Category Archives: Rick Santorum

Oh god, Ricky Santorum is back. Why?

Rick Santorum is like something to walk out of a Richard Condon novel. He claims to be a conservative, but then never misses a chance to praise his Marxist family members for people of principle. He claims to want to revitalize the economy, but advocates for trade barriers and economic models that are now a century out of date. He claims to be moral and horseeye santorumclearly cares only for himself and his own accumulation of wealth and power at the expense of others.   He is a walking version of liberal lies about conservatives. So when this man who views America as only a vessel for propagating religious extremism and collectivism came back into the lime light you can imagine the groan of exasperation I made.
Then I heard some of the unspeakably imbecilic things that Ricky actually started saying.

 

Let’s start with what is not his most egregious argument, but at least the one that hits the closest to home. This idiot is so delusional he claims that if he had won the nomination he would have won. So let’s just ignore the fact that Romney got the largest portion of general public of any Republican in the last few decades , let’s ignore that if Romney, a man who doesn’t have a racist or sexist bone in his body could fall victim to false claims of a bullying and a war on women that a lunatic who almost used the N word on film and who views women in such high regard that he said he would not allow his adult daughter have an abortion (because, in Ricky’s mind women are just property) would have been a very easy target. Let’s ignore that he with only 2 exceptions, the only states he won in the primary were open primary states where Democrats voted en masse to get the weakest candidate in. Let’s ignore that moderates loathed this man (and rightfully so).  No, Ricky says that Obama’s minions told him they were afraid of him and Rick is just dumb enough to have believed them…no Rick they loved you, they loved that you had no class, were willing to repeat any lie, smear any Republican, and drag your party down if you couldn’t get the White House.   You’re a Democrat’s dream. Ricky they wanted you as the candidate so badly I can only conclude they have something on you that would make you the easiest person in the universe to defeat…now my imagination goes to compromising photos of you and someone else, maybe in some way related to Ricky’s fashion sense, his constant flamboyant hand gestures, his clear overcompensation in the number of children he has, and the rampant homophobia (you know the kind that only comes from someone who has trouble admitting something)…but I don’t know for sure. That or they’ve spent five minutes looking at you put your foot in your mouth more than a drunken Joe Biden…either way, you are a liberal’s dream candidate. Completely un-electable, a stain on the Republican party with moderates, and even if by some act of Satan you actually got in then they would still have all their big government plans put into place by you.

 

 

But he continues to declare things like “Republicans needed to connect with Americans who did not like President Barack Obama during the 2012 election but could not bring themselves to vote for Mitt Romney.” Really Ricky? Who was that? I have never seen any statistical proof of all the voters that idiots like Levin claim to have stayed home…and of the people who voted for Obama even though if they were dissatisfied with his job, ignoring the fact that there are always people who give contradictory answers (when talking about Rick Santorum logic, you have to ignore a lot of facts), that would have switched the vote by only about 2%…and Obama still would have won. If you’re going to comment on things, Rick learn to read at any level because your gross ignorance of, well, everything under the sun is getting really old.

 

The fact of the matter is that only one thing exceeds Rick Santorum’s complete uselessness as a human being when it comes to understanding elections…and that would be his understanding of economics…which we’ll deal with over on Elementary Politics

 

2 Comments

Filed under Economics, Election 2012, Elections, People Are Stupid, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum’s Perverted View of America

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”—Thomas Jefferson (Notice the use of the singular “mind” and “man”…if he had meant society he would have said “minds of men” but rather this is a statement against tyranny over even a single individual…yes he was a little lax on fulfilling that depending on the complexion of the individual in question…but I’m going for a philosophical concepts here, not the fact Jefferson had personal issues.)

So  uber-liberal and Christian Sharia supporter Rick “I will trample every freedom history has ever known to establish my theocracy” Santorum seem to be back in the press with a new book and vain desire to be the center of attention.  Now while I comb over some of his newer garbage and lies it might be helpful to remember why Rick Santorum is literally the walking embodiment of everything wrong with the Republican party, the reason we lose elections, the reason we have driven away libertarians and moderates, and the godsend of liberals and progressive everywhere.

Putting the “Fun” back into psychotic fundamentalism

So let’s take a look at Rick Santorum’s older book, It takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good:

“It wasn’t a freedom that celebrated the individual above society. It wasn’t a freedom that gave men and women blanket permission to check in and out of society whenever they wanted. It wasn’t the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be. It wasn’t even the freedom to be left alone, with no obligations to the people we know and to the people we don’t yet know. The Constitutional Convention’s freedom, American’s traditional freedom–or the better word, as I defined it earlier, liberty–was a selfless freedom, freedom for the sake of something greater or higher than the self. For our founders, this liberty was defined and defended in the context of our Judeo-Christian understanding of humanity. Often, in fact, American liberty meant the freedom to attend to one’s duties–duties to God, to family, and to neighbors. Our founders were in the business of constructing a nation, a political community. No-Fault Freedom, a freedom from every tie and duty, provides no basis for that project: it is a principle of division and social deconstruction.” (44)

Okay this is perhaps more frightening than anything I have seen Obama say.  Granted Obama’s actions are those of a petty banana republic dictator trying to create a fascist state…but he’s an idiot and doesn’t do it well.  Most notably he can’t come out and defend his statist collectivist views.  But here we have Rick Santorum doing that very articulately.

Let’s take this monstrous evil apart bit by bit.

It wasn’t a freedom that celebrated the individual above society.

 

Yes the Founding Fathers believed in none of that tripe that said individuals “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Oh wait.  Notice how liberty is joined with the pursuit of Happiness.  Happiness (capital H) is an Aristotelian concept that an individual has reached the completion and fulfillment of their life through the expression of personal virtue, not through the collectivist service to virtue that Santorum suggests here.  A society cannot pursue Happiness, only an individual can.  A society cannot have a right to life, only an individual can.  But, Santorum wants you to believe that Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin who worked on the first draft put a social right in between two individual ones.  And if you believe that one I have a lovely bridge to sell you.   Further, pursuit of Happiness is an expansion of John Locke’s right to property (his original rights were the right to life, liberty and property and no one in their right mind ever thought Locke was talking about social rights not individual one).  If, as Santorum dishonestly suggests, the Founders held society above the individual then that would mean the right to pursue Happiness as a more evolved idea of property, was only for society, which would mean that property should only be held by society and not the individual….and you wonder why I consider Santorum a filthy socialist?

And of course the Founders held the good of society above the good of the individual.  Which is none of them ever broke any of the laws that were for the good society for personal gain—so long as you ignore that John Hancock made a fortune as a smuggler.  And if you put the good of society ahead above the individual then you would see the need to pay off the debts incurred by a massive war fought partly to defend you from the French and not complain about the numerous taxes levied to pay off that debt…oh wait no they would rather risk “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” than pay those taxes.  By the way Rick, honor is also a personal virtue.

Notice also some of their complaints

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

All of those are actions by the British Government attempting to bring about the “public good” but at the expense of personal liberties.  Notice Rick, how the individual is not being sacrificed for the good of the whole by the Founding Fathers.

Notice also phrases like “To secure the public good and private rights” from Federalist 10 by Madison, which seems to place the individual on equal, not subservient, value to the public good…you know kind of like how Christ put the individual on equal footing to everyone else when he quoted Leviticus and said “Love your neighbor as you would love yourself.”  Ignorant, and evil, collectivists like Santorum also seem to miss the second part.  But I shouldn’t expect someone as zealously passionate about his religion to actually read the book they claim to follow.

It wasn’t a freedom that gave men and women blanket permission to check in and out of society whenever they wanted.

As Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington did quite often.  And stop me if I’m wrong but wasn’t America founded by people who wanted to check out of society and start a new one, wasn’t this nation founded by people who wanted to check out of the society of Great Britain, wasn’t westward expansion driven by rugged individuals who wanted to check out of society and go west (which was, last time I checked part of the Founding Father’s vision).

 It wasn’t the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be.

Which I’m sure is why Jefferson said “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”  It might be easy to assume Jefferson held the attitude to all private actions that didn’t hurt anyone.

Or try this one from their contemporaries Adam Smith

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”

Selfishness is what defines human progress.  But Santorum wants to think in the very plebian and uneducated way of sin and virtue.  Selfishness and Selflessness.  It shows that he had done little to any study of the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, nor does he know anything about his own Catholic doctrines…as study in either would lead him back to Aristotle who saw each virtue to have two vices not one (but you know when I looked up Santorum’s education, it came from the Dickenson School of Law, named after John Dickenson, a man so morally bankrupt that he is the only person who had the chance to sign both The Declaration of Independence AND The Constitution AND refused to sign both.  It’s good to see Santorum is keeping up with that legacy of opposing what is right and good and true).  But back to Aristotelian virtue.  It is not a choice between selfish and selfless it a choice between the virtue of rational self-interest and the vices of narcissism and selflessness.  Rational self-interest is where one puts ones needs, wants, and desires first but not at the expense of others, where one’s rights are on equal foot with the rights of others, and where we treat others with compassion, not just because we have the duty to them, but because it makes us feel good.  Santorum confuses selfishness, caring about your own concerns, with narcissism where you care ONLY about you and damn how others are affected by your actions (one might say this is the behavior of a sociopath, but even most high-functioning sociopaths take the needs of others into consideration as a means to their ends…so it’s hard to find a lot of examples of this particular evil.  Most evils in the world are caused more by short sightedness and ignorance, not by narcissism).  Strangely however, Santorum’s constant grabs for power at the expense of civilization itself if he ever got power is miraculously excluded.

 It wasn’t even the freedom to be left alone, with no obligations to the people we know and to the people we don’t yet know.

I think he is trying to pervert Edmund Burke’s definition of society (and by extension) as “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”  But a partnership is not an obligation.  The partnership Burke spoke of was to not view government as a joint stock company like short sighted East India Trading Company he had to deal with (the GM of it’s time) which was designed only to make a quick buck, what he was talking about was that society and law should be made with the long term good in mind.  That we should not solve our problems by heaping problems on future generations.  But if it is trying to pervert Burke he forgets that Burke was probably America’s chief proponent in Britain of our argument to King George III and Parliament that said we have a God-given right to be left alone when we choose so and our only obligation to you, our parent country and society, is to “hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”

There are however no “obligations” or “duties” in this, only the basic ethics to not intentionally harm others (i.e. future generations) but we have no obligations other than the ethical injunction to not maliciously and unjustly harm others.  Yes our Happiness depends on maintaining healthy friendships, but our Happiness is a duty only to ourselves. We are the ends of our own life, not the means for which society can use to achieve it’s ends.

It is the freedom to be left alone.  Who the hell does this man thinks made this nation?  A bunch of people who just sat in society and always worked in it or those who constantly moved west when they got tired of society.  Don’t like society, move to America.  Don’t like the first colonies’ society, move West.  Don’t like the colonies society, cross the Appalachians.  Not thrilled with the society of the new Union, cross the Mississippi. So on and so on.  Don’t like the state you live in, move to another. Don’t like the way things are done, create something new.

Oh and I hate to make this observation, but I have never in my life known a person with an IQ over 110 who doesn’t long for at least some point of each day where they have the freedom to be left alone, who doesn’t want time with their own thoughts…who wouldn’t yearn for days to be left alone if not longer…what does it say about a man who not only doesn’t want that freedom, doesn’t understand it, but actually wants to outlaw it?

