Posted on 02/16/2012 1:23:19 PM PST by Responsibility2nd
Oh, gee ... how nice of Rush to talk about how "they" are misrepresenting by omission what Santorum meant to say ... considering that Rush FORGOT to include the part where Gingrich, when he challenged Romney's work at Bain, made it clear he was criticizing specific methods of capitalism, not capitalism itself; the spin that Rush wrongly pushed that Newt was "attacking capitalism itself!!!" became the whole MSM meme, and did huge damage to Gingrich. How nice of Rush to defend Santorum here .. considering that when Rush railed agains the minimum wage, he FORGOT to include that as Senator, Santorum voted to increase national minimum wage SIX TIMES.
Just because "Rush said ..." something doesn't mean it's the whole story. Rush hasn't aged well, I'm sad to say. Gingrich, on the other hand, HAS. If you dont' believe it, go to Santorum's website and read ALL of his proposals, word for word, the details. Yes, I said Santorum's website.
Then go to Newt's Website and if you don't do anything else, at least click on the link for the 21st Century Contract; better read ALL of the contract and also click on the "Issues" tab and read ALL of it, every word.
At first they sound the same ... but closer inspection shows that Newt has paid closer ATTENTION to what needs to be done. For example, Santorum wants to cut the capital gains tax to 12 percent, lower the corporate income tax from 35 percent to 17.5 percent EXCEPT for manufacturers; he proposes to eliminate corporate income tax for them altogether (handy, since manufacturers are more likely to have the expense of labor unions, which Santorum generally supports, having voted against Right to Work laws).
Gingrich wants to reduce corporate tax to 12.5 percent all across the board, and abolish the capital gains tax completely.
On Santorum's site, he talks about repealing Obamacare ... but NOWHERE does he promise, as Newt DOES, that mandates on individuals and mandates on employers regarding health insurance are OFF THE TABLE. Newt makes it a point to reassure me that he knows mandates are wrong and that his plan will have zero mandates. That Santorum doesn't, knowing Santorum's past penchant for big government "solutions," should worry every one here.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
What Griswold did was lead to Roe v Wade.
BS. YOU made that up. YOU say that Santorum wants to outlaw it at the state level. He said the DECISION should be up to the states. He didn't say that the states should ban it. What he opposes is SCOTUS inventing rights under "substantive due process". That's it.
He feels that States should be able to ban contraception.
He feels that contraception is a “public policy issue” one with an “impact” on the “health” of our society.
If States make laws that trample the natural rights of citizens - then those laws must be struck down.
A State law trampling the equal rights of a disfavored minority is unlikely to be gotten rid of through majority vote - heck they voted for the policy in the first place.
Laws that infringe upon the sovereignty of the citizen MUST be struck down - not patiently waited upon until the electorate changes its mind.
I love the qualfifier, "for most people"!! LOL! Thanks for the giggle, I needed it! {^)
I can give up most things. Bacon would be hard. I would have to have a darned good reason.
If States make laws that trample the natural rights of citizens - then those laws must be struck down.
What is a 'natural right?' Who decides what a natural right is, especially when you expand on from what was in the constitution and bill of right. Or when courts flat out ignore what IS in the bill of rights.
A State law trampling the equal rights of a disfavored minority is unlikely to be gotten rid of through majority vote - heck they voted for the policy in the first place.
That puts all the responsibility on the courts and takes it away from legislators and us as citizens. The law in Connecticut at the time banning contraceptives wasn't usually enforced. It was a test case for the court. What should have happened instead is citizens calling Connecticut legislators and removing the stupid law.
Laws that infringe upon the sovereignty of the citizen MUST be struck down - not patiently waited upon until the electorate changes its mind.
Like laws stopping the killing of babies inside the womb?
I have opined elsewhere that Santorum's "glass jaw" is that he will be pushed into corners where he will either have to compromise and backtrack on principles he has espoused, or else sound like a crazed extremist lunatic. Either way he is toast. This was not just a bad idea. It is evidence of impaired judgment ....
... but now, especially as Santorum's direct quote was "One of the things I WILL talk about ..."?? I know exactly what you meant. Good call, and spot on.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
Yes, the Courts do have a responsibility for making sure that laws are Constitutional. Legislators and the majority of voters are not dictatorial - they cannot pass and enforce laws that trample the natural rights given to any citizen by our Creator and guaranteed to that citizen through our Constitution.
The laws against mixed marriages were not USUALLY enforced either - but when Mr. Loving married his pregnant girlfriend - and he was white and she was black - they were arrested and told to leave the State of Virginia.
Should Mr. Loving and his wife waited for the majority of voters in the State of Virginia to come around to the concept of equality under the law - or should that law have been struck down as Unconstitutional?
Do you think that as a citizen you have a sovereign and natural right to kill a non citizen?
:)
I am actually familiar with the concept. I asked you because I wanted to see what your definition was. The problem with "natural rights" is that it is "natural rights" or "natural law" that gave us Roe v Wade. It's no longer just the John Locke style of philosophy which I actually largely agree with in principle.
they cannot pass and enforce laws that trample the natural rights given to any citizen by our Creator and guaranteed to that citizen through our Constitution.
That's normal judicial review. If the law is unconstitutional - as the constitution was written - it should be struck down. However, there's fine line between that and creating rights not specifically in the constitution ie Abortion. Gay marriage (should be decided on state level - preferably government should be out of marriage completely)
As for Loving v Virginia, I would "concur with the judgment" to use a SCOTUS phrase. The right people won, but the reasoning wasn't good. By creating a "fundamental right to marriage", it's lead by unintended consequences to court imposed gay marriage. The law should have been struck down simply on 14th Amendment equal protection grounds, especially as the original intent of those amendments are related to treat citizens as citizens regardless of skin color.
Do you think that as a citizen you have a sovereign and natural right to kill a non citizen?
No, but courts think so of the unborn.
Read Taranto’s Best of the Web in the WSJ. He talks about this.
I really hope that all of our good FRiend Santorum supporters here start paying attention to the handwriting on the wall.
After considering the governing and voting records of both Santorum and Gingrich, and after reading the minutiae of policy stands and proposals for solutions on their websites, it is clear to me that for all his flaws, Newt Gingrich is a pretty darned good candidate, a guy demonstrably humble enough to admit his mistakes, learn from them and apply what he's learned, probably a better candidate than we deserve, and categorically superior to Santorum in almost every way.
I think God has been pretty kind to give us Gingrich at this time and place, although His doing so, it seems to me, seriously tests the pride of many self-righteous Christians who've forgotten the stories in the Bible where the "good" and Godly person who points out to God how righteous he has been compared to that sinner over there, is rebuked by God (or Jesus) and the we're reminded that in the eyes of God, the repentent sinner has much value.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
Of course it is, but trying to take abortions away from these a-holes will prove impossible. Let them at least pay for their own.
Wow thanks mr gore
Gore may have invented the Internet but he doesn’t determine who wins and loses it each day. I do.
Wow! Oh I do hope I win then! Is there a cash prize??
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.