Posted on 03/05/2012 4:51:35 PM PST by Misterioso
We choose to limit government’s power, and we choose to decide when and where we limit it.
Santorum is not my #1 pick, but this article doesn’t make much sense to me. Abortion is murder, which puts it outside the realm of personal preference.
Birth control is a moral choice we leave to individuals to decide. But we don’t pay for it with government funds and we don’t force people to provide it if they don’t want to.
As for “fun”, you are welcome to define that how you will, just don’t demand that the government pay for it, again. As for gay marriage, this is something that doesn’t exist, has never existed, and will never exist. If you want to cohabit with your pal, do what you want. Don’t ask me to pretend it is what it isn’t. If it isn’t a marriage according to our 3000 year old moral code, then don’t ask me to pretend it is.
Wrong, Romney is the Republican equivalent of Obama!
Can’t stand the truth huh? Let’s just do what the liberal do and ban any article that upset the sensibility of the Santorum supporters. Geez between trying get Newt to drop out and now trying to censor FR. How Marxist of you. If little Ricky can’t play with the big boys maybe he should go home.
Thats right Tinky Wink, I'm gonna git you with my big fat AK!!! I hate liberals.
I'm a Christian from a big, close family, and I wish Santorum had the stones to say "Christian" values instead of "family" values. Unlike Santorum, I also realize that the only way for Americans to LIVE Christian values is for GOVERNMENT TO GET OUT OF THE WAY AND LET THEM LIVE THEM.
As it is, oppressive, punitive government, with tools such as anti-discrimination laws and government charity via welfare, forces us to do immoral things that go against Christian values.
Government forces us to embrace open homosexuality in every corner of our lives, from our workplaces to our military to our schools to our kids' Boy Scout troops. It punishes us if we exercise our God-given right to peacefully reject open homosexuality in our lives because Government thinks that it is immoral for us to do so.
Government forces us to promote and pay for immoral lifestyles and sloth through programs like food stamps, which Santorum has steadfastly supported. Government forces employees to pay workers more than what their worth via minimum wage, which Santorum has steadfastly supported, and paying people more than they're worth is IMMORAL, leading to a piss-poor work ethic. Government does these things because it thinks it's immoral to rely on good, God-fearing people to do what's right on their own.
Government forces us to pay for schools that treat parents and children in an immoral way.
Government forces us to accept legal abortion in every state and makes us pay for abortions with our tax dollars. Government "family law" has forced no-fault divorce on families enabled the immorality of single motherhood, fatherless children, by whim instead of neccessity. Government FRUSTRATES and SHACKLES morality; government promotes and nourishes immorality in the name of morality.
Government IS the single most addressable component of moral decline in our America. Santorum talks about "values," but throughout, it is clear that he fails to understand that government charity ENCOURAGES immoral lifestyles.
Newt Gingrich is the ONLY candidate who is as dedicated to reducing government as he is to standing strong on social issues. I realize that the only way to restore morality to America, is to get government out of the way and to allow people the freedom to live morally.
The better choice is clear.
GODSPEED NEWT GINGRICH.
This is pure crap. You aren’t free in law to murder. You aren’t free under the law to steal. You aren’t free under the law to rape.
That’s all he said. Period.
The only people who read this to Santorum’s detriment are too stooopppppiiid to be voting. And that includes any FR Libertarians who think that freedom IS absolute.
I call abuse on this one.
The media has for many, many years (back to the 1960's or beyond) portrayed the GOP as champions of governmental control over private, bedroom, activities.
The charge is absurd, but the label has stuck; like it or not.
It is a well-understood political liability for a GOP candidate to appear as if he wants his sense of morality to be law of the land.
PING!
It’s not a matter of what you believe, but of what Santorum believes.
This post isn’t politically correct, it seems.
Yep it is not absolute, that is why the jails are full of criminals.
Although you would not be able to tell it, it is against the law to call for the violent overthrow of the government.
You are not allowed to sell Pluronium on E-Bay will the idiocy never end.
The Seperation of Church and State is not absolute, in fact it isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution. Those silly founders broke the law when they published the first Bible for the use in public schools for the instruction of reading and morality.
So many experts, so many fools.
I absolutely agree with that.
The federal government has no role in any of the issues mentioned.
A statist is a statist.
Santorum (I like Rick, but already voted for Newt) has a near subliminally-irritating style of speech which obscures his oratory effectiveness. (e.g., way too fast when he begins a phrase, rambling, deer-in-the-headlights demeanor, etc.,etc.).
His memorable message is unmarketable.
And the vast majority of them go to prison under state law, not federal law.
That's the point of the article.
Hi Naps-
I know from your posting history you are a strong Santorum supporter; however, statements like yours are what trouble many of us Newt supporters because there appears to be a lack of critical thought.
The article is provocative; however, it is thoughtful and in no way “trashy;” nor is it “BS.” Frankly, your statement that it should be removed from FR is very troubling and smacks of the tactics historically attributable to “Brownshirt book burners” of the Third Reich. Is it no wonder that w/these types of statements Santorum supporters are sometimes chided by others with “church lady” comparisons.
What you should do is defend your guy w/some logic and refute the article's weak points; but, since you didn't I will try to do it for you.
The article tries to make a comparison between Obama and Santorum; asserting that they both wish to control our freedoms and personal lives. While Sen Santorum has made some rather dubious statements regarding his views on the Constitution and our individual right to be free from the encroachments of overreaching government; for the most part, it would appear that he is referring to his own personal goals; code of ethics and beliefs rather than a desire to force his beliefs upon others thru the agencies of government. While Sen Santorum is not always clear on his message; I believe his intent is to regain a more moral and just America by leading thru personal example.
Obama, on the other hand, has demonstrated that he is fixated upon revising the very foundation upon which this Republic was established. It is his intention to create a socialist state where freedoms can only be granted or revoked by the central government. Further, Obama has shown by his actions that he is willing to both circumvent and/or ignore the very Constitution which he swore to God he would uphold. He is, therefore, a man condemned by his own words and actions as being both deceitful and malfeasant in conducting the duties of his office.
In summary, there is no validity to the articles alleged comparison of Obama and Santorum. There is only artifice; since the articles comparison is based upon the false premise that, if elected, Sen Santorum would use government to force his personal moral code upon others; while Obama has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to violate the Constitution in order to use government in this manner.
Take care,
-Geoff
That statement is just a function of your ignorance. The Republican party was not much involved in Social Issues until the 1980 election.
Additionally there are many high-profile Republicans that believe these issues should reside at the state level rather than the federal level.
I would cite Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin as examples.
You need a refresher course in reality.
Silliest headline yet.
He clearly stated that this was his personal belief. He never said the resources of the government should be wasted policing people who have sex outside marriage.
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.