The Founders would have agreed with their contemporary Adam Smith that our obligation is to ourselves and to reason because through these two things naturally develop empathy and compassion…and without a rational self-interest there can be no empathy, compassion or ethical behavior.  And I don’t think there was enough short sighted idiocy in all 13 colonies to make them agree with this disgrace of an American named Santorum.

The Constitutional Convention’s freedom, American’s traditional freedom–or the better word, as I defined it earlier, liberty–was a selfless freedom, freedom for the sake of something greater or higher than the self.

Yes, they were after something higher than one person: property and property rights.  And the Happiness of the individual.

I don’t know how selfless it was, as it was very much for the defense of personal property and the right to shoot anyone, be they an individual or a tyrannical government, who dared think they could take your hard earned property…but it was for something greater because they knew that if you could not control your own fate through work, property and achievement there could be no Happiness.

But this man clearly doesn’t believe in Happiness…no, like a good little Kantian he only believes in duty and obligation.  (Please, remember that Kant is the philosophical basis for Communism and Nazism).

 For our founders, this liberty was defined and defended in the context of our Judeo-Christian understanding of humanity.

Could someone please tell me what Judeo-Christian values are?

Would that be the Enlightenment/Thomist-Aristotlian view each person was personally responsible for themselves.  Perhaps the Puritan/Protestant view that salvation of self was a personal matter and that each person is saved or damned based only on their own merits as an individual.  Couldn’t be the Unitarian view that Franklin and both John and Abigail Adams had that took that Protestant view of individual relationship to God even further and saw it not only as personal but private as well.

Perhaps it might be the in line with the view of the Bill of the Rights of Englishmen that more or less implied that since we can’t possibly know the mind of God we’re not going to legislate in such a way that suggests one religion is more right over another….you know one of those British things that the Founding Fathers actually wanted to continue.  Shame you don’t want to continue that Rick.

Might it be that Judeo-Christian understanding of humanity that a Catholic like you should know, that of St. Thomas Aquinas, who in the Summa Theologica stated that “human law does not prohibit every vice from which virtuous men abstain, but only the more serious ones from which the majority can abstain, especially those that harm others and which must be prohibited for human society to survive such as homicide, theft and the life.”  Hmm…even Thomas Aquinas seems to recognize the importance of personal property rights (and this was still before the only ethical means of economic dealing, laissez-faire capitalism, had really been codified in both law and practice)…shame a man from 1200 is centuries ahead of Rick Santorum (but frankly people in 500 BCE were centuries ahead of Santorum).

Often, in fact, American liberty meant the freedom to attend to one’s duties–duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.

No you have a duty to yourself.  If we are made in God’s image then there is nothing higher we can serve than our self, our reason and intellect which makes us the equals of God if we choose to use them, our free will which according to the Christianity you claim to follow is something no other being in existence has been given.  Yes, if we are being true to ourselves, our reason and our will we will be compassionate and kind to others and wish them the best and help them when we can, but because “love [them] as we love [ourselves]” not because “we love them more than we love ourselves” (I seem to not remember that little distinction in the Bible).

 

Duty, a fascinating word.  As in duty based ethics.  The ethical system of fascists and communists everywhere.  Thank God the Founding Fathers were versed in logical people like Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke and Adam Smith who recognized that it was self interest that caused people to be good and the goal of society to provide the tools to become a good person if they choose to be (but never forcing a person who is not harming others to be something that they do not choose to be)—they thankfully never gave into the evils that the word duty has created other the course of history.

Sad they didn’t have the DSM-IV around yet…they could have also looked up Dependent personality disorder.  (Which is pretty much the opposite of a narcissistic personality disorder, which is apparently what Santorum thinks anyone has if they have even the smallest concern for their own well-being).

 Our founders were in the business of constructing a nation, a political community.

This is perhaps the only correct sentence in this quote.  Of course the Founders thought of it as one joined together by mutual consent rather than forced upon people.  A society of individuals joined in common cause, not a group of slaves with duties to carry out.

No-Fault Freedom, a freedom from every tie and duty, provides no basis for that project: it is a principle of division and social deconstruction.

I will not disagree that people are often at their best when they are involved in society and working to better it (there are of course numerous exceptions, which Santorum might have heard about if he ever actually read something)…but it only yields something good for everyone when it is done by choice with the goal of personal fulfillment being equal or higher than the wanting to do good for others.

The point of society is to produce the highest good and the highest good is personal individual Happiness.  Granted the best society is the one that allows (not brings, because Happiness can only be achieved, never given) for the most people to reach that Happiness…but that Happiness can only be achieved in a society free of preposterous concept of duty…individuals are good by nature and choose freely to help others, they do not need moral obligations to enslave them to do so.  Rick Santorum fails to realize this, and fails to realize everything that is good in this nation.

***

British historian Lord Acton observed, “Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right to do what we ought.”

What Santorum insanely proposes here is that “Liberty is not the right to do what our reason tells us we ought, but the obligation to be enslaved to invented obligations to one man’s narrow definition of God and to everyone else in society of others. “

Which sounds like one the Founding Father’s actually supported…and which one do you think Adams, Hamilton, Washington, and Jefferson would be drawing lots as to who got to shoot Ricky for treason?

This man and his vile beliefs is everything wrong with the Republican party.  It is not conservative, but it taints the banner of conservatism by claiming to be so.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Conservative, Happiness, Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum. Psychopath or idiot? You decide.

So over the weekend Santorum claimed that Romney will not get 1144 delegate and this whole thing will go to a brokered convention (where this idiot seriously believes he’ll get the nomination).

So, I think the fact that it’s likely in my opinion to go to a convention.
 
I think it’s increasingly likely, not certain, but increasingly likely, actually is a good thing for the Republican Party, and a good thing for our chances in the Fall.

Uh-huh. Is that because he won a victory in Louisiana and a net gain of five whole delegates? I hate to tell him this but while we have nothing this week we have Wisconsin (Romney +13), Maryland (no poll data, but it’s hideously unlikely to go to Santorum based on demographics) and D.C. (where once again Santorum showed his truly stellar ability to handle the responsibilities of being a chief executive and failed to even make the ballot…seriously two states he didn’t qualify for, one of them the state he lives in, and two states he didn’t submit a full slate of delegates. I’ve never heard of a campaign so incompetent. I wonder how long President Santorum will go before someone tells him he forgot to fill 3 cabinet positions?) Which, on a winner take all system would mean that Romney would have a gain (net and gross) of 100 delegates.

Now while Santorum doesn’t trust that iffy math stuff, I did see one Santorum supporter try to point out that there is no true winner take all system with any of the states. I’m not going to link the article to spare you their truly bad logic but let’s deal with that semi-intelligent argument.
There are very few states who have the vast majority of the their delegates as winner take all. In fact, as everyone tracking the delegates knows, every state comes with 3 RNC officials who are not bound by their states’ votes. Okay fair enough. And many of the supposedly winner-take-all states, like California, have some of their delegates as a state-wide winner take all and majority of their delegates tied to winner-take-all or proportional elections in congressional districts. This means that even though Romney is up 20 points in “winner-take-all” California, Santorum will probably come out with a dozen delegates from California after all.

But let’s look at how the race actually shapes up. According to RealClearPolitics Romney currently has 565 delegates. Of all the states that have already voted 1187 delegates were up for grabs and 1028 have been awarded (which means 159 are unbound and still up for grabs…keep this number in mind it will be sort of relevant later.

Now using the Washington Post’s more detailed description of how all the states allocate their delegates I’ve pulled up this chart with some healthy guesstimates on how Romney will fair in all of these states. (Pennsylvania and Indiana have delegates chosen by the State Party itself and I believe that these favor Romney in the extreme. Nebraska delegates are assigned by the party who use the primary as a reference…whatever that means. And Montana like Missouri delegates are unbound).


Now, a word on my logic. The states with polls I based mostly on those polls, with I would say a conservative estimate of Romney’s gains. The states without polls, I believe it was safe to assume Maryland, DC, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Utah are in the Romney camp. I seriously underestimated Romney’s odds in the South and Midwest, making sure that the percentage of delegates was well below his average in those states from those areas that have already voted. This projection rather preposterously assumes that Romney will get NOTHING from Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and none of the popularly elected delegates from Pennsylvania.

This projection gives Romney another 600 throughout the rest of the primary. Added to the 565 he already has…that makes for a Grand Total of…drum roll please…One-Thousand-One-Hundred-Sixty-Five! Which I believe is 21 over 1144.

Now I’m sure you could argue that my number might be overestimating how Romney will perform in this or that state. Okay, fair enough. But first is that over and above what he will gain from Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania? Unlikely. And even if it is, remember I said I said from the states that have voted there are still 159. Now some of these are from Missouri which voted heavily for Santorum…but it would be silly to think that Ricky is going to get all of them. Romney has been averaging 54% of delegates (and doing even better with the RNC officials which most of these votes are) so it would be safe to say that he will get 50 of those as well. So for this to be a brokered convention Rick would have to knock 71 delegates away from Romney. Go on look at that chart…where is he going to do that?

Some other things to consider. Each week Romney’s numbers keep going up. He’s running double digit leads in Gallup, Rasmussen, CBS polls. After his blowout on April 3rd those numbers are going to go higher. Now Santorum supporters keep banging the empty-headed drum of “If Newt would just get out of the race”…except Gallup actually looked into that…it would appear that Newt voters are more or less split down the middle with half having Romney as their second choice and half backing two lame horses and picking Santorum as their second choice. (Actually since most Santorum supporters are merely anti-Mormon bigots, it would make Newt a more viable candidate for Rick to drop out). So no matter what happens Romney is going to keep being in a better and better position. This will have a dual of effect of some people jumping on the bandwagon (I don’t get it, but it does happen) and Santorum voters getting discouraged and becoming more likely to stay home during the primary. With both, the vote keeps skewing more and more towards Romney…thus making finding those 71 net delegates to take from Romney a task so hopeless Don Quixote and Sisyphus would just give up.

But that doesn’t stop Rick. No. He keeps going on and never backing down. He says quite point blank that Obama is better then denies saying exactly what he said. Then he says Romney is the worst candidate (apparently Rick doesn’t own a mirror) and this time says that it’s “bullshit” to ask him why he said what he said (and he did say it). And in amongst all of this there is the claim that the media is biased in favor of Romney. Would that be right-wing media? You know with Rush, Beck, Hannity, Gretta, Levin, Reagan and Malkin so solidly in your camp they repeat your lies without question? Or the left-wing media which ignores that you said Protestants were servants of Satan, that you admired Jerry Sandusky AFTER his first accusation of child molestation, that if your daughter was raped and got pregnant from that terrible event it would be a “Gift from God,” that you actually did speculate on states outlawing contraceptives, that you clapped when someone suggested all non-Christians leave America, that you said women were not fit for combat, and in your book stated you hate everything America stands for. If Romney had said half of those things they would be run for hours every day for weeks on end until he had to resign in shame…but you Ricky, you get a pass (or you would until you were the nominee when the big guns come out and blow you out of the water…but as it’s impossible for you to win, you get a pass). The media already pick Romney apart, eager to take any of his quotes out of context to try and hit him. You have full statements which make me question your sanity and I have to dig to find some of them. And you think the media is backing Romney? Are you stupid or just crazy?

Probably crazy as he gets more outrageous every single day.

Watching Santorum’s campaign is like watching The Caine Mutiny where Humphrey Bogart’s character, Commander Queeg, has a complete mental breakdown while on the stand during the court-martial of officers for raising a very justified mutiny against him.

