Santorum: If the idea of government-granted rights wins out, government will own you

posted at 1:55 pm on February 10, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Rick Santorum’s is a familiar face at CPAC. He’s been here in years when he was little more than a sidenote in the programming, and he’s been here in years, like this one, when his is the face attendees crowd to see. But, year in and year out, what he has stood for has not changed. That consistency was especially evident in his speech today,  in which he expounded on his — and, indeed, Americans’ — long-held conviction that men are endowed with rights by their Creator — not given those rights by the government.

“We know there’s a lot of excitement here because this election is about big, big things,” Santorum said. “We know it’s about big things; it’s about foundational principles. Every speech I’ve given from the 381 townhall meetings I did in Iowa, I talked about founding principles. This campaign is gonna be about a vision, about who we are as Americans.”

That vision? No more and no less than the one outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the document that Santorum said explains the “why” of America.

“Are we going to believe, as our Founders did, that our rights don’t come from the government, that they come from a much higher authority?” Santorum asked today. “There are those in the Oval Office who believe that’s not the case, that rights do, in fact, come from the government, and they have gone around convincing the American people that they can give you rights. We see what happens when government gives you rights. When government gives you rights, government can take away those rights. When government gives you rights, they can coerce you in doing things in exercising the rights that they gave you.”

Santorum cited Obamacare as a perfect example of a government trumped-up right and predicted a dire outcome of government-defined rights.

“As a result, government will own because you will have to pay tribute to Washington in order to get the care you need for your children,” he said.

The major reason Santorum entered the presidential race, he said, was because he saw Obamacare as a “gamechanger.” As a longstanding supporter of bottom-up solutions to out-of-control health care costs and lack of access, Santorum is in an enviable position — at least from the perspective of his competitors — to make Obamacare a central issue of the race in 2012.

But it won’t be Santorum’s only issue. Among other topics, he touched today on jobs (his economic plan, he said, harnesses “supply-side economics for the working man,”) and energy (which he said is an issue we must not allow to be demagogued), drawing clear contrasts between his positions and the past positions of his competitors.

He left his audience with a question and a challenge: “Why would an undecided voter vote for a candidate the party is not excited about? We need conservatives now to rally for a conservative to go into November, to excite the conservative base, to pull with that excitement moderate voters and to defeat Barack Obama in the fall. … Please walk out of this gathering and choose the candidate that you believe is the right person to lead this country, so you can say, ‘I have done my duty. I have kept my honor.’”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

“I am the only candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, who has never worked a day in Washington,”

True, but not for lack of trying.

El Txangurro on February 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Accept lies if you wish, but I will do no such thing.

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Everything you believe is a lie. You make crap up about morality, truth, equality and rights and then you dance around poking fun at those silly theocons who make stuff up.

sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM

There is clearly a subset of the Tea Party that are all about money . . .

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 4:15 PM

You mean the Taxed Enough Already Party? Yes, by definition, their cause is about money…being taken from them by the government.

Good f**king grief, it’s pathetic how some sanctimonious people who want religion, rather than the Constitution, to dictate how people can live in this country will actually demonize small-government principles just to try to defend their theocratic heroes.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:32 PM

So? You argue these laws are unconstitutional, yet excuse anti-incest laws. Last I checked, the Constitution doesn’t mention anything about genetic problems allowing otherwise unconstitutional laws to be enforced. Your argument is flawed.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I love coffee. Oh noes, Mormons don’t drink coffee or tea. That means Romney will take away my right to drink caffeine. No telling what they would do about the beer in my refrigerator or the bottles of wine above my bar.

/

Stayright on February 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Romney > Santorum > Gingrich.

Been my rankings for a while. Don’t see it changing.

therightwinger on February 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Then the argument rests on the semantics of the word “right”, not on whether the idea of god given rights is a lie. If your definition of the word “rights” inherently requires a deity, then it’s true: we have no rights. You can lie to yourself to make it easier to handle, but that’s the way it is. Of course, the truth is that rights are bestowed by the community, and thus by government, whether they are just or not: like that right to privacy you conservatives loathe so very much.

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM

theocratic heroes

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM

All you do is argue in circles.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:36 PM

sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM

You’re the one who insists that your “rights” are granted by a god you don’t believe exists. Save your judgement for someone who respects your opinion.

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I love coffee. Oh noes, Mormons don’t drink coffee or tea. That means Romney will take away my right to drink caffeine. No telling what they would do about the beer in my refrigerator or the bottles of wine above my bar.

The problem with this is that Romney, unlike Santorum, has not spoken in favorable terms of the government’s right (obligation?) to control individual private conduct in those respects, even if it differs from his own conduct (or religious belief system).

El Txangurro on February 10, 2012 at 4:38 PM

I used to respect your posts, not that it matters…

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 4:15 PM

People need to learn that I don’t care. Every time someone says that, if it’s true, all it’s demonstrating is that some people will lose respect for anyone if they eventually hear that person say something they disagree with. Can’t be helped. It’s like all the people who forsake conservatives like Ann Coulter, just because she is pro-Romney(or is she pro-Gingrich? I don’t even know, because whoever she supports, it’s one of the four candidates I hate). The internet really allows people to show their endless capacity for fickleness.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:38 PM

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM

We get it. You don’t like the Founders. You think they were fools. You think the very foundation of this nation, with its declaration of “inalienable rights” was stupid. And the Left wonders why their critics have a tendency to label Leftist philosophy as un-American.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:38 PM

thphilli on February 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Why would you call a man of faith “a religious nutjob”? It seems like he is just trying to support ideas that keep the family strong. That is what’s best for kids and people in general. I know of no legislation that he submitted to control what happens in the bedroom, or whatever. The only so-called “so-con” legislation of his, that I know of, is the partial-birth abortion ban—and partial-birth abortions needed to be banned. When I found out what this procedure entailed, I thought “Are we animals then?” I couldn’t believe anyone would support this procedure–but Obama did and people thought he was just fine and dandy.

