Dear Spineless Cowards: STFU About Santorum’s Religion-based Comments
I'm going to move on from this issue, as I'm tired of people whining about various religion-based comments Santorum has made over time. What is wrong with you people? Are you incapable of understanding what he is actually saying, or simply clueless that the promiscuity and deterioration in certain values America now lives with due to the sexual revolution have had profoundly negative consequences on our society in some ways?
It's an acknowledged fact, one Santorum has also clearly stated he does not believe one can reverse through legislation, executive action, or something governmental in nature. There is no there there to all this nonsense, except for the sheepish way some of you are bowing to pressure from a liberal media intent on making a big deal of it.
If that isn't enough for you, the current occupant of the White House worshipped at the church of Reverend Wright for one, or two decades. But, hey, no problem with that – it's personal because it's his religion, or whatever. Yet, you want to tell me Santorum's devout Catholicism makes him unsuitable for the presidency? What kind of gutless wonders are you people, anyway? You call yourself conservative fighters but lack the intelligence, or can't muster the courage to push back against silly bullshit like this from the liberal media? Then, go away. I'm tired of hearing and reading your clueless whining.
So, STFU about it, or at least be sure to keep it out of my face. Because, all I'm going to do going forward is call you spineless, or clueless, and tell you to kiss my ass.
SANTORUM: Well, good. I — you know, just look at my record. I mean, I have been criticized by — by — I think it was Governor Romney or maybe it was Congressman Paul's campaign for voting for contraception, that I voted for funding for it, which is — I think it's — I think it's Title 10, which is — which I have voted for in the past, that provides for free contraception through organizations, even like Planned Parenthood.
And so, you know, it's funny that on the conservative side, I'm getting ripped for having voted for this. And now all of a sudden, the left is trying to make me out that somehow I — you know, I want to stop women, or men for that matter, from getting — you know, doing things and taking things for contraception.
That — look, I have my own views on these things. They're deeply held beliefs. But not everything that I think is — that I disagree with morally should the government be involved in. Only when there is — there are — there are real consequences to society or to the — or to the rights of individuals do I — do I feel a need to speak out. And that's why I do on the issue of abortion because we have another — we have another person involved in the decision.
But the issue of contraception, that's not the case. It's something that people have a right to do in this country. And it certainly will be safe to do so under the Santorum presidency.
Thanks for writing this post. My guess is that most don’t want to understand what Santorum is saying because then they don’t want to acknowledge he’s right. That would involve doing some serious thinking and examination of history and of their own lives.
People don’t want to face the fact that the deterioration of the “social order” contributes to a bad economy. In my small town we have an epidemic of illegitimate children born to girls as young as 14. That sort of behavior hurts the children, the mothers, the families, and the people footing the bills for this behavior.
If Mitt said this stuff, they would SCREAM bigot at anyone criticizing him, and also faint over the amazing honest leadership he’s showing.
Yeah, assholes. STFU and stop forcing your personal views onto others and let the man force his personal views onto others.
You’ve got some mighty thin skin if you think Santorum is forcing his personal views onto others.
Dustin, true, because he’s never going to show this kind of spine. He’s spent his political life adapting to the views he thinks will win a constituency for him.
“You’ve got some mighty thin skin if you think Santorum is forcing his personal views onto others.”
Well until I see the medical and social studies supporting the positive aspects of rape victims bringing a rapist’s child to term and raising it, this being based on nothing but him forcing his personal views onto others is really all I have to go on.
Likewise, in the absence of any other explanation for why this view is held, I have to assume you and I have no disagreement on this.
Show me ONE law that doesn’t force the viewpoint of its supporters on the governed. That’s the *whole* *point* of a law. Saying, “You’re forcing your views on me!” is a silly argument for fools and anarchists, and I don’t see a whole lot of real anarchists anymore. Grow up.