The only difference is that halfway through his breakdown Queeg realized how crazy he sounded. Not only has Santorum not realized what a nutjob he is, but his acolytes haven’t figured out that their holy messiah is a psychopath yet either.

3 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum

Ayatollah Rick Santorum’s war against filthy non-Christians

“And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man. If you can do one, you can do the other. Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we’ll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!” –Henry Drummond Inherit the Wind

Okay the title is intentionally hyperbolic…but I had to get your attention somehow.

But, frighteningly, it’s only mildly hyperbolic.

So over the weekend, after making us all wish we could burn out our eyes with images of his flabby form, Rick attended a rally and was introduced by pastor Dennis Terry in, what has to be the most surreal speech I have ever seen given to introduce a Presidential candidate.

“I don’t care what the liberals say, I don’t care what the naysayers say, this country was founded as a Christian nation, The god of Abraham, the god of Isaac. There’s only one god, there’s only one god and his name is Jesus.”

“I’m, listen to me, if you don’t believe as I say you don’t love America and you don’t like the way we tell you to do things, I’ve got one thing to say. GET OUT.

“We don’t worship Buddha. I said we don’t worship Buddha. We don’t worship Mohammed. We don’t worship Allah. We worship god. We worship god’s son Jesus Christ. “[emphasis added]

I’m just really shocked to hear Rick Santorum, a man who implied that all Protestants are in league with the devil, endorsing something like this. Now in his defense, Rick, possibly my least favorite bigot in the nation right now, has said he is not responsible for what other people say but (1) you are responsible when they’re introducing you, and (2) you are clearly clapping in the video and not hanging your head, shaking it thinking “dear god what have I gotten myself into”…you know as any sane human would be doing at that point. So your defense, Ricky, is nothing but the usual bunch of lies…which is really all you have. I really don’t know which I hate more your bleeding heart liberal economics or your psychotic religious beliefs, Rick, but you are clearly the worst of all possible combinations of positions.

So let’s start with the words that Rick Santorum clearly agrees with, the words that clearly advocate for a single minded intolerant theocracy. The words that are bigoted, close-minded, and let’s not forget vaguely anti-Semitic (which means Romney might not have Ron Paul as his VP, but Rick might).

“I’m, listen to me, if you don’t believe as I say you don’t love America and you don’t like the way we tell you to do things, I’ve got one thing to say. GET OUT.”

You know if this had been followed by a statement of we do things here by civil and uncivil discourse…debate, discourse, and screaming our bloody heads off with insults…but not with violence and not with mob behavior then the call to get out might have been okay. If that statement had been followed by a condemnation of terrorism and violence and if you embrace those things you have no business in this country, that might have been appropriately hyperbolic. But what was it followed by “We don’t worship Buddha.” That’s right because the eightfold path is just such a Satanic way…and let’s just ignore the fact that Buddhist don’t actually worship Buddha, it’s more of the relationship between Catholics and saints in their relationship, calling on for help and guidance but not actually worshipping. No let’s just say that all other religions are not welcomed in the U.S. Yes because a nation which has a Constitutional law guaranteeing the freedom of religion is going to ban all religions other than Christianity. As a pagan I feel so comfortable about a Rick Santorum presidency. Because I remember all those sermons Jesus preached against Roman gods (you remember how he told the pagan Roman guard to go fuck himself when the guard pleaded for his servant, don’t you?), and the Jewish god, and all those sermons where he told the Jews that they must worship him and him alone. I clearly remember them in the Book of…the book of…chapter….oh well I’m sure they’re in there. After all Santorum and pastor Terry wouldn’t be basing their beliefs on only their small-minded ignorant prejudices, there must be scriptural backing for it. Just poor pagan me who has read the Bible several times must be forgetting those passages where Jesus told you to hate all who had different religious opinions…like that time when he told his followers to despise the group the ancient Jews had the most theological disagreements with, the Samaritans. There certainly must be a story in the Bible where he tells his followers to treat Samaritans as outsiders and others who deserve nothing but hatred. I’m sure of it.

But let’s move on.

“I don’t care what the naysayers say, this country was founded as a Christian nation.”

Really? Let’s look at the Founding. You know the Declaration of Independence. Written by Deist Thomas Jefferson, you know the guy who thought so highly of the Bible he felt it could use a little editing (down to about 20 pages) to get rid of all the useless stuff. But I’m sure a semi-educated response would respond that in reality the Declaration, while penned by Jefferson was the result of heavy discussion and editing by a committee of five people. Roger Sherman, Philip Livingston, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. Now Livingston, a Presbyterian, and Sheramn, a Congregationalist were clearly Christians…but Franklin, a Deist, and Adams, a Unitarian, the two who probably had the most influence on the document, both doubted the divinity of Christ (Adams even signing a treaty stating “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” that the Senate confirmed, that would be the 6th Senate still filled with many Founders…the same treaty Tripoli later broke and was used as the justification for Jefferson’s preemptive strike against the Barbary Pirates). Now while they may have doubted the divinity of Christ they did not doubt the necessity of both religion and spirituality but were not so close minded as to believe only one version of religion was all that should be allowed.

But it was only these three guys right? Well no. President of the Continental Congress (and first president under the Articles of Confederation) John Hancock and General and First President George Washington were both Freemasons…which means that while they may have been Episcopalians they would also not be restricted by any close-minded view that only their religion counted. If such a view was abhorrent to the Founding Fathers, one wonders why twice they would put their first president under two constitutions as a man who believed in the truth of all religions. (Oh, Chief Justice John Marshall, whose influence in creating a capitalistic system of laws cannot be overstated, was also a Freemason, but I’m sure the Senate, filled with Founding Fathers was opposed to such open minded beliefs when they confirmed him).

Were the majority of them Christian? Certainly. But none of them were the close-minded bigots that pastor Dennis Terry and Rick Santorum (D) have shown themselves to be. They believed in God back in those days, and weren’t all that particular about the name or the form of worship you had back then.

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”—Thomas Jefferson…I’m sure Jefferson was advocating for only a Christian nation where there is only one God with that line.

But I’m sure they would have all supported the small minded nature of demanding all non-Christians leave America because, clearly, they have no place here. And I’m sure after pagans and Jews and non-believers are either deported or solved through some other kind of solution with a certain finality to it, that Mormons and Catholics and Episcopalians are next. Then I’m sure other Protestant denominations need to go. I’m sure that is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the First Amendment and state bills guaranteeing freedom of religion. Well I’m not sure of it, but I think Rick Santorum is.

We could go over the rest of this lunatic’s speech. I could tear every single phrase apart and show him to beyond the shadow of a doubt a psychopathic, vicious, evil and ignorant man whose vile knows no conscience, humanity or intelligence until you would be convinced that clearly Sherman didn’t go far enough on his march to the sea if it lead to even a minority in the South that behaved like this. I could, but what’s the point.

…..

Oh, and if you don’t believe that Rick is guided a little too heavily by religion, then listen to this little quote where he basically claims that God himself speaks to Rick Santorum.

“I don’t believe life begins at conception, I know life begins at conception.”

 

Whenever anyone claims to know something that can only be known to God…they’re either a prophet or a psychopath. Let’s guess which one Rick Santorum is.

2 Comments

Filed under Death, Election 2012, Faith, Fear, Founding, Free Will, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Rick Santorum, Spirituality, Stupid liberal quote of the day

More stupid and evil quotes from Santorum…

Arroyo: Now you’ve conceded that you can’t win the majority of the delegates, right?

Rick Santorum: No. I haven’t conceded that at all. I think we can win the majority of the delegates. That’s phony Romney math.

You think you can win the majority of the delegates Rick, but you and your ignorant followers are the only ones. You’ve been averaging 25% of the delegates and you need 70% of those left. Even Don Quixote would look at you and say “I said impossible dream, not incredibly stupid denial of reality and all existence drug induced delusion.”

I don’t usually listen to talk radio, but I do have some respect for Laura Ingram…but whoever this idiot is sitting in for her gives hacks a bad name by letting Santorum, who is running for the position of Ayatollah of America, get away with so many idiotic statements and outright lies.

Where to begin?

“I would say just the opposite. I think what people don’t realize is as soon as we get a nominee, the Obama Administration, the Obama campaign—as well as all of the national media—will turn its guns on whoever our nominee is. And those guns will be trained on someone who will basically be out of money, having just gotten out of these primaries. Let’s assume that tomorrow everybody drops out and we have one nominee. Starting the next day the media will train all of their guns, as well as President Obama, on whoever that nominee is. Right now they can’t focus on anybody. I make this argument, I’ve made this argument from the beginning: The longer this argument goes the better it is for us because there’s less opportunity for the media to pound the heck out of our nominee.”

So his argument is that as long as there isn’t a nominee Obama has no one to attack. So either he’s mentally impaired and hasn’t actually caught onto the fact that Obama is already running attack ads against Romney, and doing everything to help Santorum become the nominee or he’s just a pathological liar. (Actually it’s option 3: Both). Rick is a moron’s moron. Rather than only having Obama attacking Romney, a fight we all know Obama is going to lose…but Obama, Santorum and Newt attacking Romney is better than just Obama attacking him? Strategic thinking like this would make for fascinating foreign policy “We can’t support Britain during the Blitz because that would only encourage Germany to attack them.” “We can’t continue to give Taiwan military support because siding with them will only encourage China to invade.” “We can’t back Israel because as long as we turn our back on them Iran will not do anything.”

Rick do you know why they’re attacking Romney now and not attacking you? Because if you were the nominee it would take roughly, I don’t, 48 hours to have the majority of the public demanding your head on a pike. They just have to play the “Protestants are the servants of Satan clip” and “if my daughter was raped, the child would be a gift from God” speeches. You have said, perhaps some of the dumbest things in the history of politics. They’re not targeting you because they know that while most of us could get liquored up and vote for McCain, we would need a few shot of tequila beyond fatal alcohol poisoning before we could be dumb enough to vote for you, someone who wants big government in the social arena and big government in economics.
I also love how he says a long campaign will drain the candidates’ resources financially….but a long primary won’t? Do you really want to trust the budget to a man who doesn’t understand that money spent in a primary is the same money you’d be spending in a general election. Of course one could reasonably mention that in a general election you aren’t splitting the Republican fundraising between three candidates, but again that bit of blindingly obvious reasoning would once again show Santorum to be a stupid jackass.

He also mentions that he thinks he can win, and I’ll deal with his, to put it politely, shit-for-brains plan to win the convention later, but did you also notice how he says he plans to make sure that Romney “hobbles into the convention, having lost a bunch of the last primary states and not shown his ability close the deal.” So he’s a weak candidate because he won’t be able to close the deal…but you’re a strong candidate because you can’t get anywhere near that mark. I’m very confused. Oh by the way those last primary states Romney is going to lose according to Santorum include California (Romney +20), New Jersey (Romney +5), Montana (Ron Paul might do well, but Santorum’s big government certainly won’t), New Mexico (I hope Ricky goes there and tells them they all have to learn English too, it will be fun to watch that reaction at the polls) and the last primary before the convention…Utah. Who thinks Romney is going to lose Utah? Ignoring religion, Romney is the man who made the Olympics bring their state millions of dollars and allowed their scandal over that thing to be forgotten. Yeah I’m sure he’s going to have a real hard fight to win Utah. One must wonder how much LSD Santorum is taking on a daily basis.

