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.
If there was real evidence you’d be citing that instead of suppositions.
You’ve clearly conceded that he was correct in his statement by moving down to the next tier - laundry list of why Santorum is wrong and completely unrelated to the initial topic.
“Interesting how you can’t defend Santorum in these points”
Interesting how you attack SANTORUM for doing what Newt did, and give Newt a ‘get out of jail free card.’ Hey, if you’re going to call out Santorum for shovelling earmarks, you might want to give the emperor of earmarks some guff as well.
As it is, it appears to me that you’re cutting and pasting attacks against Santorum. How compelling is this? I might as well be arguing with the person who came up with this stuff (Club for Growth btw), instead of you.
“2. You assume I support Newt, which I don’t, so it’s rather pointless.”
Ahh. Paulbot. Hello sir!
“Show me where in the constitution the government has the right to ban pot smoking?”
So you answer a question with another question? You also, by saying this, concede that yes, pot smoking is not an enumerated constitutional right - like the 2nd amendment.
Thank you for the concession.
“The right to smoke however is in there.”
It’s not an enumerated right in the constitution either.
“It comes under the heading of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
That would be the preamble to the declaration of independence, not in the constitution. You’re still flailing away to show me how this is an enumerated right.
“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.”
They also had laws in much of the country regulating the buying and selling of drugs, they also didn’t have drug pushers pushing drugs on children, nor did they tolerate property crimes committed by addicts.
They also had serious, serious opium addiction problems. The local authorities have always had the power to regulate the distribution of controlled substances, and counties exist today that bar the sale of alcohol altogether. If pot smoking were in fact a natural right - the counties could not ban the selling of pot in their area. You also have plenty of open container laws, etc. You just can’t go and drink anywhere you like, whenever you like.
“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.”
Actually, yes they do. The government has regulations on age.
“All the war on drugs has gotten us is a huge loss of freedom”
Look at Mexico. They’ve conceded the drug war to the narcos. Hey, maybe you have the luxury of saying - we should give peace a chance, but then it’s not on your doorstop.
Hey, what’s your dealer’s number?
You calling me a liar - pusher enabler?
Based on what I’ve seen of late, Newt.
LOL Spoken like a true Statist. Our Founders wanted a severely limited Federal government.
Anyone who believes in a government that serves the people in the way Santorum believes it should "serve" allows for the type of people that mirgrate to government and have it grow to what we see today.
Jefferson's definition of good government is wise:
A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
Our Founders wanted government to keep the h*ll out of our lives. They knew that a severely limited government would allow for a civil, ordered and prosperous society to evolve. Our Republic grew and quickly became the most prosperous, happiest Country on Earth. It only happened because government was limited and did not act to serve the people in the manner as Santorum wishes
It is strictly because government was limited that we became a great Superpower economically, not because of any government "action."
Santorum's entire political DNA is at odds with Liberty and Capitalism. He is a Statist masquerading as a Conservative.
PERFECT!
“Our Founders wanted a severely limited Federal government.”
True, but limited government is different from no government.
“Anyone who believes in a government that serves the people in the way Santorum believes it”
So what does Santorum believe? Let’s hear it.
“Our Founders wanted government to keep the h*ll out of our lives.”
Actually, he’s arguing in favour of intervention, to restrain one man from another.
“It only happened because government was limited and did not act to serve the people in the manner as Santorum wishes”
And what, precisely does Santorum wish?
“It is strictly because government was limited that we became a great Superpower economically, not because of any government ‘action.’ “
Was the US, prior to 1913 a superpower? UK, Germany, France, were all more powerful.
“Santorum’s entire political DNA is at odds with Liberty and Capitalism. He is a Statist masquerading as a Conservative.”
Opinion. From what I can see, he’s the best conservative out there. Newt is a progressive masquerading as a conservative. Paul is a libertarian masquerading as a conservative. Romney is a socialist masquerading as a conservative.
Santorum? He’s the best we’ve got still standing. Perry’s pretty good too, better than Newt.
I said you are full of $hit. I'll add to it, and tell you you are a cowardly piece of shit who types checks his a$$ is incapable of cashing. Which, I'm sure, is no news to anyone that knows you.