What, this woman was given up for adoption. If you read the column, you’ll find she’s grateful for her life.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/at-30-i-learned-that-my-mother-was-raped-by-her-fatherand-i-was-that-child
So, What. I take it that in your view, if I am the product of rape, then I should be put to death. Not the rapist. Not his victim. Me. Is this an accurate summary of your view of justice?
Good grief. I the number of abortions was the same as the number of back alley abortions in the days before abortion adding the number of pregnancies incurred through rape, this wouldn’t be an issue. If fact, I would be interested to know if back alley abortions, which were rare in the first place, have gone down since Roe v Wade during which we’ve seen over 50 MILLION abortions performed. It is government-sanctioned murder pure and simple. I object to abortion on those grounds alone and I believe that if we stuck to the “legal but rare” standard rather than the “every woman has the right to decide about her body” standard or the “children are bad for the planet” standard or the “it is less risky to have an abortion than to give birth” standard, we would have found the legal language to deal with this a long time ago.
Santorum should add that to his arguments. We can’t continue allow this debate over abortion to continue to be monpolized by those who would ban ALL abortions and those who believe taxpayer-funded abortion is a constitutional right. There is just no rationalizing why 50 million abortions makes sense even if you support abortion. It needs to be stopped
That should be IF the number of abortions….
Ace, et al, put their hands over their ears and started yelling “nyah nyah nyah” as soon as Santorum took the stage with his trifecta. I could understand why that kind of reaction would apply to Ronulus (forbid the thought), and would agree that Santorum isn’t perfect, but these guys seem to want to have it their way or the highway. Isn’t that what they’re accusing the grassroots of doing? I don’t even have Powerline bookmarked anymore, they’re so squishy. But until now I’d been hoping Mr. Spades was more rock-ribbed.
Nicely put!
I can imagine these same idiots screeching that Reagan was a war-mongering, idiot cowboy actor and unelectable.
Santorum is a bonafide conservative.
He can beat Obama a hell of a lot easier than Romney.
Santorum may be a lot of things Corinne, but he’s not a conservative. Let me quote Jonah Goldberg:
The difference between him and George W. Bush: Santorum’s deadly serious about compassionate conservatism. He is honestly and forthrightly committed to using government to realize his moral vision for America. That’s his prerogative, and he has…very bad arguments on his side.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290686/gop-race-gets-messy-jonah-goldberg
I suppose Mr. Riehl will be telling Mr. Goldberg to STFU any minute.
I agree with you. Santorum needs make no apologies for being a devote Catholic. Mitt Romney has no apologies owing for being a devote Mormon. Barack Obama formally distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright during the 2008 election, but he did attend his church for 20 years and called Wright his spiritual father. If they want to bring up faith, by all means, let’s discuss it in that context.
I also agree with Bill Jacobson that Rick Santorum should have been even more forceful on push back to Charlie Rose (although at least some push back is better than none) and should not have conceded that Foster Friess’s joke about the aspirin was anything but an old joke (and a harmless one with a degree of truth to it).
Personally I think Santorum needs to get his Rombo crew to do some humorous ads about Obama next. And perhaps skewering the MSM too.
How laughable is it for the noseholders to now be arguing that Santorum is not a conservative and so we should be holding our noses to vote for uber-liberals like Romney or Gingrich? What a joke!
If Santorum wins the nomination, I expect the GOP establishment to do the same thing to him that they did to Joe Miller in AK after he won the GOP nomination. He played the game by the rules working within the party and then… New rules! Conservatives are not allowed to win even if they win! So the Rovian progressives persuaded the corrupt Murky Murkowski to run independent where she won because of all of that dirty money.
That is why it is such a major mistake to be pledging to vote for whichever candidate wins the GOP nomination. While they can count on our votes, we can’t count on theirs. So long as conservatives always end up voting for liberals, there is no reason to take us seriously. We should be serious about 3rd party.
My concerns about Rick Santorum is his hostility to libertarians. We need them. This is going to be a close tough election. And frankly some libertarian fiscal restraint is a good thing for the GOP to adopt.
It really is amusing though, to watch the Mythbots rationalize.
J.C. Coolidge: Rick has made some very bad votes over the years. Yes he supported the worse parts of the G.W. Bush legislative agenda. He has denounced a lot of those votes. Santorum has said that the only solution is entitlement reform and (like Romney and even Gingrich*) is supportive of the Ryan budget reform plan.
* I believe Gingrich apologized for attacking Paul Ryan’s budget and said he would now support it.
When Santorum uses his religion to force his version of the redistribution of wealth on us, he can kiss my ass!
Santorum: A Massively Expanded Welfare State is ‘The Genuine Conservatism our Founders Envisioned’ http://bit.ly/A0FZeg
OR his mindless belief that if he gives ex-cons their vote back, by some miracle they’ll become law-abiding:
Santorum wants appx. 12 Million murderers/rapists/kidnappers & the like to be able to vote: Felon Voting & The Constitution http://bit.ly/xATsu7
DO NOT give this SOB power of ANY kind!
Pasadena Phil is right. The GOP “leaders” may very well screw Santorum if he goes into the convention leading but without enough delegates to clinch. Some has said as much, albeit, not openly yet. If Santorum is leading and the GOP self appointed elites take him out for say…Jeb Bush…That would be bad. There are still a lot of primaries to go. Rick Santorum has to show he is up for taking on the media. And Rick Santorum needs to stop attacking libertarians. That is insane on his part. He needs all the allies he can get and the primary issue in this election remains the economy.
“And it is the economy, stupid. This poll shows once again that the Surber Rule — talk about the economy and nothing but the economy — is the most valid political advice in 2012.” http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/51734 I am not so sure Washington State is in play but I agree with this general advice from Surber. Of course the Dems and their Media allies will try to turn the GOP nominee away from this every chance they get. And that is when effective push back (not only from the candidate but from us on the right) will be needed.
Who says Santorum is “religion-based”???
The idiot was bragging about voting for subsidizing contraception.
He’s a nanny-statist.
I think santorum has to guarantee getting ru486 out of the equation. Cuz that’s no longer contraception. That’s murder. Right now, the administation is not only issuing edict, but precedent, and juge and jury. Nothing matters anymore.
Amen, Dan Riehl.
@EBL Perfect. As I’ve mentioned before, Paul Ryan doesn’t balance the budget with his plan. Ever.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/05/rep-paul-ryans-plan-vs-barack
I don’t want Ryan et al. to manage the decline. I want them to turn back the leftist clock.
You are within your rights to want a redux of George W. Bush, who was not a fiscal conservative in any sense, and raised the federal debt by trillions of dollars. You are within your rights to want a huge expansion of the welfare state that was voted for every time by Rick Santorum. What’s more you can set it up so that the GOP is so weakened by his election that the Democrats sweep in the next election, like Bush set us up for in 2008.
But don’t try to tell me Rick Santorum is a conservative. He’s not. His voting record, once he wasn’t following the Speaker of the House reveals his true ambitions.
I only know of one candidate who has balanced the Federal budget and actually rolled back the welfare state.
His name isn’t Santorum.
Un-Effing-Believable! Riehl speaks clearly and directly in unambiguous terms, yet the mindless state educated twits whom he is directly addressing, are so embarrassingly obtuse that they reflexively jump in and start spouting mind numbed bullshit that does nothing but expose them for the principles starved pricks they are.
On 2nd thought, don’t just get the hell out of the way, just go away altogether. Useless tools.
But he’s not been consistent on this issue. He has felt and as far as I know still does feel that individual states should have the right to ban contraception if they so choose. For many women, access to contraception is a civil liberties issue and not something that an individual state should be able to ban.
So while he may not pursue legislation to ban contraception himself, if legislation came across his desk that would allow states to get around the supreme court ruling and decide to ban it or at least severely limit access to it, would he veto it?
I have my doubts.
“People don’t want to face the fact that the deterioration of the “social order” contributes to a bad economy. In my small town we have an epidemic of illegitimate children born to girls as young as 14. That sort of behavior hurts the children, the mothers, the families, and the people footing the bills for this behavior.”
The teen birth rate is now LOWER overall than it was in 1960 – National Center for health statistics.
That doesn’t mean that there still isn’t a big problem, -especially among some populations, but the existence of birth control isn’t what’s causing it.
The worst comments came from Bill O’Reilly. He claims to be a culture warrior and has been railing against the secular progressives forever, yet he criticizes Santorum for being a culture warrior. Please O’Reilly stop the bloviating.
Well, so much for many who claim to argue for states rights 10th, etc. and use it to defend romneycare at a non-fedral level. If states want to individually vote to ban contraceptives, which has about as much chance of happening as Obama joining the John Birch Society, then well, what’s your objection, eh?
This theocrat crap on Rick is absurd, and folks here who fear it or buy into it only feed leftists or are working for them knowingly or unknowingly.
That said, Santy’s comments today on O’s religion were unhelpful, any fresh quote will be used by the press against him so he should only stick to social issues as a side issue framed on Prop 8 or O’s vote in the IBAPA fiasco or on liberty and conscious grounds over HIS contraceptive mandate. The press has managed to turn this into RICK wanting to ban contraceptives when the only thing that he wants to stress is O’s attempts to force others to provide and use of mandates to pay for it via taxpayers without choice, etc.
This whole thing shows also how many so called conservatives do not understand conservatism, or how issues are to be analyzed. You do realize, do you not, that many here are essentially AGREEING with the Griswold decision, which nobody understanding actual constitutional law would support. It has gone from the de facto conservative circle consensus that it was judicial activism to revisionism and softening of the lines of clear thinking over years to almost embracing it.
No wonder liberals are winning, they have succeeded in getting us to dilute our brand while theirs keeps getting stronger.
I’m with Santorum, he’s a lot closer to the correct positions on all of this than many folks in this thread.
“This whole thing shows also how many so called conservatives do not understand conservatism, or how issues are to be analyzed. You do realize, do you not, that many here are essentially AGREEING with the Griswold decision, which nobody understanding actual constitutional law would support.”
7 out of the 9 Supreme court justices disagreed with you and my guess is that they knew a little about constitutional law. The decision might have been controversial, even to this day for some, but 7-2 is pretty much a landslide. One of the dissenters even went so far as to agree that the Connecticut law banning contraception was a “silly” one, though he didn’t think it was unconstitutional.
That ship has sailed.
This isn’t about state rights. Do you really think it’s the role of government (Federal, State, or local) to regulate what goes on in the bedroom? Especially of a married couple? Santorum apparently believes that a state should be allowed to ban contraception if they choose. Would it ever happen? Not in this day and age, no. But the fact that he wouldn’t stand in the way of ending what many consider to be a basic right is very troubling.
J.C. Coolidge, good luck getting Ron Paul’s plan passed. You are right, Paul Ryan’s plan is hardly a full cure, but it is the minimally acceptable approach. The rest are basically the Thema and Louise approach.
I want to see Obama defeated and the most fiscally conservative candidate get elected. I would support Ron Paul if I did not disagree with him on a host of other issues. So I am basically stuck with Romney, Santorum or Gingrich. I consider the idea of Jeb Bush offensive in a brokered convention. I doubt Mitch Daniels would be better than those three currently in the race.
I have no problem with Rick Santorum saying (clearly) why he disagrees with Griswold as jurisprudence. But this is a trap being set by the media and the left and he better be up for dodging their snares.
Pasadena Phil- Third party is gathering and waiting. Walker\West
The obama turds are flushing themselves away, daily.
All of it comes down to this: no matter who winds up as the R candidate, if you don’t vote for him or her, you get 4 more years of Obama pushing the USA farther down into irrelevance. We will be backed into a hole where they only way out is to fight or surrender. And surrender is not an option I will exercise.
ABO in November. ANYONE BUT OBAMA.
The future of The United States of America, freedom and liberty is in our hands. Let’s not screw it up with internecine infighting.
“Let’s not screw it up with internecine infighting.”
But that is Dan’s forte…
Inside baseball.
“That ship has sailed”
So, fighting for correct constitutional law and not being politically correct, agreeing with wrongly decided decisions like Griswold is conservative now?
You just exposed yourself as a liberal.
Again, no serious conservative agrees with Griswold, nor attempts to claim the court got it right due to an appeal to authority.
What I think about a “right” to contraception is irrelevant. There is NO right to privacy in the constitution, no penumbras or emanations, and for any “conservative” to make the same error as a liberal idiot in confusing agreement with the remedy outcome of a case with said case having correct and constitutional sound footing, well that’s just sad.
Barry Goldwater agreed with the concept of the result of the Brown decision, but he was smart enough to see the judicial tyranny for what it was.
At any rate, if you suppose Romney can pass the father of Obamacare in an individual state mandating insurance purchases, you surely would use the same 10th amendment to enable states to choose on contraception, regardless of your personal views on the subject.
“Again, no serious conservative agrees with Griswold, nor attempts to claim the court got it right due to an appeal to authority.”
Which is the fallacy of an appeal to common knowledge, coupled with the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Well, and an excellent example of ThoughtPolice work.
Starting from almost the earliest days of the Republic, the right to privacy has been recognized in the Constitution. Griswald may have gone too far, but not without a sound basis at points.
“7 out of the 9 Supreme court justices disagreed with you and my guess is that they knew a little about constitutional law. The decision might have been controversial, even to this day for
some, but 7-2 is pretty much a landslide.”
TJ, an obvious liberal plant, uses what is known as an argument fallacy trick. called “appeal to authority” which is to say, “YouKidding is trying to say they know best as if YK knew more about constitutional law than all these SC justices!”
Yes, I do know more about it than these justices. Absolutely.
Any idiot can or should see there is no right to privacy in the document, but our side keeps retreating and that makes it easier for liberals like yourself to marginalize and demagogue despite being wrong, with emotional arguments designed to appeal ignorance.
Just like any conservative knows Wickard vs Filburn was wrongly decided.
Or is your argument going to be the “ship sailed there, too” so forget the commerce clause abuses, let’s just agree on Obamacare for the same reasons?
We conservatives do not take positions on opinion polls. We take them on real law and facts and logic. Got it?
And we do not change those positions no matter how many years it takes to win.
Rags, my argument was not wrong, yours was.
Nor is it true that ANY logical fallacies were found in my argument, which only described what was used by the OP.
If you actually think the constitution has a right to privacy, if you think Roe was correctly (legal logic, not personal agreement with outcomes) you are constitutionally ignorant.
The word privacy is not in the constitution.
The basis for Roe was Griswold, and if “conservatives” are now supporting emanations and penumbras, we can forget the whole thing and just vote Obama.
Again, Santorum is a lot more corrrect on all of this than a few folks here.
kidding is the fallacist here.
See if you can count the number and identify them.
There are many, and he uses some more than once in that post at 9:59.
Just FYI, it is not an “appeal to authority” to note that a decision by the Supremes was 7-9, as it validly points to a strong legal concensus on the court as it existed at the time. It is what is called “history”.
TJ – your statistic about how theteen birth rate is lower today than in 1960 is laughable and meaningless. First, I don’t believe the stat but secondly, even if it is true, it’s only because in 1960 many if not most people were married at age 18 and 19 and thus often had their first baby while technically still being a “teen-ager”.
“The word privacy is not in the constitution.”
Duh.
But your assertion is either born out of ignorance, or a lie. I suspect the former.
Where do you think the term “wire tap” is to be found in the text?
As I noted, privacy jurisprudence has been part of Constitutional law since the very beginning.
“The basis for Roe was Griswold”.
Again, showing an alarming ignorance of your pretended subject. Griswold did not spring out of whole cloth. Your scholarship is lacking.
“The word privacy is not in the constitution.”
Sorry, I have to point this out…
For a person who is putatively a conservative, and apparently thinks they know something about the Constitution, that is a WONDERFULLY ironic observation.
Going back to “first principles”…
um…NINTH AMENDMENT…!!!
Our rights are NOT enumerated in the Constitution. GOVERNMENT’s (the Federal one) rights are enumerated.
OURS are PLENARY…which is Latin for “EVERY FLUCKING THING”.
There came a period toward the end of the 19th Century which is known as a time of CONSERVATIVE activism (though I disagree with this depiction). States were found by judges and justices to have PLENARY POLICE POWERS to regulate their citizens. Restrictions were few.
I get the genesis of this. I see the reasoning. I see also where it led. It got us to the condition where a state was considered to have the power to proscribe the use of birth control by married couples (or anybody).
In the context of the NINTH Amendment, Griswold was MORE conservative (i.e., supportive of individual self-determination) than not, and MORE consistent with the Constitution and DofI.
I would submit to you that if Santorum does not believe he can change the effects of the sexual revolution, then HE is the one who should STFU about it.
Santorum’s using social issues to dodge his own record of profligate spending.
100% on your first paragraph, creeper.
I think he is a true believer, though. A nanny-statist at his root. Big spending is totally consistent with BIG CONTROL.
The people pushing this stuff about Santorum in the GOP primary are transparent in their motives.
All it’s done in my case is move Santorum up one notch, behind Gingrich, putting Romney in third above Crazy Uncle.
Good work!
Re the “big spender” charge, the National Taxpayer Union gave him very good marks.
“Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/was-santorum-senate-spendthrift_629850.html
However, there is a troubling part of Santorum’s record on spending, which is found in the years sandwiched between these periods of fiscal restraint. His record is plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006. Some of those high profile votes include his support for No Child Left Behind in 2001, which greatly expanded the federal government’s role in education. He supported the massive new Medicare drug entitlement in 2003 that now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. He voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Indeed, Santorum was a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress. Perhaps recognizing the sign of the times, Santorum finally reversed his position in 2010, saying that he was opposed to them , but one must remain skeptical about his sincerity. As recently as 2009, he said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”
And while Santorum voted against the Farm Bill in 2002, he sponsored a bill to extend milk subsidies in 2005, which he claimed he did to “save countless Pennsylvania dairy farmers.”
An examination of his scores in the NTU rating of Congress shows that Santorum compiled a very strong record on taxes and spending in the first four years of each of his two Senate terms, then a sharp swing to below the Senate Republican average in the Congress before his reelection campaign. In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal. In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican — sponsoring more spending increases than Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chafee and Thad Cochran or Democrats Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh and Ron Wyden.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=902
May want to read a little deeper.
“Stop with the Crazy Talk about Rick Santorum, Please”
http://fuzislippers.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-social-engineering-stop-with-crazy.html
We should be able to disagree while defending the merits of our positions, but mindless, ignorant, visceral rants using what are largely Leftist talking points should be beneath us. At least they should be if one is a common sense conservative, and a well balanced believer in the American experience.
Honestly, I don’t usually read links, I get that they’re there typically to support the posters point of view, which is already understood, but the link above makes a case that both sides of the argument should be able to acknowledge. By both sides, I’m referencing conservative infighting, not the Lefty trolls that are likely here to throw gasoline bombs.
A, this isn’t some nit-picking inside-baseball.
Santorum represents a “conservative” ideology at fundamental odds with what a LOT of Conservatives believe.
Call it Ninth Amendment Conservatives v. Plenary Power Conservatives, because that is where the schism lies.
Santorum has said (essentially) there is no “privacy right” in the Constitution, which is SORT OF true. He talks about too much individual self-determination goin’ ouuuu-et dare…
But he fails to understand that there are any number of individual rights NOT enumerated in the Constitution BECAUSE that was not the JOB of the Constitution.
We had ALLLLLLLLLLL rights EXCEPT those granted to the Federal government (or our states).
We DO…absolutely…have rights to privacy. And any number of others you won’t find in the text of the Constitution, especially WRT the Federal government.
Santorum’s view is NOT “conservative” as I understand that term.
People, people, people – MAINTAIN YOUR FOCUS. Defeat of Obama and his cabal, repeal of his edicts and (trying to) get our fiscal house are the focus. You can delve into the finer points of law, constitutionality and “rights” all you want, but maintain your focus.
We are outisde the wire and yet we are our own worst enemy. We are fragging and taking shots at each other, with the occasional RINO or not so subtle liberal in conservative clthing dropping a load and telling you its a Baby Ruth bar. If you fail to get your minds in line and think straight, you will have the whiners and criers who support WHOEVER doesn’t get to the eventual Presidential ballot threaten to go third party, or just not vote. A guaranteed Obama win in either case. If that’s what you REALLY want, just keep it up.
I am reminded of the words of a Rush song:
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that’s clear-
I will choose Free Will.
It’s not just your future. It’s ALL of our futures that depend on your vote.
kbob
Defender of your rights since 1971!
USN and USA
Time to retire again
Thank you, Kbob. For the service, and for the Rush quote.
But this IS a time for separating the sheep from the goats in our own little flock, yes?
Then…we turn on the wolf…!!!
Nicely stated!!!! I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion; these spineless and conniving wonders never cease to amaze me.
Culture issues are of importance, and needs to be adressed because it has eaten away at our society.
Here again, things are not what they seem.
Yes, we can reverse the direction of the sexual revolution.
1) no more wives automatically get half at divorce and a monthly allowance. They are equal now, treat them equally. They can earn their own way in life.
2) No more easy divorce, you signed the papers, got the benefits, and if you want out of the contract, then you need to prove that you cannot stay in the contract.
3) Get rid of the welfare state. No one, period ever gets one extra penny for no other reason than that they have a child or more than one child.
4) Social security benefits will be calculated based on the number of children you raise to adulthood. That is who will be paying your benefits, the more of them you create and raise, without any government special assistance, the more money you will get in retirement. Notice, if you raised the kids living off government welfare, those kids do not count.
There are plenty of laws that can be used properly to reverse the damage to our nation…
Youkidding says:
“TJ, an obvious liberal plant, uses what is known as an argument fallacy trick. called “appeal to authority” which is to say, “YouKidding is trying to say they know best as if YK knew more about constitutional law than all these SC justices!”
The completely unsupported statement from YouKidding that TJ was replying to was:
“You do realize, do you not, that many here are essentially AGREEING with the Griswold decision, which nobody understanding actual constitutional law would support.”
YouKidding claimed that nobody understanding actual constitutional law would agree with the Griswold decision. Identifying one person who understands constitutional law and agrees with the Griswold decision was sufficient to prove YouKidding’s claim false. I didn’t idendify just one. I identified 7 out of 9 without even trying. And, like it or not, those were the 9 people whose job it was to decide constitutionality. Feel free to call my argument “appealing to authority” if it makes you feel better.
If all decisions regarding constitutional interpretation were clear cut, the supreme court would be a lot less busy than it is. There certainly are grounds to believe they came to the wrong decision with regards to Griswold, or at minimum had fragile arguments for their conclusions, but that battle is over. The country has moved on.
I don’t expect anyone to change their views based on an opinion poll. However, it IS the opinion of the electorate that determines the outcome of elections. A candidate who insists on pushing a viewpoint counter to popular opinion does so at their peril.
No matter what Dave, Santorum cannot win the general. Period. His social issues will sink him. It is to easy to misrepresent him and Obama has more than enough money to do so. Face it, dude could not even win reelection in his home state. Lost by a landslide.
Now Santorum’s come out against pre-natal testing, something that helped identify and control a problem that developed when my wife was pregnant with our first child. He might have died without it.
Swell.
TJ: I’m not sure that he’s against pre-natal testing, but the purpose of it in many cases and the end to which it is sometimes put.