But in the mean time he’s looking to the next two races…
He’s heading to Puerto Rico…
To tell a territory that has voted 4 times not to become a state that if they want to become a state they have to learn English. And what does he do when he finds out they don’t want to be a state? He doubles down and tells them they still need to learn English… I’m all for English only here in the 50 states…but I don’t go down to Mexico and tell them they need to learn English there. Oh it will be a Happy St. Patrick’s Day for the Team Romney.

He’s heading To Louisiana
One it’s a closed primary, so there goes a third of his voters. Two…well, I have problems spending money on anything, and I mean ANYTHING, at the federal level…but if it’s a choice between the bridge to nowhere (Sarah Palin’s pet project) or sending said money to Katrina victims. Oooh tough call.

“Gov. Romney, for example, right now he’s spending very little money in Mississippi and Alabama.” Santorum said that Tuesday morning. You can hear him yourself say that. Notice however that Tuesday night he said he won in spite of all the money Romney spent. Yes you could point to the fact that Santorum goes into discussion of SuperPACS…but doesn’t he have his own SuperPAC…can’t they spend as much? No? You mean Santorum can’t get anyone with money to back him? You think if they despise him now they’re suddenly going to show up in August to back his pro-union, pro-loop hole, pro-spending economic plan? No I didn’t think so either.

“Mitt Romney has raised about as much money as he ever thought he could raise.” That would of course be several time the amount that you’ve raised Ricky.

Oh but wait. Let’s not forget that Santorum actually thinks he can win and that we’re lying when we say Romney is inevitable. Of course that is because we’re using, in your words, “phony Romney math.” That would be the math that says 2+2=4. I know your special pixy dust power Obama/Santorum math comes out differently. But trust me Ricky, Romney has this in the bag and you would need an act of God to support you…and I hate to tell you this, God is not the close-minded, bigoted, evil and stupid person you are (he probably loves you, no accounting for taste, but I doubt he’s going to pull out a miracle for you).

And then there is how he views the convention. “Iowa we finished with 25% of the vote; we’re probably going to get three times that number of delegates [from Iowa].” He is right that Iowa is a nonbinding caucus and thus it could happen…although Iowa has 28 delegates, so that’s what 21 delegates. According to RealClearPolitics there are 368 delegates from non-binding states…let’s say he got them all, even in states we haven’t yet had a vote…then that would give him a grand total (combined with what he’s won already) around 508 delegates, still, you know, less than half of what he needs. Wow. He would still need to win 50% of the remaining delegates and he’s been averaging about 25%…and he’s behind in almost every winner-take-all state (if you assume Romney picks up the winner-take-all states he’s currently ahead in, then Santorum needs to win about 75% of those delegates in proportional state…) But here’s the problem, those non-binding people are Republican Party delegates, i.e. they’re politicians and businessmen. The average GOP delegate is 54 years old, college educated, and makes over $100,000 all groups Romney kills Santorum in EVERY exit poll. Also 30% of delegates are women and 30% are Catholic, groups Santorum repeatedly loses. Santorum talks a nice game, but the reality is that those unbound delegates are actually his enemy not his friend. Also in his little warped mind he thinks that if he can stop Romney from getting the 1144 delegates needed (most projections now have Romney going in with 1200-1500, so dream on Ricky) he thinks that he can win on a second ballot. That would mean that all of the delegates Romney has selected in states where he had to submit slates of delegates he would have to have (after 4 years of planning) picked people in a rush without vetting them who might betray him. Unlikely. It’s far more likely that Santorum who can’t even find enough people to submit in states as his delegates picked some who will defect. Not to mention that I think Ron Paul delegates will have a much deeper hatred of Santorum than of Romney…and Newt supporters that defect are just as likely to hate Santorum more than Romney. So even if the mathematically unlikely happened and this did go to a second or third ballot, it’s actually stacked against Ayatollah Santorum.

I also like how he said he would protest Arizona and Florida for making their votes winner take all. It makes it sound like this will end up giving him more delegates. It won’t. Arizona and Florida have already been penalized by this move and had half their delegates (all of which went for Romney), so they are already playing by the rules since this was the penalty they knew about and it has been enforced. But let’s say he does go forward and challenges this, for two states where Romney won big and Santorum did very badly…under a full delegate count and proportional distribution Romney gets EVEN MORE delegates! Way to go Rick, that’s some real good planning you have there. Is your policy to stop Iran to ship them refined uranium? Maybe your plan to stop hunger is to burn crops? The obscene stupidity of this man is just endless.

Oh speaking of obscene…don’t forget Rick will be making banning ALL internet porn a hallmark of his administration…because there weren’t any other issues we needed to worry about.

But the real question is who is the True Conservative?

And notice how Rick Santorum judges if you’re a conservative or not. On social issues and ONLY social issues…I’m convinced if you could find a quote of Marx stating he was against abortion and gays, Rick would declare Karl a great conservative hero.

He votes for a bill to spend tax payer money to Planned Parenthood (and votes for it so that all of his unethical earmarks can get through as well) and justifies it with other corrupt politicians doing the same thing. So in Rick’s mind voting to spend tax payer dollars on something he doesn’t agree with is fine so long as he gets taxpayer dollars for what he wants to spend it on…increasing the size of government everywhere.

Romney gives his personal money to charity (I know making personal donations to charity is a rather odd concept to Santorum as he rarely does it) but says that we’re going to end federal funding to the very same organization he makes private donations to. Thus limiting the size and scope of government.

Santorum big government. Romney small government. Remind me again which ones conservatives like. And remind me again by saying you’re a conservative.

“He gave his own personal money. I voted for a large big appropriation bill.” It’s sad he thinks the offensive idea in this is money given to Planned Parenthood…where a real conservative would find the words “large big appropriation bill” to be the offensive part.   Rick finds it okay to give your money to someone that he abhors as long as he gets his. But making a personal donation with one’s own earned money (a concept that likely eludes Rick as all of his money comes from corruption) offends Rick to no end. After all it should be the government, under it’s religious leader Rick Santorum, which gets to decide what charities exist and which don’t. I’m Rick but giving my money to an organization that I oppose without my consent is far, far worse than someone else giving their money to that organization. And the fact that you don’t see that difference is beyond disgusting and beyond reason to making me fear what your administration would hold.

And the worst part is he actually says that he thinks Romney’s attack is accusing him of being “pro-choice.” He doesn’t even get it’s an attack on his spending of taxpayer money. He has no conception whatsoever of fiscal conservatism. All that matters to him is abortion. Abortion and gays. Gotta outlaw them all ‘cause Jesus had whole sermons on the evil gays and abortion (at least it appears there were whole sermons on that in Santorum’s special edition in the Bible which no other Catholic has ever seen, but a few crazy Evangelicals in Westboro also seem to have that copy).

To Santorum all that matters is whether you are willing to make gay marriage illegal in all 50 states, make abortion and birth control illegal, everywhere, and of course making porn illegal. Because those are the things that are most important to Rick Santorum and his social conservatives. It does not matter that he believes in heavy government interference in the economy…he doesn’t oppose Obama because Obama is getting involved in the economy, he opposes Obama because he believes Obama isn’t getting involved in the right places.

Which makes him all the more the hypocrite by saying Romney had a government take over of healthcare…when in fact Romneycare was designed to prevent that. Santorum then goes on to say that Romney raised taxes by a billion dollars. That’s doubly a lie, first because it was $740 Million, but accuracy in numbers was never Rick’s strong suit. And second he didn’t raise taxes. He first closed a lot of loopholes in the Massachusetts’ tax system…which last time I checked was what we wanted to do at the federal level…oh wait those loopholes are designed to help pick winners and losers in the economy, a favorite thing for a socialist like Ricky. And he raised fees on a lot of services in Massachusetts…so instead of tax payers paying for services they didn’t use only the people who used those services paid for them. My God, how terribly capitalistic. I’m sure Rick’s grandfather, the one Rick speaks with endless praise of, the Communist Party Leader, is just spinning in his grave hearing how someone brought conservative capitalist reform that worked to increase revenue and treat everyone fairly to a blue state. So he didn’t raise taxes Rick, he just stopped the system from being rigged. Once again you have a hard time opening your mouth without lying or saying something stupid.

I also love “I never voted to increase spending.” This from the earmark king. And then he goes over all the other lies of Romney’s flip flops. I’ve dealt with all of those before. Oh and he lies about Romney supporting Obamacare, he never did. But if Rick Santorum has ever said a truthful word about Romney I’d be damned surprised.

“this is one of the most liberal guys we have ever had and for him to go out there and attack me as being a moderate is just truly laughable.” Sadly it’s not laughable that you, Rick, can consider your big government, pro-union, big spending total control of the economy ideas conservative. It’s not laughable, it’s disgusting. At least with most social conservatives they come with the virtue of wanting less government in the economy so they make decent allies in the fight of what is the biggest problem facing the nation right now. But you want government in every aspect of our lives. In our religion. In our homes, our beds, our work, our shopping. I would say that your mentality is everything that is wrong with the Republican Party, (but I can’t because, as I said usually, I get small government economics even in the worse aspects of the GOP)…your mentality, Rick, is everything that is wrong with Iran and Saudi Arabia, a perverse mix of fanatic and intolerant religion with socialist economics. Every evil belief in the world can be found in the words of Rick Santorum.

I could go on. Every single thing this man says boils down into one of three categories (1) lies (2) stupidity (3) evil, usually in some Venn-Diagram level crossover. But really what’s the point. You can listen to it all on your own. Unlike Santorum who feels he should make all your decisions for you, I trust you can see the utter hypocrisy and despicableness of this petty excuse for a human being.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Gay Rights, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

Snatching Defeat From Jaws of Victory: Republican’s idiotic obsession with social issues

I believe in liberty for all, capitalism, a Classically Liberal republic of limited government that combines to make this nation (and any other that follows those principles) the shinning city on the hill for others to look to as the model. Which is why, for better or worse, I am a Republican.  The Libertarians don’t believe in the first or last point  (they seem to think the rights listed in the Declaration end at the border and if another country has a genocidal dictator that’s none of our business), the Democrats abhor the two in the middle.  But the Republican Party stands for all of them.  And every time we run on those principles we win.  Coolidge, Nixon (even though he didn’t believe in them), Reagan (go on, tell me which social issues he made a focus of his campaign…none), the Contract with America (the closest it came to social issues was dealing with the marriage tax and tax credits for care of the elderly and adoption, it dealt entirely with money and the size of government).  Every time we run on expanding the government we lose.  Hoover, George H.W. Bush (read his lips, more taxes), Ford, Dole, McCain.  The two major exceptions being Nixon the first time (and we can blame that on how he looks without makeup and Joe Kennedy buying a lot of votes) and Goldwater (where the economic moderates and big government Republicans actively backstabbed their own candidate).

But overall there is a simple rule: Economically Conservative Republicans win. Economically Moderate Republicans lose.  (Certainly not once can I remember an economic liberal and social conservative win).

But, more and more, the Republican Party wants to press social issues?  Why?  Conservative economics and foreign policy are winners with the American public…liberal stances on those mixed with big government behavior for social issues is always a loser.  And I don’t mean just Santorum, there are a lot of “socially conservative” issues out there that are actually taking aim at our economic conservatism and I don’t understand why Republicans are so eager to hype the weakest issues and the ones that will cause us to lose.

Now full disclosure, I am a social moderate.  I don’t want the government in my wallet, my business or my capitalist transactions nor do I want them in my bedroom, my marriage or my doctor’s office.  I believe in small government (and unlike pro-tyranny Libertarians I think that’s a human right not an American right…yeah Libertarians are really pissing me off too lately, can you tell?).  But apparently some in the GOP don’t know that we’re the party of small government, not just the party of small government in the economy.

And it’s getting bad.   Even my beloved Heritage Foundation is saying stupid things like “As conservatives, it is important to remember that social issues are central to preserving the Principles of the Founding Fathers.”  Uh-huh, looking to the Founders for social conservatives.  Ben Franklin who never married the mother of his child but lived with her in sin for most of his life.  Thomas Jefferson, and probably most of the Sothern contingent, and their pro-raping the slaves practices.  John and Abigail “let’s abandon our children to the care of others for almost a decade” Adams.  Alexander Hamilton who had an affair with another man’s wife. They were all heavy drinkers and Franklin was not the only libertine among them. Now don’t get me wrong, I admire these people to the ends of the Earth, but I don’t mistake greatness for sainthood (one, John Dickenson, I think should have been treated to a short drop and a sudden stop for his behavior at the signing of the Declaration and Constitution).  But don’t just take my word for it.  Go look at some real conservative authors like Larry Schweikart’s What Would the Founders Say?  or W. Cleon Skousen’s The Five Thousand Year Leap: 28 Great Ideas That Changed the World…both books are about the Founding Father’s opinions of government. Now while both stress the importance of personal religion and spirituality, of the societal importance of marriage (which anyone with half a brain has to admit) the closest either comes to what modern social conservatives consider important is when in Skousen’s book he points out that the Founding Fathers would not be for government money paying for abortion. That’s it. That’s all I can find of two well researched authors (who I would wager are more socially conservative than I am)…the most the Founding Father’s would care about modern social issues is the economic side of it. That’s probably because if you stop to think about it this motley crew of misfits, smugglers, drunks, deists, and other radicals, when asked about what goes on in their bedroom or what happens with their doctor would point you to the 2nd Amendment…and if the point wasn’t made clear enough that government had no right in those issues they’d drive the point home with their musket barrel in your redcoat face.   And before you look to more modern Republicans for your pinnacles of virtues I would remind you that Reagan was divorced and Lincoln, well, it’s the “Log Cabin” Republicans for a reason.  The fact of the matter is that most modern social conservatives would criticize that Jeshua of Nazareth guy for his hanging out with hookers and his obsession with alcohol (to the point of making a whole ritual of it).

This is idiotic.  We’re Republicans.  We don’t trust.  We just admit that a little (very little) government is needed for society to run.  But there now seems to be the Santorum wing of the Republican Party that thinks, per Santorum’s words:

“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.” [Italics Added]

Ignoring the fact that Rick Santorum just admitted to knowing less than nothing about history or conservatism…actually no, let’s not ignore that fact, Santorum is about as anti-American as it gets and it is revolting that a man who says such filth could get to any office, let alone a Republican one.  You’ll notice that Rick tries to quote the Declaration a lot when in every speech he mentions the last line “we pledge our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honor.” (Odd from a man whose life is all about him and his ego, who is actually one of the few millionaires who doesn’t give to charity, and who has no honor).  He never quotes “life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” as one can see from his above quote, viscerally opposed to the “liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” part.

But it’s not just Santorum whose “social conservatism” (I want a better term, conservatism in reference to government has for the last 100 years meant smaller government, social conservatism means larger government).

For instance in Arizona, my home state, there are two laws that just baffle the mind

SB 1359 which states:

12-718.  Civil liability; wrongful birth, life or conception claims; application

A.  A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR WRONGFUL BIRTH BASED ON A CLAIM THAT, BUT FOR AN ACT OR OMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT, A CHILD OR CHILDREN WOULD NOT OR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BORN.

B.  A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR WRONGFUL LIFE BASED ON A CLAIM THAT, BUT FOR AN ACT OR OMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT, THE PERSON BRINGING THE ACTION WOULD NOT OR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BORN.

C.  THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY CLAIM REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CHILD IS BORN HEALTHY OR WITH A BIRTH DEFECT OR OTHER ADVERSE MEDICAL CONDITION. 

D.  THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR AN INTENTIONAL OR GROSSLY NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION, INCLUDING AN ACT OR OMISSION THAT VIOLATES A CRIMINAL LAW.

Translation into human language: Your doctor can intentionally not tell you about medical conditions that might cause you to get an abortion and you can’t sue him for that lie of omission.  WTF!  Let’s ignore all the social concerns about ethics of aborting a child with severe diseases because people will never listen to reason on that, they’re in whichever camp they’re in…notice, however, that this law is a direct attack on capitalism.  You have a contract with your doctor.  The contract is you pay them; they give you correct medical advice.  This bill condones violation of contract, effectively little more than fraud and theft (I’ll take your money, but not give you what you’re paying for).  This is what we have government to stop, not to condone!  So social conservatives show they only stand for the quantity of life, none of the liberty and human dignity that is implicit in capitalism and democratic-republicanism.

Or try this one HB 2625.

It’s two fold.  First it lets any company, not just religious ones, exempt out of paying for contraceptives. I’m a capitalist, so I’m fine with that part. I don’t think companies should be forced to pay for insurance so I’m for tearing down these laws piece by piece.  But then they do something else to the existing law.  On numerous occasions this update of an existing law, they strike out the following phrase:

“A religious employer shall not discriminate against an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source.”

So if your employer finds out you use birth control they can now fire you without fear of a lawsuit?  One, I’m not sure if any court would side with an employer if such a suit were brought to court.  Two, this endorsement of violating a person’s right to privacy is rather disturbing.  Now if you wanted to change the law that an employer can fire you for any random reason they have no matter how insane (before you go to the extreme example I will counter that numerous studies, see Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics to start, show that even racial discrimination hurts the employer more than the employee…if you’re going to fire good workers for stupid reasons, you’re not going to be in business for very long) I would have no problem with that.  But to pick and choose is economically inefficient, but to pick and choose in favor of idiocy…well that just goes beyond rational thought.

Oh and over in Virginia they passed a law that requires women to get a “transvaginal ultrasound” to see the fetus before getting an abortion.  I am not going to go into this one for long as I couldn’t easily find the bill text and there is conflicting reports on exactly how bad this is (the left wing media makes it sound like something beyond rape and the right wing media makes it out to be a gentle massage…shame on both sides for not providing me with some reasonable information)….but given just how uncomfortable the procedure sounds (gentlemen, switch it to transurethra to get an idea) I’m willing to say that in all likelihood this is a stupid bill.  Most Americans would want an ultrasound, a 24 hour waiting period, maybe even a counseling session with a professional (a real professional, not some hack) before getting an abortion; even a die-hard pro-choice person like myself is not going to say that this is a small issue that should be taken lightly or without consideration.  But there’s a difference between running the ultrasound wand over a belly and sticking the wand up a person’s genitals.

So called conservatives, don’t you see the hypocrisy of this?  Of the government mandating objects be put into people’s bodies.  That’s about as intrusive as a government gets.

I could go on, but I’m sure you get the point.  These so called conservatives are really just big government liberals, using the government to enforce their will. And if they are not stopped in this party they will sink it (or worse, I fear that after a summer of $8 a gallon gas the GOP could run a sock puppet against Obama and win…even Ayatollah Santorum might stand a chance against this idiot.  And I really don’t want to live under the regime of a man who not only whole heartedly believes like Obama that government should be deeply involved in the economy and pick winners and losers, but also feels the government should enforce his psychotic Puritanical views on a form of Christianity Christ would have condemned to no end.)

Now, granted, the left is partly to blame for this.  They keep fanning the flames of ultra-liberal social policy in people’s faces. Sex-ed to kindergartners.  A pile of paper work for students to get a band aid, forbidding them access to aspirin…but the condoms are in a basket for all to take.  Forcing people to pay for birth control when they don’t want to (I have no problem with you buying birth control, when I’m in a relationship I insist on using it, but I’ll split the bill with my partner and not ask you pay for ours, you do the same and don’t demand we pay for yours).  Same goes with abortion, you can have it, I don’t want to stop you, but don’t ask that I pay for it.  But just because the left is constantly trying to shove government into this, that does not excuse the right reacting with the same level of idiocy.

Now, all that said, a real social conservative would not want government involved in social issues. They would be for a large church presence in society, they would be for encouraging others to attend some form of spiritual life, they would conduct their own lives with temperance and prudence (in all aspects of their personals lives) and encourage others to do so.  But they would never demand that government enforce that. Conservatism is supposed to be a belief in liberty, a belief that government is only to stop immediate and severe threats, not to impose the standards that we live by, but to provide the safety and freedom necessary that we can choose to live by those standards.  True social conservatism is not using government to force others to live by our codes of conduct, but to live them ourselves and by our example and civil argument with individuals encourage others to do the same

1 Comment

Filed under Arizona, Capitalism, Charity, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Founding, Gay Rights, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, People Are Stupid, politics, Rick Santorum, Tea Party, Tyranny

Stupid quote of the day…Rick Santorum’s bad math

In an article entitled Santorum: I’ll beat Romney if Gingrich drops out it was pointed out that Santorum suggested that he would be winning if it weren’t for Newt.

“It’s always harder when you’ve got two conservatives running in the race as we have seen in Washington and we’ve seen in other states,” Santorum said on Fox News Sunday. “We have the anti-Romney vote, if you will. Both Gingrich and I are slugging away.”

I’ve got numerous issues with this statement, but let’s deal with just the math first. For the moment let’s ignore the fact that when a candidate drops out their vote splits and never does 100% of their supporters go to one candidate and one candidate only. (Romney and Santorum both benefited after Bachmann dropped, Romney and Gingrich went up after Huntsman dropped, Gingrich and Santorum went up after Perry dropped…nobody gets all the voters when a candidate drops)…but let’s ignore that fact of reality for just a moment to give Rick the best shot possible.

Last night’s numbers for the Washington Caucus were as follows:

The only conservative in the race. The only one who can win the nomination. The only one who can beat Obama.

Romney 37.6%

Paul 24.8%

Santorum 23.8%

Gingrich 10.3%

Last time I checked 37.6% is more than 35.1%…but Santorum math is special math, much like all of Santorum’s short-bus style statements.

But maybe Washington is just the outlier. (Santorum hopes it’s the outlier because otherwise he lost to Ron Paul, how pathetic).

Okay, but apparently he says that if Newt had dropped out before Michigan he would have won Michigan.

How about before the Romney Michigan bounce…Let’s look at Arizona.

Final Numbers

Romney 47.1%

Santorum 26.8%

Gingrich 16.0%

Paul 8.6%

Nope 47.1% still beats 42.8%.

Okay, let’s go to Michigan itself.

Final numbers

Romney 41.1%

Santorum 37.9%

Paul 11.6%

Gingrich 6.5%

Okay so if ALL of the Gingrich voters went for Santorum in Michigan then Santorum would have won by 3.3 points. But let’s take a look at that and apply reality. First of all we know that 9% of the total vote that went for Santorum was Democrats trying to throw the race. So no matter how you want to look at this Romney still beats Santorum among Republicans in a Republican primary. That’s just a fact.

But let’s talk about something else. When a candidate drops out never in history have ALL of their voters gone for one candidate over another. They split. Each candidate always gets a little boost and then more often, especially in this race, people are going to stay home and just wait for the end when they can vote for any Republican against Obama. So, and I realize this is speculation, but I think these are safe numbers, of the 6.5% that voted for Newt, 1% would have stayed home (Santorum’s lead is now only 2.3%), 1% would have voted for Paul ( lead of 1.3%) and 1% would hate Santorum’s religious rhetoric so much they would even vote for Romney rather than see the fundamentalist freak show get it (so that’s +1 Romney, -1 Santorum…or Romney wins by .7%). So even with cheating by throwing in with the Democrats AND Newt dropping out, Santorum still couldn’t win.

But how about if we turn to the national polls?

What is the poll that is most consistently accurate when you compare their last pre-election poll to final results. I would say that in previous years that has always been Rasmussen (probably because of large sample size and looking at likely voters not just registered voters). So what does the most recent numbers from Scott Rasmussen have to say?

Romney 40%

Santorum 24%

Gingrich 16%

Paul 12%

Wow Rick Ties with 40% to 40%…oh but wait if even 1% of them goes to Romney, Paul, or stays home…Rick loses again. Rick always looses.  Because Rick is a loser.

To quote Despair.com: Those who win never quit, those who quit never win...but those who never quit and never win are idiots.

But beside the fact that there is literally no way for Santorum to win this (Santorum may “win” a few states on Super Tuesday, but all of those are proportional delegate distributions, so he will gain absolutely no delegate advantage there, and Santorum isn’t even up for a lot of delegates in Ohio or any of them in Virginia due to the fact that he is a terrible executive and can’t manage a campaign)

But let’s deal with the more egregious thing he said:

“It’s always harder when you’ve got two conservatives running in the race as we have seen in Washington and we’ve seen in other states,”

Two conservative? Where? I see Romney a pro-business, small government, pro-capitalism, state’s rights conservative who did the best he could in a highly liberal state and held the line keeping the private sector of health insurance alive against the liberals who just wanted to nationalize it (is nationalize the term for a government take over of a private industry when it’s only a state?). Then I see Santorum who is pro-union and never met a spending increase he didn’t like, who has repeatedly voted for the growth of government power and never for state’s rights and every chance he gets he can’t lavish enough praise and admiration for his communist grandfather. No conservative there. And I see Newt who, while infinitely more conservative than the socialist that is Santorum, he has also on repeated occasion voted for and advocated for the expansion of government power. So really Rick, where are these two conservatives? The only conservatives who have been in this race are Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann (and maybe Herman Cain, but I was always too shaky on his foreign policy to say that he was really a conservative). I am getting tired of this man lying about being a conservative and no one calling him on it. Economically he is as bleeding heart and big government as it gets. And given that his low opinion of women is more in line with Israel’s enemies than with Israel I worry about his foreign policy conservative credentials as well. He is opposed to the liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the Declaration and the limited government of the Constitution. He is not a conservative.

1 Comment

Filed under Economics, Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Rick Santorum, Stupid liberal quote of the day

Santorum Doesn’t Understand That He Lost Does He

(you don’t need to watch the whole thing…but you know me I like to show I didn’t take things out of context)

Did you catch Santorum’s speech after Michigan and Arizona? By his attitude you wouldn’t know that he lost by over 20 points in one state and even cheating couldn’t win the other. Look at how happy he is. I don’t think he gets he lost. And lost big. Because don’t forget 9% of those who voted were Dems. And they were 53% for Santorum. So that gap between Romney and Santorum is actually a bit bigger.

But as always, it’s the words that spew out of his mouth with no discernable purpose that have to make you go “huh?” Here’s a random sampling.

“Wow, a month ago, they didn’t know who we are, but they do now.”

Yeah Rick that’s kind of the problem. We learned what a psycho and liberal you are. And I’m sorry but you got the vote of Obama Democrats and nut jobs who think that the only function of government is hatin’ us some gay and bannin’ abortion.

“And the people of Michigan looked into the hearts of the candidates, and all I have to say is: I love you back.”

Yes, yes they did look into the heart of the candidates. And sane people didn’t vote for you. In fact the majority of people didn’t vote for you.

“But my mom’s is a very — well, unusual person for her time. She’s someone who — who did get a college education in the — in the 1930s, and was a nurse, and got a graduate’s degree, even, as a nurse, and worked full time.”

What a snob she must be. Goin’ and getting’ one of them highfalutin’ college degrees. I am usually a fan of women working if they choose to…however clearly Mrs. Santorum did not stay at home enough and beat common sense into her dipshit son. Shame on her. Well I’m just glad he’s stopped talking about how much he admires his communist grandfather.

“It’s getting harder for people to make ends meet, because we have a government that is crushing us every single day with more taxes, more regulations, and the idea that they know better than you how to run your life.”

Would those have been the regulations and taxes put in by your union friends Rick?

And what he’s not adding, what we all know he’s thinking is, “The government and Obama don’t know better than you. I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU.”

“Are we a country that believes in big government?”

Judging from your voting record Ricky, you do.

“ Do we believe in the smart and elite in this country to manage us?”

Okay I get the use of the word “elite”…but “smart”? Yes I do believe the smart people should be in charge. That’s what the major complaint against Democrats and the religious wackjob wing of the Republican party is, that they’re morons. That intelligence is required to govern. That we need thought and reason and knowledge and virtue guiding us…not idiots who follow whims. I know what he’s trying to say…but the choice of the word “smart” instead of say “intelligentsia” or “ivory tower” or “arrogant” or any word to convey the appearance of intelligence without the existence of it, that would be fine…But “smart” in conjunction with his “college is for snobs” remark really scares me. I agree that the ivory tower elites who ponder ideas that have no basis in reality shouldn’t be in complete control, but that doesn’t mean education and intelligence are to avoided (as Santorum’s Freudian slips keep suggesting). If “aristocracy” literally means government by the best…what word means government by the dumbest (no, besides Obama)?

Also do you notice how he uses the word manage without explicitly condemning it. I may be reading too much into this (not really when you take it in context of everything else he says) but it seems to suggest that he thinks it is the government’s job to manage us, just so long as it’s him doing it.

“Or do you believe in free people and a free economy and building a great America from the bottom up? What do you say?”

I believe in freedom and capitalism, Rick. You published a book bluntly and explicitly condemning them. Probably had to do with your hatred of those smart and edjurmacated (since I assume his devote followers don’t have the education to pronounce words properly) Protestants who wrote the Declaration and Constitution. (I would also bring up that Ann Coulter points out that you don’t know anything about the Constitution. In fact you may know less about it than Obama.)

At that point in the speech there was some REALLY weak applause. I want to find the people who did applaud because I have some lovely bridges to sell them.

He continued for no purpose…and certainly no where in this does he acknowledge that even by cheating he couldn’t win.

“We put forward a plan the Wall Street Journal calls supply-side economics for the working man, the working men and women of this country, to be able to get those jobs in manufacturing, to be able to get those skills, provide for their family. The average manufacturing job in America pays $20,000 more a year than the average job in America.”

Dear God in Heaven, shut the f!@# up about manufacturing! It’s not 1890 you idiot! Yes, if we have pro-growth policies manufacturing will rebound a great deal, but that is not the future of this nation, it’s the past, and you keep treating it like it’s the newest idea on the block. Have you heard of advanced technology, research, and computers? Oh, no, because those are jobs that require…what’s the term?…college degrees.

And Rick do you know why it’s 20K more, because half those jobs are union. And I hate to tell you this, the goddamn unions are the enemy. They are more corrupt than any business they were formed to oppose and have rigged the system to encourage the most corrupt, most overpaid, most under-working, most useless bunch of steady Democratic voters in history. If you let the free market determine salaries and not unions backed by their corrupt lawmakers (yes, Rick, I mean you) then manufacturing jobs wouldn’t pay that much. That’s why companies leave America, there is no reason to pay someone 20K above the average for a job that requires no education.  Like Obama, you’re trying to pick winners and not let the market operate itself.  If you knew the first thing about economics you would know that never works.

“All of our economic plan is based on a very simple concept, based on what’s worked for America from its very founding.”

Following Founding principles does not mean following Alexander Hamilton’s plan to expand manufacturing and industry to the letter…you do know this, right, Rick?

“I wave this Constitution at every speech,”

You might want to try reading it sometime.

“and I talk about it being the operator’s manual of America. It’s how America works. It’s the “how” of America. But there’s another document equally important, which is the “why” of America, and that’s the Declaration of Independence. And in that Declaration is these words, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.'”

Shocker he doesn’t bother to mention that Right to pursue Happiness….you know the one he will do everything in his power to stop.

“The men and women who signed that Declaration of Independence wrote this final phrase: We pledge to each other — we pledge to each other our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honor.”

I’m beginning to see that Rick’s knowledge of history is spotty at best. Which women signed the Declaration? Rick, just because they had long hair doesn’t mean they’re women.

Okay Rick. You give like 4% of your ill-gotten fortune to charity and you have no honor to speak of…could you please treat your life the same way and make it go away from the public eye.

I could go on but quite frankly it just started getting rambling and disorganized to a greater degree. It almost reminded me of that last scene in Inherit the Wind where the prosecutor after losing the case start rambling in a plea just to be treated like he was important. Rick did not have the manners to exit as gracefully as the character in the play.

4 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Founding, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, politics, Rick Santorum, Unions

Romney Wins! An Open Letter to the Republican Party

Okay Romney won.  (Even with Rick call in the Dems).  For those of us who support Romney (i.e. those of us who actually looked at his record instead of swallowing what the media is trying to force feed us) this is a good day…

Mr. President

But to the rest of the Republican Party, the Newt supporters, the Santorum supporters (those who aren’t Democrats), the Paul supporters, we need to talk.  Guys, look, you’re just not going to get it.  The wins tonight give Romney another boost and hurt your guys even more.  Before tonight he had 99 delegates.  Tonight he got 29 from Arizona and will probably get around 15 for Michigan.  Add to that he’s ahead in Puerto Rico (23 delegates), Maryland (37), D.C. (19), Delaware (17), California (172), New Jersey (50), and Utah (40) and those are all winner-take-all primaries.  That’s 501 delegates of the needed 1144.  Wisconsin is the only other winner-take-all state with only 42 delegates.  Now add in his commanding leads in Massachusetts (41) and Virginia (49) and Mitt’s already got over half of the votes he needs locked down.  (When you factor in all the proportional votes from Super Tuesday (480, counting MA and VA which we know Mitt’s going to win) and add in all the other winner-take-all states Mitt will likely have close to 700 (quite possibly well over 700, but I’m being generous to Newt and Rick) delegates locked down by the end of Super Tuesday.  Which would mean of the 1103 delegates up for grabs Mitt would only have to get another 444 (give or take how many off from 700 he has) .  Wow, only 40% of the delegates.  I’m sure that will be so difficult especially after Newt and Rick go bankrupt as they’re about to any day now.  Face it.  Romney is going to be the nominee.  There will be no brokered convention, there will be no split party.  Romney’s it.  He’s also the one that Obama is afraid of!

Now you have three options.  You can pout and do nothing.  You can continue attacking Romney and do Obama’s work for him.  You can work to make sure we win the House and the Senate.

I understand if you can’t get behind Romney (well actually I can’t in this particular case, but as I would not vote for Santorum if he were the nominee I’m not going to say you must vote for Romney or work to get him elected if he were the nominee…although my anti-Santorum stance is based on reason, facts, and patriotism…your anti-Romney bias is based on what again?  Lunacy?  Anyway…) .  But even if you don’t like Romney pouting helps no one.  Civic duty requires that you participate actively in government in any way you can.

