This whole thing reeks of gun control. Armed robbery and murder are already illegal, but we’re going to make life difficult for EVERYONE and trample their rights.

SOPA and any of its bastard children are pointless power grabs, nothing more.


188 posted on 01/20/2012 8:57:29 AM PST by Future Snake Eater (Don't stop. Keep moving!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I hope that you have the chance to meet Rick in person one day, b/c you’ll be shocked to find that he is nothing like the absurd caricature that you and so many others have accepted. Bob


189 posted on 01/20/2012 8:58:51 AM PST by alstewartfan (27 of 36 of Romney's judicial appointments were DEMOCRATS!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

when his socalled 2nd amendment support comes up on his website as far more than about hunters, i will believe.


190 posted on 01/20/2012 9:02:29 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

just a few entries below you accuse of caricaturing. physician heal thyself.


191 posted on 01/20/2012 9:04:39 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

I can see your point, but MY point is that intellectual property is regularly stolen and distributed by hacks, and these folks deserve some modicum of protection. What we have now is not working. YOU clearly are not a creator of intellectual property. Cordially, Bob


192 posted on 01/20/2012 9:04:51 AM PST by alstewartfan (27 of 36 of Romney's judicial appointments were DEMOCRATS!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: sand88
When this Conservative fraud drops out, Liberty can breathe a sigh of relief.

So who will be the small govt' Conservative candidate when Rick gets out? The one opposed to mandates and such?

193 posted on 01/20/2012 9:12:22 AM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Some people believe that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Other people believe that rights are granted by the state. People in this latter category argue that the 2nd Amendment creates the right to bear arms and the 21st Amendment proves that rights exist only when the state grants them.


194 posted on 01/20/2012 9:16:46 AM PST by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

I have created intellectual property, though I doubt anyone will be “stealing” it anytime soon.

Regardless, what is your proposed solution?


195 posted on 01/20/2012 9:17:32 AM PST by Future Snake Eater (Don't stop. Keep moving!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

the medium-government one?

gingrich ain’t perfect but he’s cramful of plans to make government more frugal. anything that steps back from the obama brink is more than welcome.


196 posted on 01/20/2012 9:36:56 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
anything that steps back from the obama brink is more than welcome.

As Santorum argued last night, he is the only one with clean hands when it comes to arguing against mandates and Obamacare. Mittens and Gingrich both are on the record for accepting govt' mandates at one point in the not so distant past. Of the three real candidates, who has a better argument for fighting against the Regime in the general election on the single most dangerous and destructive thing facing this country, Obamacare? Santorum makes a great case that it is him.

197 posted on 01/20/2012 9:45:49 AM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

I personally don’t know, but if a system can be created whereby sellers or owners of sites would not be mandated to police themselves, and all the consequences would fall upon the thief, I don’t have a big problem. Just as patents of inventions are protected, so should inventors of artistic property be. It’s a tough problem, that’s for sure. Bob


198 posted on 01/20/2012 10:01:39 AM PST by alstewartfan (27 of 36 of Romney's judicial appointments were DEMOCRATS!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

On Piracy
You see this is the genius a of free country and free market. The record companies tried to make it impossible to get content. Kept the price high (and unreasonably so). Piracy (a market force) pushed them to bring their content down to a reasonable price and piracy of music is less prevalent. The landscape has changed and now more artists have more control of what they produce and more potential to get attention and get paid. Also I know the music industry - I can tell you for a fact that the majority of artists barely saw a 1% return - if they even saw that. The industry had a stranglehold on content production and that was locked down via their distribution networks. Hence content producers rarely saw a dime.

Read this for an insiders look at the biz (warning - the language is extremely crude at times! But he actually does a breadown of a recording contract and how artists mostly get nothing)

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

The whole media landscape is changing day by day. There is no “one size fits all” solution. Content providers - who used to have total control of distribution are finding their distribution model collapsing - this is excellent for freedom! Remember when we only had 3 networks to get content from - and they all pushed the progressive agenda? In fact it is an interesting point that there is a relation to our loss of freedom to that consolidation and control of news starting with radio networks at the beginning of the 20th century.

The dinosaur media is desperately making one last attempt to control content so they can shut down places like freerepublic if it doesn’t fit the government propaganda agenda. Leahy, Reid and sadly, Lamar Smith are paid for stooges in this game.

The free internet has helped break the shackles of centralized information, publishing conglomerates, etc.. Locking it all down again will be the progressives dream come true. I suggest we not be useful idiots for the progressive agenda.


199 posted on 01/20/2012 10:29:32 AM PST by LibertyLA (fighting libtards and other giant government enablers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: sand88

“What a delusional statement. I have studied Santorum. He has the spirit and beliefs that are the polar opposites of our Founders.”

So the Founders were Paulbots?

“Our Founders had an instinctive and outspoken hostility towards anything but a “severely limited” government”

Ok - but let’s look at the things that they did say the feds could do. That list is evidence that while they believed in limited government, they were by no means libertarians. There’s a big difference. They believed that it was the obligation of the state to serve the people.

“Rick is a pure-breed Statist that would use the power of the State to forcibly bend the individual to be subservient to “his” view of the State.”

And what is his vision. You keep saying that his vision is bad, without actually quoting any facts other than your own opinion. I’m seeing - opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion.

Where’s the beef, sir?


200 posted on 01/20/2012 11:16:09 AM PST by BenKenobi (Vindicated! Santorum wins IOWA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-232 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson