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.
Thank you, that’s very nice.
WIth only a few exceptions I have encountered only good wishes and prayers when I reveal that I’m an atheist here at FR.
“I refuse to impose that belief on anyone else as law. Because I’m a human.”
“I know in my heart what is right, and what is wrong. And it’s aboslute”
Again, both are tenets of moral relativism. When I say that morality is absolute, I mean that I believe it is right for everyone. Not just me.
I’m talking things like, do not steal, do not kill, etc. We can restrain people who are engaged in these activities because they are doing wrong.
Umm, you’re still under the British Common Law, everywhere except for Louisiana, and I’m not sure about TX, but someone in the know will know better than I.
Are you arguing that any of these principles are not also found in America? This is the foundation of the legal system.
Those are not listed. So they must be ok, by that logic.
You have very strong control issues, and don't seem willing to let go, and let God. I detect a lack of faith.
Have you ever had a failed relationship over control issues?
/johnny
It’s not a personal cult.
That’s what me, Santorum and the Founders are all arguing about when they talk about natural rights. There’s disagreement on what exactly constitutes natural rights. In America, the BOR contains the rights that have been ageed upon, while stating again, that those rights not enumerated belong to the people.
They argue that they exist - like tables and chairs, apart from people and human society. That even if you were to take the people out that these rights still exist.
What Rick Santorum is doing - is showing that the government has a constitutional obligation to defend the constitution. If we were to let everyone do as they want, he would be abdicating the obligation of the state. He’s arguing against the libertarians and Paul to show why their understanding of how the government works is flawed.
Bullcrap. While some Roman law and British Common Law legacy may remain, I am NOT under British Common Law.
Hell, neither are the Brits, or they wouldn't be disarmed.
I report to only one supreme Sovereign. Everyone else can pound sand.
/johnny
Have you ever heard of the Preamble of the Constitution? We the people formed a government for specific reasons, one of them being to provide for the common good. This is a social compact. If you’re disruptive to peace, tranquility, and the common good, the government acting in the name of the people has a right and an obligation to influence your behavior.
Seeing how I already noted the government has the right to curtail my liberty if the exercise of that negatively impacts someone else, what's your point?
One of the things he clarified tonight at the debate was concerning internet regulation. There’s a lot of stuff on the net if you do a search for the videos.
Which state? You seem to conflate the real states with the United States.
States do have immense powers to control things.
FedGov? Not so much.
The Federals have a very limited set of things they can control.
Law enforcement is left to the States, except in cases of Treason. Try reading Art. 3.
It certainly isn't a federal issue.
/johnny
If that's what he were doing no one would have a problem with it.
"...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.”
Besides the completely fabricated idea that someone claimes government shouldn't get involved in cultural issues (every issue is a cultural issue when you're the government of that culture, Rick), he is proving why he doesn't have the intellect to be president, IMHO. He conflates ideas from the right, left and Libertarianism as if he is talking about one group, losing all the differences in those various positions as he argues for government involvment in all phases of life and claiming that is 'conservative.'
Your attempt to nuance his position by referencing things he didn't is desperate, and is dishonest. If he wanted to say what you claim he did, why didn't he just SAY that?
"In 2003, Santorum voted for the Medicare drug entitlement that costs taxpayers more than $60 billion a year and almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Santorum voted for the 2005 "bridge to nowhere" bill and was an earmark enthusiast his entire career.
"These days, Santorum regularly joins a chorus of voices claiming that he would greatly reduce the role of federal government in local education. When he had a say, he supported No Child Left Behind and expanded the federal control of school systems. In his book, in fact, Santorum advocates dictating a certain curriculum to all schools. The right kind. It’s not the authority of government that irks him, but rather the content of the material Washington is peddling today."
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/01/04/santorum-conservative-technocrat/
Please explain how those votes coincide with your version of his beliefs. Because they read a lot more like what I'm hearing from him, not his spinners.
Hey, did you clip those out for your pastor?
Those quotes were from CS Lewis, btw.
“So, where in the list of not coveting your neighbor’s ass &ct... do you find a God-given prohibition on Edison light bulbs, or fully automatic firearms, or consuming canabis?
Those are not listed. So they must be ok, by that logic.”
Well, what are we going by? The Law or the Constitution?
Which are you arguing. If it’s the former, then take a look at Paul, where he argues, “everything is permissible”, but not everything is beneficial.
WRT to the constitution -
Lightbulbs? Shouldn’t even be an issue.
Cannabis, again if it’s for your consumption, that’s one thing. If you’re going to be selling it to other people, then yes, the jurisdiction that you are selling it in has the power to shut that down.
Fully automatic firearms. That’s a good question. The Founders don’t specify any limitation on what constitutes arms, and the arms they had then are not the arms that they have now. Personally, I don’t see how a local government could effectively regulate it, as it is a constitutionally protected right. I would probably say that putting a restriction on fully automatic constitutes abridgement, because it would examine the firing mechanism, and guns that were ok, would simply be modified to cross the line. The principle of arming yourself hasn’t changed, and neither should the outcome.
“You have very strong control issues, and don’t seem willing to let go, and let God. I detect a lack of faith”.
What is my faith sir?
And Santorum really screwed the pooch on that question.
He even got boo'ed for it.
/johnny
I read your post #120, and due to my bronchitis, maybe I’ve lost some of my edge. I can’t think any further. Goodnight.
Does your supreme Sovereign collect taxes on behalf of the federal government?
Bronchitis is awful, a friend had it, I hope you feel better, good night.
“I am NOT under British Common Law.”
For the most part, yes you are.
“Hell, neither are the Brits, or they wouldn’t be disarmed.”
Look at my list again. I don’t recall putting that in the bucket of natural rights. In America this is a guaranteed right. Not so in the UK.
The two legal systems are not identical, but everything else on that list is shared by the UK and by America. That’s the point I was trying to drive home.
Among the many government programs he supported: national service, publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, and economic-literacy programs in “every school in America” (italics in original).
Santorum’s voting record shows that he embraced George Bush–style “big-government conservatism.” For example, he supported the Medicare prescription-drug benefit and No Child Left Behind.
He never met an earmark that he didn’t like. In fact, it wasn’t just earmarks for his own state that he favored, which might be forgiven as pure electoral pragmatism, but earmarks for everyone, including the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere.” The quintessential Washington insider, he worked closely with Tom DeLay to set up the “K Street Project,” linking lobbyists with the GOP leadership.
He voted against NAFTA and has long opposed free trade. He backed higher tariffs on everything from steel to honey. He still supports an industrial policy with the government tilting the playing field toward manufacturing industries and picking winners and losers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287068/santorum-s-big-government-conservatism-michael-tanner
“Which state? You seem to conflate the real states with the United States.”
Since last I checked Santorum was running for president, I was referring to the federal government. State = US States = the individual states.
“FedGov? Not so much.”
The federal government has constitutional obligations, some of which Obama is refusing to enforce. One of them is immigration. Thus, having the federal government enforce their constitutional obligations is an issue in this election. Very much so.
“It certainly isn’t a federal issue.”
Immigration? Yes, it’s a federal issue.
Damn good question.
Sounds a lot like it's in yourself and your supposed logic.
And I have all of the CS Lewis books. Mom had us read them around age 5. Thanks, Mom. She was a great teacher, and I miss her. But I'll get there, by and by.
/johnny
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.