And attacking Romney is also not a valid option as it only helps Obama.  Levin, Hanity, Malkin, Shapiro, Murdoch, Limbaugh, Michael Reagan* I’m talking to you.  Shut the hell up.  Don’t like him.  Fine, don’t support him.  But that doesn’t mean you help our mutual enemy.  Even all of the Newt and Santorum supporters out there need to get a clue that as many problems as they have against Romney (all of them justified by lies, half-truths and misinformation) he’s better than Obama.  If you don’t like Romney, please just spend the rest of the year until November attacking Obama and his cronies and ONLY Obama and his cronies.  Hell, day after the election I’ll join you in being a critic of President Romney when he does the wrong thing, as I will critique any president when they screw up…but until we get Obama out hold off on attacking Romney, please, for the good of the country—you know that thing you claim to love (although by supporting Santorum I’m not really seeing it).

The third option, the one everyone who doesn’t like Romney should be taking, is making sure you do everything in your power to make sure that the House stays in Republican control and that the Republicans  take hold in the Senate.  According to RealClearPolitics 5 seats up for election are safe Republican seats with another 8 in the toss up category (and 4 Democratic seats are in the Lean Democrat category).  The goal, for those of you who don’t want to back Romney should be to make sure that both House and Senate are staunchly conservative, Tea Party Conservative, not just Republican.  So, playing in your ball park for just a second, if Romney is the flip-flopping politician you claim he is (even though he’s not) then he will have no choice but to always veer conservative as that is the only thing he will be able to do with a conservative Congress.  Hitting Romney will only waste resources in getting what you want, conservative policies.  And to those commentators I mentioned, given that you’re all very well off and you’ve already hurt this party with you divisive rhetoric, you should be donating the maximum to every major Senate and House race you can—that is the only way you can make up for this draw out violation of the 11th Commandment (especially considering most of you are backing an extreme economic liberal like Santorum).

So it’s up to you.  Show you care about this country or continue hitting Romney.  Your choice.

*On a side note I would like to take the time to point out that Michael Reagan’s endorsement of Newt shows that intelligence may be more dependent on genetics than environment.

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, GOP, Government is corrupt, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum, Democrat from Pennsylvania

Did you hear those words “Paid for By Rick Santorum for President.”  That’s right when Rick can’t win with the Republicans, probably because he’s a pro-union, big government, anti-capitalist piece of $&!#.  Vote Santorum.  It’s all like getting all of Obama’s economic plans, but the a heavy dose of theocracy thrown in for good measure.

I also like he seems to be suggesting that Romney was wrong to not support the auto bailout. Which is kind of odd because, back in June he said “Romney’s right” on the auto bailout!  And he’s right until you know Rick can use it as a talking point to enlist Democrats.

No, absolutely not. We should — we should not have had a TARP. We should not have had the auto bailout. Governor Romney’s right. They could have gone through a structured bankruptcy without the federal government.

 

All the federal government did was basically tip to the cronies, tip to the unions, gave the unions the company. If they’d have gone through the orderly bankruptcy process, gone through a structured bankruptcy, they’d have come out in the same place, only we would have kept the integrity of the bankruptcy process without the government putting its fingers into it.

As to the TARP thing.  Yes Romney supported TARP.  I don’t agree with that.  But I would also be a fool not to see that a lot of conservative economists said that it needed to happen because the immediate ripple effects would have been terrible.  I think they would have been worth it.  But I understand where sane people can disagree.  Now Santorum officially has always been opposed to TARP…but he was not in an elected office at the time.  His voting record is one of earmarks, budget increases, picking winners, having votes bought and paid for, raising the debt ceiling, and in general getting the government as involved as he could in the economy.  He may say he opposed TARP, however his voting record says that were he in the Senate at the time it had come through he would have voted for it.  I choose to judge a man by his actions not his words.  And his actions say he would have voted for it.  Which means both points of this call, TARP and auto-bailout are acts of utter hypocrisy on Santorum’s part.  Not to mention being so desperate as to ask for the help of the enemy.

If this man had any class or character or human decency (which he doesn’t, because he’s as corrupt and worthless a politician as they make) he would bow out tonight, no matter what the results. And if his supporters had any brains (Levin, Hanity, Limbaugh, I mean you) they would use every bit of media power they had to demand he leave the race right now for this disgusting attempt to bring Democrats into a Republican primary.

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, GOP, Government is corrupt, Mitt Romney, politics, Rick Santorum

Marriage, Religion and Society… (And in a roundabout way, another reason why Santorum’s a jackass)

Ugh…I hate social issues.  I would love it if everyone could just keep their personal lives personal and not worry about what other people are doing so long as they’re not hurting anyone.  And while I am quite the civil libertarian in caring about other people’s lives it might have something to do that my personal life could not be more bland and conservative…which may be why I couldn’t care about other people’s lives.

But because of Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber (otherwise known as Obama and Santorum, I’m not sure which is which) and their ilk there will be no end to the discussion of these otherwise stupid topics for weeks if not months….no, no let’s not talk about saving the economy or dealing with absolute evil abroad, birth control and gay marriage is far more important than whether or not there will actually be a first world society in a generation. Far more important.

I’ve dealt with Obama’s overstep of executive authority in the guise of an attack on religious freedom so I guess it is now time to once again take on Santorum.  Of course that’s a whole mess of issues right there.  Well…let’s go to a few quotes:

“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.”

“Two people who may like each other or may love each other who are same-sex, is that a special relationship? Yes it is, but it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman[.]”

“The basic building block of a society is not an individual. It’s the family. That’s the basic unit of society.”

“Do they have a right? Should society do their best to make sure that that child has the best opportunity to be raised by that mother and father? The answer is yes.”

…and if you think those quotes have a distinct communist/collectivist call for 1984, Brave New World, or Anthem I wouldn’t blame you.  Really I’m fascinated to hear that marriage has nothing to do with love (makes you wonder what his home life is like…I’ve got an idea let’s see if his wife or daughters ever smile while on camera in a way that isn’t obviously forced to see how happy that home life is.)  So in Rick Santorum’s mind you are here only to have children to propagate society and we give special privileges to these breeders…(It makes you really frightened of his call to TRIPLE the tax credit for children…because in a time when any right thinking conservative wants to lower taxes and CLOSE all loopholes, he wants to open loopholes with a crowbar so as to encourage massive overpopulation because it’s working so well for the third world).   Okay we can agree that Rick Santorum doesn’t have a single neuron firing in that head of his.  But that still doesn’t put the general issue of marriage off the table even if I’m Santorum is lord high king of the idiots.  So let’s talk marriage…

Yes marriage is an important function of society.  Rick is wrong about it being the basis of society, that has always been and always will be the individual…but individuals need human companionship (usually in the form of friendship and marriage, and if they’re one in the same, then you’re blessed).  Now is marriage only for the “uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society”?  Not really.  People were having children and caring for them long before marriage, although marriage does help raising them, certainly, no one would argue that.  But it is not having a mother and father that helps, it’s having two parents that helps (increased income, increased ability for child care, increased experience) and anyone who thinks that gay people make bad parents isn’t just crazy, they’re flying in the face of a boat load of research (Just one example here).  But raising children isn’t the only thing marriage is for.  If Santorum wanted to ever crack a history book (which I don’t think he has ever done given his perverted views on the Founding Fathers view of liberty ) he might learn that property rights have traditionally had far more to do with marriage than children do…but that would require Santorum to care about property rights, which are an individual right and as he has much respect for individual rights as any communist or Asharite.  And while history is filled with moments where society progressed just fine without any strict government rules on marriage I would be foolish to say that marriage isn’t a great support for society.  However if Santorum and his followers think that gay marriage is a danger to marriage, or even if it’s that  relevant in the face of other government hits at marriage, then they’re idiots.

Granted, as I’ve said before, I would like the federal government and all the states to say that marriage is a religious institution and thus strike the term marriage from every law on the books…civil unions for everyone!  It’s up to your church whether to call what you have a marriage or not, not the government.  This has the advantage of A.) not letting government dictate what a religion can do (we’ll come back to this) (social conservatives get what they want) B.) Everyone will be equal (social liberals get what they want) C.)Nobody gets to win (because I hate people who think social issues are a function of government) and D.) Jackasses like Santorum will have to shut up (everybody on the planet wins).  All the legal privileges of the marriage could be easily transferred to these civil unions, but as it lacks the name it lacks the attack on a religious institution that expanding it encompasses.

But I will still admit that marriage, and a two parent family is important to a functioning society. You’d be a damn fool to deny that…but then again both social conservatives and social liberals are damn fools given how they act. Social liberals are idiots for what they’ve already done to weaken those social structures (and I’ll get to that in just a minute) and social conservatives are idiots for fighting a defensive war against gay marriage (which has nothing to do with the strength of the social institution, but it is very visible which suggest that their cause is more cynical demagoguery than heartfelt concern) rather than an offensive war against the liberal policies that actually have done harm to marriage and society.

But back to my statement about liberals actually having done some stuff have actually done to undermine the social institution of marriage (hint gay marriage isn’t going to be anywhere on this list).

Welfare and the Great Society.  Let’s pay unwed mothers money for having children.  That makes sense.  Because every economist from any school, be it Keynesian, Chicago or Austrian, will tell you that when you subsidize a behavior or product you get more of it.  Subsidize unwed children, guess what, you de-incentivize actually getting married or waiting until marriage to have children.  (This would also be tied to my opinion that Rick Santorum’s idea to triple the child tax credit when we have an over population problem is, well, brainless).  Really brain dead is that we pay for anything more than the first pregnancy.  I can see an argument for a safety net to help women who have had an accident, been dumped by the loser who got them pregnant, and need some help…one time is an accident (although I would prefer these to be run by counties and cities…not a distant bureaucracy in states and at the federal level).  But not two times.  And definitely not more than two.

Now if social conservatives really wanted to care about the well being of children and the defense of marriage as a social institution they would once again push for welfare reforms.  One that cut people off after the first pregnancy, ones that vigorously track down deadbeat dads (I wouldn’t mind upping what the minimum monthly payment is and bringing back debtors prison for those who won’t pay).  Or requiring the welfare recipients attend GED or job training to help ensure they get off welfare if they want to continue getting their check.  Or how about this one—we’ll keep track of every dollar you get in welfare payments you get from the government and the minute you start making over let’s say $25,000 a year the government will deduct 1% of your check until you’ve paid back what you took out, interest free because we’re not monsters (and the percentage of your check would go up slightly say 3% at $30,000 so forth and so on) this way no would ever view welfare as a free ride, thus removing many of the incentives for taking it.  But right now I’m hearing more about those evil, evil gays (who seem to be decent parents and no worse as couples than their straight counterparts) as what is ruining marriage.  Yeah couldn’t be the financial incentives against being married when having children.

Oh and speaking of financial incentives, why is that the call to end the marriage penalty at all levels has kind of disappeared?  As I recall the law passed under Bush to end the marriage penalty had a sunset date…isn’t that coming up?  How about this, offer a tax discount for those who get married.  Watch people get married and stay married when there are real financial incentives to do so.  Will some people get married for reasons other than love?  Probably, but how is that different from right now?  If you want to promote something don’t punish it.  But you haven’t heard that from social conservatives, now have you.  Hell, given the fact that children of single parent households have a higher likelihood of committing a crime, then financially incentivizing marriage would probably pay for the reduction in revenue via a drop in paying for imprisonment (among a whole mountain of secondary benefits, that was just the first one that came to me, trust me it would pay for itself ten times over).