LL1960 on February 10, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Still waiting for Romney’s CPAC speech. Santorum’s speech was expressed out immediately, and put on top of the page. Talk about bias…

Chudi on February 10, 2012 at 4:40 PM

So? You argue these laws are unconstitutional, yet excuse anti-incest laws. Last I checked, the Constitution doesn’t mention anything about genetic problems allowing otherwise unconstitutional laws to be enforced. Your argument is flawed.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I didn’t argue the laws were unconstitutional. Your argument is doubly flawed.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:40 PM

All you do is argue in circles.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:36 PM

All you can do is drive-by and spit.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Chudi on February 10, 2012 at 4:40 PM

It was on live at 12:55. You can go to CPAC 2012 and watch it or I am sure it will be replayed but I don’t know when or which CSpan

Cindy Munford on February 10, 2012 at 4:42 PM

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 4:37 PM

You cannot face the logical consequence of your own magical beliefs. I can respect Christians because at least they are consistent and have a proven track record of being trustworthy. Atheists have a proven track record that is drenched in blood and ends in mounds of bleached skulls. Based on simple self preservation I would place my bet on the Christian rather than the atheist.

sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 4:46 PM

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Except they didn’t actually consider those rights inalienable. If they had, women and blacks would not have been in the positions the founders put them. It’s your rose colored glasses that bestow upon the leaders of the rebellion a mythical infallibility.

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 4:46 PM

sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 4:46 PM

And what magical beliefs are those?

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 4:48 PM

I didn’t argue the laws were unconstitutional. Your argument is doubly flawed.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:40 PM

May be confusing you with someone else, then, but my point still stands if we branch it off this way: Instead of it being a matter of Constitutionality, it’s a matter of the reasoning behind something simply being “good enough,” as you put it. Of course, you’re NEVER going to see Santorum’s reasoning as good enough given that you’re so fond of mischaracterizing his motives and those of other moral culture warriors, pretending there’s no basis for their positions except “god says it’s bad”. Why, even in the way you put that simple phrase, you show basic disrespect for their beliefs and show your proclivity for gratituous insults against the faithful who dare disagree with you, which is no surprise, what with you being the intellectually dishonest “champion against ‘theocracy’” that you are.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM

But it won’t be Santorum’s only issue.

Should mass insanity over the GOP and they nominate this guy it will be the social issues will be all the we ever hear about. Obama’s catastrophic record on the economy will be lost. Instead we’ll take about nothing other than bibles and who gets to have sex with who and whether Daddy’s little girl can get an abortion after he raped her.

MJBrutus on February 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM

The major reason Santorum entered the presidential race, he said, was because he saw Obamacare as a “gamechanger.” As a longstanding supporter of bottom-up solutions to out-of-control health care costs and lack of access, Santorum is in an enviable position — at least from the perspective of his competitors — to make Obamacare a central issue of the race in 2012.

“gamechanger”?

“supporter of bottom-up solutions to out-of-control health care costs”?

ObamaCare is a result of Santorum and his compatriot’s failure to address the issue of the day in the Republican controlled Congress between the defeat of HillaryCare in 1994 and the expulsion of the Republican control in 2006.

It’s not a big mystery why the beginning of what became called TEA Party were anger of seniors furious at Republicans for allowing the Democrats to shove universal health insurance down our throats… aka HillaryCare II.

Santorum was in the House and later the Senate, and Newt was in the House, as Speaker! Now, they want a do-over and they want to pretend that they had no part in allowing this to happen. Neither of them accepts their own responsibility and instead finger point at Romney for the MA plan. Romney didn’t write ObamaCare and Romney didn’t federalize the mandate. Ted Kennedy, MA favorite son and champion of universal health care, took the MA plan to the federal level. Both Santorum and Gingrich are being disingenuous. They know the history of how we got to this point. They failed to enact the legislative plan that would have prevented ObamaCare. They allowed the Republicans to be played once again by the Democrats by ignoring the issue and doing nothing when they had the chance.

Some of us Republicans remember.

Texas Gal on February 10, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Of course, you’re NEVER going to see Santorum’s reasoning as good enough given that you’re so fond of mischaracterizing his motives and those of other moral culture warriors, pretending there’s no basis for their positions except “god says it’s bad”.

You may say I’m mischaracterizing his beliefs all you like, but I’ve posted more than once on Santorum’s crap, and the majority of people I’ve seen comment on the posts on this site regarding Santorum seem to agree that his words indicate the motives of a man who, when considering legislation, does not put the Constitution first.

Why, even in the way you put that simple phrase, you show basic disrespect for their beliefs and show your proclivity for gratituous insults against the faithful who dare disagree with you, which is no surprise, what with you being the intellectually dishonest “champion against ‘theocracy’” that you are.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM

I have endless respect for Christians and other people of faith. I have no respect for those who try to use their faith as justification to restrict my freedom, and the freedom of the rest of my countrymen. As I said, you want to outlaw something? You need a reason other than what you read in the Bible. Santorum’s statements indicate he has no other reason.

And you’ve got pretty big balls to talk about intellectual dishonesty while painting me as anti-faith. You clearly don’t know who the f**k you’re talking to, buddy. I’ve spent far too much time on this site defending faith against annoying and aggravating atheists to take that kind of bulls**t from a pious pissant like you.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:57 PM

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 4:46 PM

No one said the Founders were infallible. That doesn’t change the fact that they were a heck of a lot wiser than you self-declared “enlightened” champions of “Progress.”

As should be obvious given the fact that so many of you are bigots with no shame:

And what magical beliefs are those?

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 4:48 PM

You didn’t even TRY to actually counter the point being made. Fact is – you think government gets to *decide* what “rights” someone has. So, if government decides that, say, blacks should be second-class citizens, or even slaves, well, on what grounds can you argue otherwise? They have no inalienable rights, per your vile philosophy. The government hath spoken! How can you say it’s “wrong”? ESPECIALLY since you’re no doubt a moral relativist as well, so if society is okay with it, hey, it can’t be immoral!

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:59 PM

MJBrutus on February 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Was Santorum’s speech about any of that? Has he been talking about social issues at all? He has mostly been talking about Obamacare.

LL1960 on February 10, 2012 at 5:01 PM

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:57 PM

You’ve got serious issues. You may not be even an eighth as bad as the typical anti-religion bigot that you combat, but you absolutely DO have a problem with jumping to conclusions when it comes to people like Santorum. You’re playing the “theocrat” card. It’s disgusting. You can make your case without resorting to that crap, but you choose not to. That tells me you are biased.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:02 PM

LL1960 on February 10, 2012 at 5:01 PM

It doesn’t matter what he says today or tomorrow. The man has made himself clear as totally outside the level of acceptance of most Americans on those topics. If he is the guy, then that is all that the conversation will be about.

MJBrutus on February 10, 2012 at 5:03 PM

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Just because government *can* bestow and revoke rights doesn’t mean it *ought* to in any given circumstance – that’s a different question entirely. My point is that I cannot hide behind a lie to try and deny that the community is unable to decide such matters. Yes, it’s scary, and yes technically a government can do horrible things, but as I’ve pointed out before: a government that supposedly understood inalienable rights still enslaved blacks and left women as second class citizens for over 100 years, so just how are the two situations any different?

The real question is, do you really need a mythical lie to keep you from enslaving your brother?

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 5:09 PM

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Cute. I point out your use of a fallacy (circular reasoning). You combat it with another fallacy (ad hominem).

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:09 PM

ABRtards are like that.

Gunlock Bill on February 10, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Great, here comes the Mormon cavalry to the rescue…I think csdeven ironed your human suit for you, please put it on before posting…

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 5:09 PM

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Who are YOU to tell the government what it “ought” to do? After all, morality is subjective, or something, amiright? So, like, if enough people hate blacks, hey, it can’t be “immoral” to enslave them! /

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Was Santorum’s speech about any of that? Has he been talking about social issues at all? He has mostly been talking about Obamacare.

LL1960 on February 10, 2012 at 5:01 PM

except that Santorum does not get to set the narrative, it’s the media and usually the rival’s campaign who do…if they decide to attack him on his crazy soc con positions, that’s all you are going to hear about…and I can’t blame them, I don’t like any of his extreme and intolerant positions either…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM

You’re playing the “theocrat” card. It’s disgusting.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:02 PM

That’s nice. When Rick Santorum talks as if he considers the Bible to be more important than the Constitution in terms of passing laws, I call him a theocrat, because that’s what a theocrat does: govern based on divine guidance.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 5:12 PM

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:57 PM

What legislation has he submitted that would control what we do in the bedroom? He spoke against a supreme court ruling regarding a law that already existed (and wasn’t even being enforced). He was against the ruling, I believe, because he thought the decision should remain with the states. Of all the arguments against Santorum, this is the least powerful one, in my opinion.

LL1960 on February 10, 2012 at 5:13 PM

You combat it with another fallacy (ad hominem).

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Like this?

…what with you being the intellectually dishonest “champion against ‘theocracy’” that you are.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM

When you throw the first punch, don’t whine when someone clocks you, kay?

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 5:14 PM

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Who said anything about morality being subjective?

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 5:14 PM

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Again with the circular reasoning. You SAY he talks that way. That doesn’t mean he does. Your “interpretation” of everything he says is seen through that prism.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:15 PM

What legislation has he submitted that would control what we do in the bedroom? He spoke against a supreme court ruling regarding a law that already existed (and wasn’t even being enforced). He was against the ruling, I believe, because he thought the decision should remain with the states. Of all the arguments against Santorum, this is the least powerful one, in my opinion.

LL1960 on February 10, 2012 at 5:13 PM

And that’s fine that he’s against the ruling, and it’s even fine if he believes that legislation should be led from a faith-based perspective rather than a Constitutional perspective. I just won’t support him, and I think people who value the Constitution should be aware of his perspective.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Again with the circular reasoning. You SAY he talks that way. That doesn’t mean he does. Your “interpretation” of everything he says is seen through that prism.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:15 PM

I’ve quoted where he talks that way in past. The majority of commenters I’ve seen agreed with my interpretation. Sorry if that offends you, sweetie.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 5:14 PM

I’d say “fair enough” (minus your childish characterization of it as “clocking” anyone), but you’ve been throwing punches here before I even arrived. You’re doing nothing BUT throwing punches at Santorum, with your *intellectually dishonest* use of the theocrat card. You sound like a Leftist.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:19 PM

That doesn’t mean he does. Your “interpretation” of everything he says is seen through that prism.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Santorum is on record as wanting to make abortion illegal, even when Daddy rapes his little girl. He wants no funding for contraception as part of any government run program. He wants to force his definition of marriage on all the states in the union.

Those are his stated intentions. Do you think for one second that the left will allow the campaign to be about anything else?

Santorum: Drill, drill, drill.
MSM: It doesn’t matter, she has to bear the child, right?

Santorum: Lower capital gains taxes.
MSM: What do you mean by contraception? And why can’t adults engage in consensual sex?

Santorum: Audit the Fed
MSM: What kind of nut doesn’t believe that evolution is correct?

MJBrutus on February 10, 2012 at 5:22 PM

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Wow. “Sweetie”? You’re taking this awfully personally. I don’t care what the majority of people who just so happened to comment about whatever you posted at that time said. Hot Air’s regular commenters are not reliable; a lot of them think Gingrich is a conservative, for crying out loud. I’d have to read these things myself, and I’d have to have the full context not only of but what has happened in the intervening time to see if anything changed for him.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:22 PM

I’d say “fair enough” (minus your childish characterization of it as “clocking” anyone), but you’ve been throwing punches here before I even arrived.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:19 PM

And? What does that have to do with your employing ad hominem yourself, and then going on to complain that I’m doing the same?

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 5:23 PM

This coming from the guy who voted for the single largest expansion of entitlement programs since FDR. Tragicomedy.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 5:23 PM

MJBrutus on February 10, 2012 at 5:22 PM

You’re arguing electability. That’s tangential to my point.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Hot Air’s regular commenters are not reliable;

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:22 PM

That sucks. If you don’t like our opinions, there’s a little “X” in the upper right corner. It means “this is what you click to get the hell out”.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 5:24 PM

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 5:23 PM

So you can say we both use ad hominem. So? The fact remains that you’re throwing out red herrings instead of addressing the fact that you utilize circular reasoning to label Santorum and his supporters as wanna-be-theocrats.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:25 PM

What a joke. Santorum is a big-government fascist and for him to say this is laughable. Apparently Medicare Part D is a right to Santorum.

Lord on February 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Wow. “Don’t agree? THEN LEAVE!” What an asinine thing to post. Last I checked, Hot Air’s “core” BLOGGERS don’t see eye to eye on everything! Want them to quit? You’re a bitter, bitter person.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM

This coming from the guy who voted for the single largest expansion of entitlement programs since FDR. Tragicomedy.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 5:23 PM

mire like theater of the absurd…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM

except that Santorum does not get to set the narrative, it’s the media and usually the rival’s campaign who do…if they decide to attack him on his crazy soc con positions, that’s all you are going to hear about…and I can’t blame them, I don’t like any of his extreme and intolerant positions either…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Thing is, Santorum has been the wallflower of the primaries so far, so people are really just now looking at him for the first time. Remember Gingrich’s (very temporary) spike in the polls? That lasted as long as it took for people to scrutinize Newt and summarily reject him as so much damaged goods. With Santorum, it’s different. For most of the primary fight, Santorum’s been the guy in the wings waving his arms and hectoring moderators for more time and attention. His debate performances have been uneven, in my view, if only because–at his worst–he comes off as abrasive and self-righteous. At his best, he’s very good and when he makes it personal, about his family, he’s very good, indeed. Santorum connects with people when he keeps topics immediate and confined. The moment Santorum starts talking about social issues is the moment he comes off as a moralistic, insufferable prig, a Republican Jimmy Carter.

So is Santorum a threat to Romney? Oh yes, more than Gingrich has ever been. Is he a threat to Obama? Nope. No way is a GOP nominee taking an absolutist position on abortion going to defeat an incumbent President, particularly one with Obama’s formidible fundraising and campaigning skills. Not happening.

troyriser_gopftw on February 10, 2012 at 5:27 PM

What a joke. Santorum is a big-government fascist and for him to say this is laughable. Apparently Medicare Part D is a right to Santorum.

Lord on February 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Look up the word “fascist.”

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I don’t understand the fascination with Santorum, a guy who scammed a school district out of $100,000 while he did not live in the district.

You guys think Obama and his team are not going to bring the reasons whys he lost his senate seat up?

dmnari on February 10, 2012 at 5:27 PM

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:38 PM

I’m getting the impression that you read one line and then have to respond without finishing the whole comment and taking the whole statement into context. Sort of like that one you keep posting from Santorum. You see something that jumps out at you and have to attack it without even registering the intent/context/meaning.

I am a Tea Party member. I have attended the rallies. I actually said we needed a new Tea Party on this very site several months before the Tea Party came into being. My problem is more with what they do with my money than them taking money, but that doesn’t negate the fact that I want them to stop taking so much of my money. However, I am not only concerned with money. I am also concerned with the decline in our culture (which impacts economics), one that the founding fathers warned us about, but which the Dept. of Education has erased from our history books. They were moral men. They were not opposed to laws regulating morality. They had them on the books and didn’t erase them, though Jefferson did try to get the penalty for sodomy reduced from DEATH. They were not greedy libertines.

And I don’t care if you care. I said as much when I said ‘not that it matters’. Maybe you missed that, as you seem inclined to do even while including it in the quote. And it doesn’t make me fickle. I haven’t always agreed with you, or anyone else on these boards. Disagreeing with you isn’t the source of my lost respect. That has developed over the last few weeks for reasons that are obvious in this thread, and that I pointed out in the first paragraph of this response. You keep beating the theocrat statist horse, ignoring the context of not only his, but my comments and call anyone who disagrees with you ‘small minded’ or an occupier. It is disrespectful to those who treat you with respect even while disagreeing. You weren’t always like that, or maybe I’ve confused you all along, with someone I respected.

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 5:27 PM

The campaign will be be on social issues. What else separates Obama and Santorum?

Obama is an union shill and anti right-to-work. Ditto for Santorum.

Obama defends the Medicare and Medicaid status-quo. Santorum was the guy creating it.

Obama is a big spender. So was Santorum.

Obama believes in federal solutions for education. Santorum enthusiastically supported big government programs like NCLB.

Obama believes in those uber-expensive “infra-structure bills”. Santorum voted for the Transportation Act, the Energy bill, etc.

Obama believes that the tax code should be used by politicians to pick winners and losers. So does Santorum.

The issues that separate both men are stuff like allowing the states to outlaw contraception. So obviously the campaign will revolve around those issues.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM

What a joke. Santorum is a big-government fascist and for him to say this is laughable. Apparently Medicare Part D is a right to Santorum.

Lord on February 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM

of course…an Newt, the ‘moral’ one lobbyied vigorously said medicare expansion it in 2003, as a consultant/historian of course…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM

So you can say we both use ad hominem. So?

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:25 PM

So you’re a hypocrite. I use ad hominem, but I don’t cry about other people using it against me. You use ad hominem, and you cry about other people using it against you. QED.

Wow. “Don’t agree? THEN LEAVE!” What an asinine thing to post.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM

No, what is asinine is insulting the regular community of a website rather than leaving, as you did here:

Hot Air’s regular commenters are not reliable;

If we’re so unreliable, why the hell are you here? Please, please say you’re going to educate or enlighten us. Oh, please do. I would love a good laughing jag.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Looks like a lot more people are seeing this clown for who he really is. Anyone read drudges link where he said women are unfit for combat because they’re too emo? Haha rick sure is opinionated when it comes to women and gays. “keep women in the kitchen and gays out of the bedroom!” – Rick Santorum

1984 in real life on February 10, 2012 at 5:32 PM

So is Santorum a threat to Romney? Oh yes, more than Gingrich has ever been. Is he a threat to Obama? Nope. No way is a GOP nominee taking an absolutist position on abortion going to defeat an incumbent President, particularly one with Obama’s formidible fundraising and campaigning skills. Not happening.

troyriser_gopftw on February 10, 2012 at 5:27 PM

and you want to spoil their little fantasy-induced delusion because????….oh, and calling his positions on abortion absolutist is ad-hominem, doncha know…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 5:34 PM

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I didn’t “cry” about you using ad hominem. I putting out the irony of your response to someone exposing your use of fallacies – you combat it with another fallacy. And you STILL don’t even attempt to address my point.

No, what is asinine is insulting the regular community of a website rather than leaving…

If we’re so unreliable, why the hell are you here?

Hot Air holds a variety of DIVERSE opinions. It’d be DISHONEST for ANYONE to say they can RELY on agreeing with most everyone here on a subject such as this. Seeing as how it’s YOU that apparently holds the philosophy that one shouldn’t frequent a site where large numbers of people disagree with you (heck, I’d wager the author of this post, Tina Korbe, has some serious disagreements with much of what you’ve said here), why haven’t YOU left Hot Air? You’re just being absurd.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Looks like a lot more people are seeing this clown for who he really is. Anyone read drudges link where he said women are unfit for combat because they’re too emo? Haha rick sure is opinionated when it comes to women and gays. “keep women in the kitchen and gays out of the bedroom!” – Rick Santorum

1984 in real life on February 10, 2012 at 5:32 PM

he has yet to explain the women in combat and the emotion gaffe :-)…as for the rest, his anti-woman policies are really about sexual control, rather than anything else…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Who are YOU to tell the government what it “ought” to

The Boss, that’s who we are. We dictate what we want our elected officials to be doing. . . Something the lot of them have sadly forgotten.

cmsciulli on February 10, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Look up the word “fascist.”
CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I didn’t say he supports fascism — he does support some fascist policies though, thus he can be labelled a fascist. Big-government statist might have been more appropriate.

That’s not my point though. Santorum uses rhetoric to make him appear as though he’s anti-government to simple-minded people like you. Anyone who supports Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is necessarily a proponent of big-government. Santorum is a joke, and a hypocrite.

Lord on February 10, 2012 at 5:38 PM

cmsciulli on February 10, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I appreciate the sentiment, but I think you’re missing the point of my post, there. 1) Leftists don’t believe in absolute rights or even absolute right/wrong. I was just using their “logic” against them. 2) My post already presupposes that most people side AGAINST the rhetorical “you”, so that’d make you NOT the boss.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:41 PM

I didn’t say he supports fascism

Lord on February 10, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Right. You just said he IS a fascist.

Arguing with you is going to be a waste of time, isn’t it?

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Be prepared to lose all every independent, moderate, libertarian, 18-30 year old, and minority vote if this guy is the nominee. Be prepared to loses every purple state and key swing states to Obama. The hardcore evangelicals will not bail Santorum out there was clear evidence of that with his caucus wins with the record low turn out.

People are pissed at Obama and there’s a good chance we can steal a large part of his voter base this election but not with Santorum he will alienate the Goldwater small government republicans. Are you really prepared to give up the election for this guy?

1984 in real life on February 10, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Who is going to base their vote on gay rights or abortion? Pro-life people might base their vote on abortion, but who else? Independents will be looking at Obamacare and the economy, I think. What are we afraid of? I don’t get it. If the majority still wants Obama after the last 3 crappy years, we are a heck-of-a lot worse off than I thought we were.

LL1960 on February 10, 2012 at 5:44 PM

W

ho are YOU to tell the government what it “ought” to

The Boss, that’s who we are. We dictate what we want our elected officials to be doing. . . Something the lot of them have sadly forgotten.

cmsciulli on February 10, 2012 at 5:38 PM

That’s a totalitarian point of view though; not a conservative one.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 5:48 PM

I appreciate the sentiment, but I think you’re missing the point of my post, there.

Yes I did miss your point. . . I see the error of my ways lol!

I think we agree.

cmsciulli on February 10, 2012 at 5:57 PM

People who support Santorum are basing their votes on abortion and gay rights that is a fact. They vote with their emotions not logic. Ricky isn’t very smart and knows nothing about economics cause he never spent a day in the private sector, but he sure shows passion!

1984 in real life on February 10, 2012 at 6:06 PM

1984 in real life on February 10, 2012 at 6:06 PM

And he’s the most “conservative.” That makes people who outsource their thinking to the grand poo-bahs of all things conservative very happy.

MJBrutus on February 10, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I didn’t “cry” about you using ad hominem. I putting out the irony of your response to someone exposing your use of fallacies – you combat it with another fallacy. And you STILL don’t even attempt to address my point.

You tried to score cheap points by claiming I was using ad hominem when you had yourself just used it. Your attempt backfired, because it demonstrated that you’re a hypocrite. Testy, aintcha?

Hot Air holds a variety of DIVERSE opinions. It’d be DISHONEST for ANYONE to say they can RELY on agreeing with most everyone here on a subject such as this.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Um, no, it wouldn’t. This is a conservative blog. The vast majority here agree on the vast majority of things. We debate niggling details and the occasional social issue. You’re new to this site, so you don’t know this, and you end up smearing the regular commenter community by calling them unreliable. You put a cherry on that s**t sundae by then claiming that only a dishonest person would suggest that a conservative could rely on agreeing with most conservatives on a political issue.

All your mind-melting and utterly baffling “logic” aside, you fail to recognize just one thing, that a regular Hot Air commenter(which you peg as unreliable, because you’re apparently some arrogant fop) could tell you: most people here, when it comes to Santorum, agree with my interpretation of his worldview and philosophy. You also fail to recognize that just because a few people on a website scream longer and louder than the rest doesn’t make them the majority.

Anyway, I recommend one of the two paths for you, cupcake:

1. Stick around, stop acting like you’re some sort of omnipotent being on Hot Air when, in fact, nobody knows who you are.

Or…

2. Go find a site whose primary commentership is as narcissistic as you.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 6:12 PM

People seem to forget that the last place Barack Obama wants to go is social issues.

Obama is not some main stream milquetoast “personally pro-life” but votes for abortion every time Democrat. He’s the most pro-abortion President is history, spent 20 years in a racist hate church, and just alienated every religious swing voter in the nation.

The idea that the comparison of Obama’s ideas about social policy with Santorum’s will be to the detriment of Santorum’s chances to win are ridiculous. Obama can’t even use the “above my pay grade” line, because Santorum will immediately corner him on the HHS mandate.

BKennedy on February 10, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Incest is largely illegal because of the high risk of genetic problems in their offspring, and even the laws regarding that have been challenged by people like Eugene Volokh. Polygamy is largely illegal because of the known effects that occur when a serious imbalance between eligible males and females exists. If you outlaw something, you better have a damn good reason, and “god says it’s bad” doesn’t cut it, pal. You and Santorum need to learn that, if you give a damn about the Constitution that keeps this country from falling into chaos.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:32 PM

That’s cute and all, but this is what you said:

I guess government-granted rights are fine as long as the idea comes from someone who calls himself a conservative.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Which you said in response to:

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.

But now you are fine with getting involved in the bedroom because of some genetic problems. You’ve completely changed the argument. Basically you are now saying that if we can prove that homosexual activity can be physically or mentally harmful the government should regulate it?

If you outlaw something, you better have a damn good reason, and “god says it’s bad” doesn’t cut it, pal.

Cute, so find the quote where Santorum said he was going to ban homosexual behavior on the basis of “God said its bad.” While your at it, you might want to make sure he doesn’t ban debauchery, adultery, lying, coveting, cheating, fornication, gossip and myriad of other things God said are bad. You’re gonna have a hard time finding where he proposed legislation (or even discussed wanting to) ban the above vices.

Either that or you could realize you actually have already agreed that government should regulate certain bedroom and cultural behaviors and that the next rational step would be to say “hey, wait a minute…I got upset at Santorum over something we essentially agree on. That was silly.”

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:04 PM

But now you are fine with getting involved in the bedroom because of some genetic problems.

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Did I say that? I don’t believe I did. What I said was that the justification for the law had more to do with a demonstrable effect, rather than a moral opposition. I didn’t say whether I supported or opposed it. In fact, I noted a conservative blogger who has argued against current incest laws, but once again, without taking a side on the issue. I’m a little baffled that you can dedicate so much space to quoting me, only to turn around and address something I never said.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:10 PM

While your at it, you might want to make sure he doesn’t ban…adultery…

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Oh, and he addressed adultery in context that classified it the same as polygamy and bigamy, right before he denounced the right to privacy.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Yeah, the majority of Americans don’t want lower taxes or less regulation. The majority of Americans wish the government were more intrusive, especially in the bedroom.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Man, do I ever grow tired of you crapping all over these threads. I’m so sick of hearing that garbage. All you’re doing is needling Santorum in the knee for no good reason. I’ve read your ignorant theocratic statist posts in the GR and they aren’t very convincing. I’m sure in some offhanded comments Santorum probably let his theology shine through, however, I seriously doubt he would actually make it a campaign issue, or once President, start actually trying to legislate bedroom behavior.

Comment on the morality of gayness is severely (<– see, mitt?) different than trying to outlaw it or whatever your nightmare is.

preallocated on February 10, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Man, do I ever grow tired of you crapping all over these threads. I’m so sick of hearing that garbage.

preallocated on February 10, 2012 at 7:22 PM

You poor guy.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Did I say that? I don’t believe I did. What I said was that the justification for the law had more to do with a demonstrable effect, rather than a moral opposition. I didn’t say whether I supported or opposed it. In fact, I noted a conservative blogger who has argued against current incest laws, but once again, without taking a side on the issue.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:10 PM

If you are not opposed to legislating incest, then why have a problem with Santorum’s post in the first place? You’re just being disingenuous in order to weasel out of the corner you backed into.

I’m a little baffled that you can dedicate so much space to quoting me, only to turn around and address something I never said.

You began the whole conversation by talking about how it was terribly statist of Santorum to regulate bedroom or cultural behavior. Oh, I’m sorry, you didn’t technically use the word “statist” you said “government-grated rights are fine as long as they come from someone who calls himself a conservative.”

Yeah, it is absolutely absurd for me to conclude that you are against the regulation of bedroom/cultural behavior. Pull the other one! You admitted your stance before I pointed out the flaw in your logic.

But since you insist on playing games, why don’t you lay your cards on the table then ace? Are you for or against laws regulating incest and polygamy? If so, how can you claim to be opposed to the Rick Santorum quote you snarked in the first place?

If not, well, you’re going to have a hard time finding conservative candidates that will support legalizing (or even relaxing) those laws. I’m going to bet that most would be right there with Santorum on this one.

Furthermore, you never addressed the fact that Santorum never argued for sodomy laws (in general) nor did he argue for legislation to be passed regulating things simply because “God said it’s bad.” Unless you can prove this assertion is it nothing more than a strawman.

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

If you are not opposed to legislating incest, then why have a problem with Santorum’s post in the first place? You’re just being disingenuous in order to weasel out of the corner you backed into.

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

How many times are you going to tell me what my opinion is? You know, you could ask “do you think incest should be illegal?”, but you’re not interested in what I think, as evidenced by your incredible hard-on for trying to find some inconsistency in what I’m saying. I had a shred of interest in what you thought, but it’s evaporated by now. If you want to insult me, do it expeditiously. Don’t hide behind the false pretense of debate. If you want to debate me, don’t address things about me that aren’t true.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Oh, and he addressed adultery in context that classified it the same as polygamy and bigamy, right before he denounced the right to privacy.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Nice try. He doesn’t say he has/is/will support/introduce legislation to ban it. He does, however, argue that states have a right to ban it and states that he understands the reasoning behind the laws because “it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.”

And lo and behold, what is the final point he makes?

I’ve been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don’t agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right. But I don’t agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

Oh noes!!! Libertarians run for your lives! Santorum wouldn’t agree with certain freedoms, but he thinks its your right to vote in/out those kind of laws! He’s such a statist! ZOMG!!!

Next time read the full context, son.

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Yeah, it is absolutely absurd for me to conclude that you are against the regulation of bedroom/cultural behavior. Pull the other one! You admitted your stance before I pointed out the flaw in your logic.

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Rape is a “bedroom behavior”. Bestiality is a “bedroom behavior”. Pedophilia is a “bedroom behavior”. Are you assuming I’m in favor of legalizing those, as well?

The answer is simply that you assume too much.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Yes, he said all that right about the time he teamed up with John Kerry to pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which forced private businesses to cater to their employee’s religious observations, whatever they may be. Clearly the action of a man who respects federalism.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:42 PM

How many times are you going to tell me what my opinion is? You know, you could ask “do you think incest should be illegal?”, but you’re not interested in what I think, as evidenced by your incredible hard-on for trying to find some inconsistency in what I’m saying. I had a shred of interest in what you thought, but it’s evaporated by now. If you want to insult me, do it expeditiously. Don’t hide behind the false pretense of debate. If you want to debate me, don’t address things about me that aren’t true.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:37 PM

How do you know I’m trying to insult you instead of debate? Now you’re putting thoughts in my head. Furthermore, you don’t know if I have a hard-on or not. Are you insulting me? Cause if you are, you should be more direct about it. I don’t care what you say anymore anyhow./MadisonConservative

I BELIEVE you are being disingenuous. You DID NOT address my post in any real way. You ARE weaseling out of the debate by refusing to commit to your position and acting like nobody can DEDUCE it from your comments. HOWEVER since you accused me of not knowing your opinion I DID ask what your opinion is in the post you responded to!

My thoughts on incest and polygamy should be very clear from my posts. Apparently critical thinking is not your strong suit (that’s an insult, just so you know), so I’ll tell you. I support laws that ban both incest and polygamy for BOTH health AND moral reasons.

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Rape is a “bedroom behavior”. Bestiality is a “bedroom behavior”. Pedophilia is a “bedroom behavior”. Are you assuming I’m in favor of legalizing those, as well?

The answer is simply that you assume too much.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Can I assume you are against rape then? Or would that bring more accusations of making opinions for you? If those are bedroom behaviors and you are upset about Santorum wanting to ban bedroom behaviors, then you are nothing but a hypocrite and my original post stands (as you have just agreed to my point in the original post).

/frustration

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:49 PM

You’re just being disingenuous in order to weasel out of the corner you backed into.

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

How do you know I’m trying to insult you instead of debate?

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM

You’re either not self-aware, in which case a debate is pointless…or you’re just f**king with me, in which case debate is even more pointless. If there’s a third option, let me know.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Who said anything about morality being subjective?
ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 5:14 PM

If you reject any notion of recognizing a supreme deity, then morality instantly becomes TOTALLY subjective to each individual person’s idea of what it otta’ be.

Or . . . you should explain how “No it doesn’t . . . . . . .”

listens2glenn on February 10, 2012 at 8:03 PM

You’re either not self-aware, in which case a debate is pointless…or you’re just f**king with me, in which case debate is even more pointless. If there’s a third option, let me know.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM

You apparently do have reading comprehension issues, and are unaware of the logical fallacies you’ve sprayed all over this page. Just so you know, I was turning exactly what you said on me back to you in the first half of the 7:46 post (as designated by the “/MadisonConservative” I put at the end of the rant.

There is no point in continuing this…”debate”…as you have already agreed with my initial point (though you refuse to admit it). The information is there for everyone to read. I’m gonna watch a hockey game.

Have a good evening.

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Can I assume you are against rape then?

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:49 PM

The average person is against rape, just as the average person is against incest. A reasonable person seeking to discuss a matter would ask whether that person holds an unconventional opinion. An unreasonable person seeking to troll like a pro would tell you what you believe, even though they have no damned clue. So far, you’re not demonstrating that you’re the former.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Romney > Santorum > Gingrich.

Been my rankings for a while. Don’t see it changing.

therightwinger on February 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM

mine is
Santorum, Gingrich, my yellow lab/chow Shelly, Mittens …

that is in the primaries ….. General .. ABO …..

conservative tarheel on February 10, 2012 at 8:18 PM

mine is:
Santorum, Gingrich, my yellow lab/chow Shelly, Mittens …

that is in the primaries ….. General .. ABO …..
conservative tarheel on February 10, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Yeah . . . well, I need to have a better idea about your yellow lab’s qualifications.
What kind of pedigree does he/she/it have?

listens2glenn on February 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM

conservative tarheel on February 10, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Is your dog conservative…..or is he like mitt?

Tim_CA on February 10, 2012 at 8:35 PM

These.

Be prepared to lose all every independent, moderate, libertarian, 18-30 year old, and minority vote if this guy is the nominee. Be prepared to loses every purple state and key swing states to Obama. The hardcore evangelicals will not bail Santorum out there was clear evidence of that with his caucus wins with the record low turn out.

People are pissed at Obama and there’s a good chance we can steal a large part of his voter base this election but not with Santorum he will alienate the Goldwater small government republicans. Are you really prepared to give up the election for this guy?

1984 in real life on February 10, 2012 at 5:43 PM

No way is a GOP nominee taking an absolutist position on abortion going to defeat an incumbent President, particularly one with Obama’s formidible fundraising and campaigning skills. Not happening.

The campaign will be be on social issues. What else separates Obama and Santorum?
Obama is an union shill and anti right-to-work. Ditto for Santorum.
Obama defends the Medicare and Medicaid status-quo. Santorum was the guy creating it.
Obama is a big spender. So was Santorum.
Obama believes in federal solutions for education. Santorum enthusiastically supported big government programs like NCLB.
Obama believes in those uber-expensive “infra-structure bills”. Santorum voted for the Transportation Act, the Energy bill, etc.
Obama believes that the tax code should be used by politicians to pick winners and losers. So does Santorum.
The issues that separate both men are stuff like allowing the states to outlaw contraception. So obviously the campaign will revolve around those issues.

joana on February 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM

YehuditTX on February 10, 2012 at 8:52 PM

MJBrutus on February 10, 2012 at 5:22 PM and later…

That’s exactly what’s going to happen. To gauge the intensity of opposition he’ll face, we have Planned Parenthood and their hysterical Comrades v. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation.

That being said, I like and respect Santorum. I just don’t know that the number of blue collar “Reagan Dems” comprise anywhere near sufficient numbers to combat the wrath of Liberal women scorned (which seems to be the justification of his candidacy). Indeed, at the risk of sounding insensitive, aren’t those Dems basically just a dying breed of “Senior Citizens” at this point?

Buy Danish on February 10, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Haiku Guy on February 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Right idea, wrong format…;-)

affenhauer on February 10, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Tim_CA on February 10, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Mitt, Mutt – not much separating them…

affenhauer on February 10, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Sorry, this is just too juicy to pass up:

Too funny. I started with the assumption he was against incest and pointed out how his anger against Santorum’s quote about regulation bedroom behavior is hypocritical if he is for regulating incest or polygamy.

I know this is going to be hard for you to accept, but you have no right to do whatever/whoever you want in the bedroom (or anywhere else for that matter). If that were so, then laws against incest and polygamy would be in violation of your inherent rights as a human.

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 3:49 PM

The reply:

Incest is largely illegal because of the high risk of genetic problems in their offspring, and even the laws regarding that have been challenged by people like Eugene Volokh.
MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:32 PM

So, naturally I concluded that he was for regulating things if there were genetic issues and if so, then he is for regulating bedroom behavior the same as Santorum.

But now you are fine with getting involved in the bedroom because of some genetic problems. You’ve completely changed the argument. Basically you are now saying that if we can prove that homosexual activity can be physically or mentally harmful the government should regulate it?…Either that or you could realize you actually have already agreed that government should regulate certain bedroom and cultural behaviors
Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Somehow, I was wrong to assume he supported laws against incest and polygamy.

Did I say that? I don’t believe I did. What I said was that the justification for the law had more to do with a demonstrable effect, rather than a moral opposition. I didn’t say whether I supported or opposed it.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:10 PM

I point out that if he does support the laws, then he couldn’t logically be against Santorum’s statement (as I had pointed out in the initial post). I also say that since he is against the statement then one can assume he is against regulating incest:

You began the whole conversation by talking about how it was terribly statist of Santorum to regulate bedroom or cultural behavior. Yeah, it is absolutely absurd for me to conclude that you are against the regulation of bedroom/cultural behavior. But since you insist on playing games, why don’t you lay your cards on the table then ace? Are you for or against laws regulating incest and polygamy? If so, how can you claim to be opposed to the Rick Santorum quote you snarked in the first place?
Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

You’ll note that I did ask specifically for his position since he had been against, then for, then…neither…laws regulating incest. After asking, what do I get? This:

How many times are you going to tell me what my opinion is? You know, you could ask “do you think incest should be illegal?”, but you’re not interested in what I think, as evidenced by your incredible hard-on for trying to find some inconsistency in what I’m saying.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Perhaps the problem was inconsistency. Then we get this one:

Rape is a “bedroom behavior”. Bestiality is a “bedroom behavior”. Pedophilia is a “bedroom behavior”. Are you assuming I’m in favor of legalizing those, as well?

The answer is simply that you assume too much.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 7:39 PM

I’m still not sure where he lies on the issues and I’d better not assume, so (being a little snarky) I asked for what his opinion on rape is:

Can I assume you are against rape then? Or would that bring more accusations of making opinions for you?
Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 7:49 PM

The reply:

The average person is against rape, just as the average person is against incest.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Wait, what?! Didn’t I begin by assuming you were against incest?

I can only conclude that MadCon did not A) read carefully and got his wires crossed or B) didn’t understand the argument.

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Who are those ghouls standing behind Santorum? Oh crap, that is his family. So we went from Newt with the mannequin wife to the Addams Family.

echosyst on February 11, 2012 at 6:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4