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.
It certainly looks like Newt Gingrich is the only one who dares to step out of the “professional politeness” mode and lambast Obama for the fool and idiot he is.
As Santorum ripens over the years, he might be a more mellow figure in the future. I wouldn’t overly object to a Gingrich-Santorum ticket. But it’s got to be Newt at the top — he’s the spear head.
I pray you are well soon, bronchitis is no fun.
Amen to that.
I'm not particularly happy with any of the candidates. Only a rational discussion can ferret out who of them is best for what this nation faces in the future.
Why not make sugar a controlled substance?
The Statists are working on it.
More people die from diabetes in a day than have died from cannabis intoxication since the time the world cooled.
My personal opinion is that the Government has no right to regulate what goes into the body of a consenting adult. By the same token, the individual should not be able to use the effects of a substance as a mitigating circumstance should they commit a crime under its effects.
We can see the mess historically from alcohol prohibition, how that despite the claimed intent of impeding the social decay that was blamed on alcohol, the advancement of vast and brutal criminal organizations was in fact facilitated by the ban, and if anything, the use of the substance continued unabated.
So it is with the war on drugs, and with the Cartels, and with the corruption which persists, even at very high levels in our government, else the Southern Border would not remain wide open despite the honest efforts of a few.
Our own government agencies have been involved in criminal transactions arming the Cartels, and have laundered money for them, in apparent violation of their oaths to uphold our laws.
This neither 'provides for the common defense, nor promotes the general welfare.
More laws have failed, just as more firearm laws have failed to reduce criminal activity involving firearms.
All the laws have succeeded in doing is removing billions from the tax base, and provided yet more excuses to erode the practice of other fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property, not to mention fostering the corruption and usurpation of power which continues to pervade all aspects of our society.
Thanks, Finny.
The initial topic is about Rick Santorum and his support for big government. It's right up there atop the thread.
You can't respond to any of the points, so you fight back by...saying there are a lot of points against him.
Fail.
“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.
So which is it--sticking to the thread topic, or bashing Newt?
You couldn't answer a single point brought against Santorum, so you tried to change the subject to Newt--then criticized me for not sticking to the subject.
Fail 2.
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.
Your flop-sweat and desperation are very entertaining--why don't you just answer the charges, which are keeping with the thread subject?
I guess you went out and dug up all the facts on the candidates yourself--didn't rely on any newspapers or reporters online? That's amazing. With such resources, disproving all the facts I posted should have been easy. Instead, you blabbed on and on, trying to change the subject (while accusing me of what you are guilty of).
You can't, so you attack the messenger, an Alinsky tactic.
Fail the Third.
“2. You assume I support Newt, which I don’t, so it’s rather pointless.” Ahh. Paulbot. Hello sir!
Four fails in a row.
All of which could have been avoided if you simply answered the questions. You couldn't so you just tossed limp insults.
The End
So who do you support, Darkwolf?
Big government Newt? Do you really want me to go through his co-sponsored bills? All the pork that he shovelled out with the rest of the republican congress?
Had it pegged. All sizzle no steak.
WoW...Smokin’ Joe...that’s one great post there!
The beef between thine ears?
Thanks, caww!
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.