Was it good for you, too?
The US became an economic Superpower in the late 1890s. We became #1 in GDP in the 1890s.
Perry’s pretty good too, better than Newt.
No argument there. Unfortunately, this cycle we have to select from a range of bad choices. Newt does have a progressive streak that is quite bothersome. I have railed against Newt for his insane Global Warming views. He still can't let go of the belief in man-made global warming.
I am under no illusion that Newt will be this great conservative. If he is elected President I have no doubt that the base will have to continually keep pressure on him to resist his "government solutions." Still, at this point, he is the strongest to defeat the Marxist. I wish a real conservative was running, one who has the instincts of our Founders, the passion for Liberty that our Founders held dear. But alas we do not have that choice available.
Santorum peaked in Iowa and it is only downhill from there. No matter his conservative credentials, the guy has little charisma. He could never handle the onslaught that will be coming from the MSM and the rest of the evil left.
Is that taking the Empires into account?
I see estimates in 1913 of the US at 517k vs 224k for Great Britain alone. Double that for British India, and then 50 percent again for the domininions.
It’s pretty close. I stand corrected. Looks like by 1913 that the US was right up there with the British Empire, and above Germany/Russia who were pretty close.
But those have to take the Empires into account, and I’m not sure that they do.
I believe that, without the moral underpinnings shared by almost no one, the federal government becomes a ruthless tyrant, just has it has done.
My issue isn’t with the founders, my issue is with people. They are awful, they are primarily driven by greed and lust for power and control, and I don’t want or need their advice, influence, or thoughts on any damn thing at all.
As far as I can see, societies and their governments will fail, because people are fail.
Where does that leave us?
Some where very close to the end.
I think Santorum covered who is better equipped to fight mandates and Obamacare last night citing examples with the three candidates.
Newt is not the ideal conservative; that's a given. I think we can all agree that the 2012 campaign season will be the political equivalent of a gang fight. The problem for republicans is, we don't know how to get in the gutter and fight. IMHO, Newt is the only candidate who can take on the dirty dems and come out of it still fighting. In fact, he's the only one who can kick their asses.
There's a long way to go to get America back to its conservative, Constitutional roots. Newt is *not* the guy that's going to get us there but he's the guy that's going to get the ball rolling. Borrowing the GOP's mascot for a simple analogy - how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time....
I see the internet as a double-edged sword, since most people are shockingly unable to separate truth from lie. I am not an optimist, as I work with plenty of tech savvy young folks who are as dumb as stumps re common sense. Bob
I completely agree - but I would rather have a free exchange of ideas rather than having gatekeepers. Gatekeepers often have agendas, and those agendas can run counter to the truth - as we clearly see with the mainstream media.
We’re a country founded on raucous debate - you should see what early newspapers accused people of - all sorts of lies and tin foil madness. A free society can handle this. It toughens us up and make us properly skeptical and not scared and thin skinned.
This is also why I am against having a strong Presidency (so were the founders) - we may like it when our guy has the power. But our guy won’t always be there, and the insane power we so willing give to ‘our’ President will soon enough be used against us by the next President - the one who we despise. Better to defang these concentrations of power before it can be used against us.
The same goes for the media. I don’t want to see any concentration of power in control of news or the internet. Again, centralization of power is the most dangerous thing there is and has been use by all manner of tyrants (communists, socialists and nazis) to cause all sorts of evil. Also, the tyrant always believes he is doing the best for all mankind.
As for dumb kids, eventually the truth will win out in most of them - given a free exchange of ideas - which is the best we can hope for!
Chuck U. Shumer said that if Democrats won control of the Senate and Rick Santorum remained, he’d consider the night a defeat. Why can’t everyone on FR see through the lies, and realize that Santorum is a SMALL government guy who had fought the bastards for decades. I really expected keener critical thinking from members here. I don’t really understand the support for any of the others at this point. Hell, Newt flat-out lied about helping to develop supply-side economics last night. I don’t trust him or Romney one iota. Bob
Taking away one mandate in one hand, he brings more in another hand?
Between thine ears???
Surely Newt did more in the cause of supply side economics than Al Gore did in the cause of the internet!
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.