I could go on, how Social Security and Medicare encourage people to dump bonds with their parents when they got old rather than bringing them into the household in a more stable extended family, how the government support for the liberal Teacher’s unions worked to destroy parental responsibility in raising their children, and a few other programs…but I think you get the point.  If social conservatives really cared about the state of marriage and the social benefits that the family brings there are things they could be doing that would be incredibly effective in strengthening the social institution.  But they would rather focus on something that has NOTHING to do with the strength of marriage.  (And liberals don’t go feeling self-satisfied about that last sentence, you actually have done some damage to the social institution of marriage, just because the conservatives are idiots and not calling you on it doesn’t make you less guilty.

Now social conservatives will probably come back with some stupid “gay marriage is the straw that will break the camel’s back” kind of argument.  But as we know in this case I think social conservatives are idiots.  If they really cared about the state of marriage and the need of married couple to properly raise children they would be attacking the liberal entitlement culture and not worrying about what gay people do.

Up next, why the Court decisions on Prop. 8 is actually the last thing the gay community should want because it’s going to hurt them…because the social liberal also need to be hit (with a peppering of insults against the right)

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Welfare

Stupid Quote of the Day….SANTORUM AGAIN…and he kinda calls Protestants Satanists…

Okay the title is a little overblown to attract attention. (And Liberals must be so happy that I don’t have them to bash while Santorum is around because hell his comments are so out of left field I can’t call them liberal, socialist or progressive—they’re just dumb.)

But, in a 2008 speech on how Satan is waging war against America (and I’ll put the whole speech at the end here, so yes he is really talking about Lucifer himself in a war against the U.S.A., not some detached conception of evil, but a very real, very personal, very evil being known as Beelzebub working to personally destroy the United States…that alone makes me very worried about Santorum, but I realize there could actually be well meaning people who believe that and I’m not going to quibble over the finer points of theology here).

“[O]nce the colleges fell and those who were being educated in our institutions, the next was the church. Now you’d say, ‘wait, the Catholic Church’? No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

Now people I respect have said that I’m reading too much into this, that he is not saying Protestants are not Christians, but I think this opinion is wrong. Look at what he says.

“[M]ainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it [mainline Protestantism] is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

I find it hard to say that something is gone from the “world of Christianity” and still be within the concept of Christianity. But of course one wonders what “non” mainline Protestants are still within the “world of Christianity”? (Why I do I feel like looking in Westboro to find what Santorum considers good Protestants? Cheap shot, I know, but am I wrong?) And of course in the context of the speech about how Satan is destroying the U.S. from within, this basically implies Protestants are, at worst in league with, and at best have been corrupted by the Devil…and, while I don’t want to insult Catholics in general, I don’t think they’re the incorruptible force that Santorum seems to suggest they are. They’ve had their era where they are better than other religions, and eras where they are worse, Catholics are human and have good days and bad…but no incorruptible ones.

But, you know what let’s assume I am reading too much into this. That actually reading the basic syntax, grammar and logic of Santorum’s speech is going too far and I shouldn’t take his bigoted remarks at face value.

No matter what, you have a man, who wants to be President, making very public statements about the inferiority of other religions. That’s very clear there. Even if you give this the most lenient reading, he is still not having a private view on his religion, he is publically insulting another faith…claiming that whatever corruption there is in America is because of the it’s Protestant heritage.

This, and so much of what Santorum has to say, might be appropriate for a fire-and-brimstone preacher from the pulpit…but not from a Presidential candidate. We have had very religious men in the presidency, and we have had men who are ordained serve in other public offices (before you ask, I’m honestly not sure if we have had any women who were ordained serve in office, I couldn’t find an answer in a brief search on the web)…but never have we ever had a man who acts like a preacher serve in the highest office in the land. Why? Because we’re not Iran. Even though I will argue atheists and the ACLU see a wall of separation between church and state that isn’t in the Constitution, there has always been a fear of letting a single religion rule over this nation, which is why there were laws for religious freedom in the original colonies and why the First Amendment was drafted. We, as a nation, believe that people should be deeply spiritual, but were never going to be so arrogant to say we know the mind of God with absolute certainty. An arrogance that Santorum demonstrates in spades. An attitude I’ve certainly seen in history during the religious wars of the late Renaissance and early Enlightenment…but certainly not common in the modern world, and certainly unfit for the head of a free nation.

One must wonder if, as one could reasonably conclude from these statements, his beliefs are so antithetical to the principles of the First Amendment, how warm and fuzzy he must feel about the rest of the document. I don’t care that this speech was made a Catholic college to a friendly audience–this is behavior unbefitting the head of a free nation.

And I’ll be honest as a New Ager, a follower of a pagan belief, I have to ask if he’s willing to imply a relationship between Satan and the Protestants…what do I have to look forward to? Am I actually going to have to join the ACLU if this dipshit gets elected? Probably.

As I said here is the whole speech…

And please understand this is not an attack on Santorum’s Catholic beliefs or Catholicism in general. I have numerous leanings towards the Thomist philosophers of Catholicism, and a deep respect for the actual doctrine and traditions of the church (even many of the ones I don’t agree with). But Santorum is not representative of the best in Catholicism…and I would argue not even representative of the middling level of Catholicism.

[Update 2-21-2012.  Well after 3 days since I found out about it, and 4 years since he gave the speech, Rick’s comments are now the #1 story on the Drudge Report…I think the MSM now will cover it, but only because Drudge forced them to, not because they want to.]

6 Comments

Filed under Election 2012, Free Will, God, politics, Religion, Rick Santorum, Spirituality, Tyranny

Stupid quote of the day…Santorum again…

Before I put the quote up, let me say that yes I know this is a gaffe–I know what he’s trying to say, I know he’s saying we should always have  system of meritocracy where people have the ability to rise and fall based on their effort, achievement and will.  He says as much himself if you follow the link there is a nice video with his whole statement.  I agree  that going to some kind of socialist state where everyone would be the death knell for this nation.

However, if Romney had said this it would be the top story on every news outlet on Earth.  And this is further proof that the media is working to make sure that Santorum is the candidate, because unlike Romney, he can easily be destroyed in the general election.

Okay, here’s the quote

“There is income inequality in America, there always has been, and hopefully, and I do say that,  there always will be.”

Rick, please, stop trying to defend capitalism.  You’re no good at it.  Probably because capitalism requires a belief in individual freedom and individual happiness which we all know you’re opposed to.  You’re just not qualified to talk about a philosophy that is at odds with your core values of collectivism and subservience/submission to a higher power.

But let’s talk about the truly stupid part of that statement is.  “Hopefully[,] there always will be [income inequality].”  Uh….No.  Hopefully there will always be capitalism, free trade and meritocracy.  But if by some miracle of miracles we had a whole generation of Teslsas, Da Vincis, Lorenzo D’Medicis, J.P. Morgans, Vanderbilts, Rockerfellers, Carnegies, and Jobses that would be awesome!  Think of it a whole world of exceptional people, each exceptional in their own way, but a whole collective society of makers, doers, and thinkers.  F!@#ing Awesome!  Ayn Rand’s Galt’s Gulch on a global scale!  There wouldn’t be much income inequality because everyone would have earned everything they wanted! And I’m not the first one to think about that…

Let me quote to you from the first book of Aristotle’s Politics, where right after he comes off a discussion of the greatest income inequality in the ancient world (the difference between masters and slaves) he envision the possibility that everyone could be essentially equal in terms of wealth, everyone their own master…he states:

“For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which says the poet, “of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods;” if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre, chief workmen not want servants, nor masters slaves.” (1253a34)

Over 2,000 years ago Aristotle could imagine the idea that technology reach a level were all the necessities of life could be automated and everyone by nature make equal and their own master.  So, while I understand what he was trying to say and agree with Rick that capitalism should always continue, I would, like Aristotle, love to see a world where everyone has earned equality of wealth.  I’m not quite delusional enough to think it’s going to happen, I know I will never live to see it, but it’s a nice little hope that one day humanity could evolve to that level.

But again the main purpose of this is the fact that I doubt you will see all the major outlets for news rip Santorum a new one over this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aristotle, Capitalism, Economics, Rick Santorum, Stupid liberal quote of the day

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…when liberals tell the truth…

Chris Matthews had an interesting quote…

“Steve Schmidt, my friend, you talk to a lot of Republicans out there. Are they aware that the media is basically rooting for Santorum out of sheer fear of the ennui, the boredom that will set in if it looks like Romney locks this thing up? At the moment he locks this thing up we face a long, dull summer of Mitt Romney.”

Yes, yes the media is rooting for him. How do I know? Because unlike Romney, who they’re insulting on a daily basis, they’re treating Santorum like he’s a Democrat and not vetting hit at all. Of course it’s kind of easy to make that mistake. I mean with the earmarks,  the peddling influence, the corruption, the being in bed with unions and PETA, the not supporting troops, the hatred of women…I can see where you might mistake him for a liberal.  Easily mistake him for a liberal.  In fact if a story comes out showing him in bed with ACORN I’m not going to be surprised.

But they’re not telling you how much they seem to love Santorum.  Let’s be honest here we know that Media Matters (you know that really sane organization), Alexrod, Soros and now Krugman have all come out against Romney, saying he’s weak, saying he’s liberal saying that he is not a threat.  Why would Democrats come out and say this during a primary.  After all if you had a weak candidate in the lead the last thing liberals would do is come out and say how weak he is as that might hurt him and put a stronger candidate in place….oh wait!  It’s because Santorum will be so easy to beat that they want Santorum to be the nominee.  Duh!  Yet someone how Santorum supporters don’t seem to get this.  The Left is hitting Romney and leaving Santorum alone because Santorum is the weaker candidate.  He’s the candidate that will scare the middle…why?  Because while the middle hates Obama’s mandates forcing religious people to go against their principles and give out contraceptives, they’ll hate Santorum’s desire to ban contraceptives altogether even more.  Much more…whereas Romney is going to take the middle ground and not force anyone to not do anything they don’t want to do.

They know that Romney speaking passionately and knowledgeably about the Founders and quoting from them directly is much more of a danger than Santorum talking about his wacky idea that the Founders didn’t believe in personal happiness.

Matthews is right, the media and Left want Santorum because it will guarantee an Obama victory.  And I don’t know if he’s dumb for admitting this, or just accurately confident that Santorum voters (who repeat the McCain and Mainstream Media lie that Romney isn’t conservative, and make no mistake it is a lie, a big one) won’t be clever enough to see that they’re being played.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, liberal arrogance, Mitt Romney, Obama, Paul Krugman is an idiot, politics, Rick Santorum, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Unions

What does Santorum think of women?…he hates them.

This kind of speaks for itself…

“I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat,” Santorum added. “And I think that’s not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”

Want to read more blatantly misogynist statements from Santorum…try his book where he says women can only be happy by staying home.

Or think back to all the times he was dismissive of Michele Bachmann.

This man apparently believes that women should be weak, stupid, barefoot and pregnant. That’ not hyperbole, that’s not slander, that’s not even a mild exaggeration. This man is throw back to a time and place when women were chattel and kept out of sight.

1 Comment

Filed under Election 2012, GOP, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum