Tag Archives: 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

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day–Palin doesn’t know what government is for

What to hit.  Obama’s economic plan will take a few blogs to tear apart, so we’ll wait for this next week for that one (or three).  Well I could do a little more destruction of Ricky’s concession speech (but John Stewart did such a good job, any further words on my part would be overkill) so instead I will turn to my least favorite liberal: Sarah Palin.  She’s probably my least favorite because she trots out trite liberal populism and then gets conservatives blamed for her idiocy.  If I was a conspiracy theorist I might have Manchurian Candidate statements here, but frankly the left isn’t that bright (which is also the main reason why this birther shit is nonsense, they don’t have the brains to organize a conspiracy of that level).

No clue as to what Conservative actually means...

When praising Allen West as a possible VP pick for Romney (and anyone liberal Sarah backs I have serious doubts about):

“[He] understands the Constitution, and wants to put government back on the side of the people.”

And this line makes me want to scream.  How does anyone think this woman is conservative?  Let’s ignore the bridge to nowhere.  The taxpayer money to pay for her TV show.  The fact that in her debate with Biden her grand solution to fixing education was just to throw more money at it.  (You really have to give the left credit here, intentionally or more likely accidentally by repeatedly attacking Palin they have caused the knee jerk right to waste time and resources in defense of a person whom we should be absolutely condemning).  And let’s really forget that she endorsed uber-liberal the corrupt John McCain for the U.S. Senate (yes I know everyone forgets McCain’s scandals from the late 80’s but this man sells his votes for cash like he was Rick Santorum).  But most of all she doesn’t understand what a conservative believes is the purpose of government.

Government is there to protect our rights from those who use force (Police, criminal courts, prisons, military).  Government is there to provide rules and regulations in systems that cannot come up with them for themselves (rules of the road, weights and measures, printing money, contract and tort law, etc.).  Government is there to provide an impartial system to work out arguments (Civil court).  And on very rare occasions it is there for large scale infrastructure creation that cannot be created without a central authority (the interstate highway system…private companies however can often take over after the initial creation).  Notice what it’s not?  It’s not on your side.  It’s not there for you.

It’s a necessary evil that ideally should do as little as possible to maintain a system that allows you to pursue Happiness (failure or success is up to you).

Contrary to Lincoln’s overstepping rewrite of the Declaration, government is of and by the people, but not for the people.  Government isn’t supposed to be for you.  It’s supposed to be against those who would do harm and a neutral arbiter but never for anyone.  Government for the people always leads to giving and helping with the best of intentions, but paves a road of corruption, inefficiency and destruction.

Now to be fair maybe Sarah chose her words poorly, as I’m sure most people do not make the hair splitting distinction between a government that protects your liberties and a government that is for you.  But this is not the time to get slipshod in our wording (as Sarah’s always is).  This is not 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 or 2008 (otherwise known as a battle between big government Tweedle-dee and big government Tweedle-dumb, although 2008 was actually between big government Tweedle-dumb and big government Tweedle-dumber).  This is 2012.  We actually have a candidate who not only preaches lower taxes, small government, closing loopholes, less regulation, efficiency and less spending, we have a guy who actually has done what he’s talking about.  For the first time in almost 30 years we actually have a true contest of ideas a contest between big government and small government—between government for the people and a government of laws and limits.    This is not the time for Sarah’s mindless demagogic drivel…

Sarah, you’re a liberal and a hack—shut up.  Your platitudes have no place here.

What we need is more of this…

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day

Annoy a liberal…the first in a ongoing series

This was just going to be a stupid quote of the day…but I realized I could do something more with it. So I’ve decided to start a list of things anyone can do to annoy liberals.  Why?  Because it’s fun.  This will be an ongoing series.

So a about a week ago a friend of mine posted on Facebook the latest Katy Perry music video.  I will admit that my musical tastes have always been a bit behind the times…but I found it enjoyable.


To me it struck me as a little odd that the military would be helping in what comes off a recruitment video while Obama is publicly saying he’s going to try and slash the budget to reduce the military to what would be an anemic level.  I thought that since the military brass probably had some inkling that his proposed cuts were coming then the generous level of help in this video was a not so subtle cue to Obama that it is our troops not drones and computers that make this the best fighting force in the world (but Obama would have to live in reality to realize that)…it also comes off as a bit of slap to people like Rick Santorum who think women have no place in the military and should just stay home barefoot and pregnant (I still say Santorum should try that line about women not being fit for combat to the face of any armed female member of the military and see how long he lasts).

But where I found something to like in this video…so much so that despite never having listened to anything else by Perry (at least not intentionally) I bought it because there is simply not enough being put out there that shows the members of the armed services as the badasses that they are.

But apparently I forgot how much liberals hate heroes and people who do what is right.

Enter liberal Naomi Wolf, liberal feminist (as opposed to a sane feminist who just believes that men and women should be equals) felt the need to make this useless point:

“I really want to find out if she was paid by them for making it . . . it is truly shameful. I would suggest a boycott of this singer whom I really liked — if you are as offended at this glorification of violence as I am.”

First it seems she thinks that the only reason people would choose to show the military in a positive light is because they’re being paid to…and not because, well, they live in reality.  I don’t know about the rest of you, but I wanted to be in the military, I couldn’t pass the physicals, but I wanted to be in the military and admire to no end those who did what I could not.  And I simply cannot understand the mindset of someone who does not find it honorable that someone chooses to put their life on the line to defend the rights of another.  And then she simply equates the military with violence.  Actually, idiot, the military is what protects us from violence, but I shouldn’t expect intelligence like that from a liberal.  Quite frankly Wolf’s outlook is just a little sick and perverted and just a bit dishonorable.

So, in order to annoy a liberal like Wolf and her ilk, if you like the song, I would suggest you go and buy a copy and then send her a “thank you for the recommendation” message…her contact information is here. Remember to be polite and just thank her for bringing this great music video to your attention.  The more polite and nice you are, the more it will drive her nuts.

2 Comments

Filed under People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day

RAMBLINGS from ConservativeCathy: Real Conservative Values

I was compiling a list of numerous topics (SOPA, Economy, Defense, etc.) and listing what I could find as the most representative statements from both Romney and Santorum.  I was doing this as my research indicates that Romney is more conservative (fiscally, constitutionally) than Santorum.  But as I became more aware that it would be impossible for anyone to logically/rationally say that Santorum (or Gingrich for that matter) was more conservative than Romney (or conservative at all) a light bulb went off in my head.  This is not an issue of just putting facts in front of people it is a problem with word definition.  My son and I often have long debates over what is meant or interpreted by a phrase or word.

The actual definition will not help explain my beliefs so I am presenting my political party platform (would prefer if the Republicans adopted something like this) so when I say conservative you know exactly where I stand.

Below is what I would like to see as a conservative platform that I believe that most groups can get behind.  I would encourage an open rational discussion from others.

This country has direction and a guide in our country that must be followed – The Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  This should be taught in detail in public schools so that all grow up with an understanding of the original intent.  For me the ideal party platform is based on the belief that the Founders meant what they said and it was to be interpreted for areas that they had no knowledge of at the time but not that it is to be interpreted for all new laws people want to see.  That is what amendments are for.

That my party stops using the term “democratic” improperly as we are a democratically elected representative Republic and all should actually understand that concept and why that was chosen.

Once we accept the above premise then we go back to the 1st amendment and follow it where religion is concerned.  All religions are allowed and proper as long as they do no harm to others.  You cannot preach hate inciting violence just like you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater.  You can preach any other belief you want.  Let’s deal with the 2 particular issues the Republican Party has taken to heart (unfortunately).

ABORTION.  I do not want to discuss whether or why you support or do not support this.  I again refer you to the Constitution – The government has no right to be involved in this type of decision.  Row v. Wade and how it is being interpreted is not going to be overturned (even by the right wing appointed justices).  The federal government should not and has no authority to fund this type of service – period.  Regardless how I feel about 3rd trimester abortions the federal government does not have the authority to make laws regarding this.  Now I could make a suggestion that an amendment to the Constitution be made regarding how life is determined by scientifically stating when a fetus becomes viable – but I am sure that would cause others to start the debate again.  Back to the Constitution this is your only option as the federal government does not have the right to interfere in the doctor patient relationship and what occurs within that relationship – that would be a state issue.  Socially speaking if parents were actually doing their jobs this might actually affect this discussion.

Now the other big issue GAY PEOPLE.  This is a religious issue and can be discussed within the religion.   I do not consider believing that God is against gays as hate (stupid but not hate – I think Jesus promoted love and I think judgment is God’s purview) as long as your beliefs do not cause action against someone else.  Again this comes back to what I said previously you could believe anything you want as long as you do not harm to anyone else.  Now you can hold things like “Gay Parades” to the same decency standards that exist for other parades.  I think that sex should not be discussed in public schools until (I was going to say High School – my age showing here) Middle School.  This discussion should be biologically based only.  School is not the place to be making judgments one way or the other – except I think that scientifically and biologically schools can state that abstinence is the only 100% workable format.  Again I ask why are parents not doing their job?  I rather like Cris’ format for government only being involved in civil unions and marriage being a religious ceremony. But again this is a states right’s issue unless you all agree on an amendment to the Constitution.  Which I think needs to be done as it is becoming federal when crossing state lines which of course it will.  Maybe we can all agree on the civil union and work from there.

This is a rather long discussion but I also want reiterated here that all government buildings belong to the people so all religious displays should be legal as long as government is not paying for them.  This country is a majority of Christians and so we celebrate Christmas (it is a Federal Holiday), we do celebrate Easter, we also celebrate Halloween, Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick’s Day.  So it is what it is.  These celebrations do not hurt someone who does not believe in them so get over it as long as your tax dollars are not being used to support any celebration (Chicago is exempt for St. Patrick’s day – such a long tradition).

We really need an amendment for a balanced budget along with an amendment for the budget to be capped.  I think that you can debate how to cap it but once we start following the Constitution the budget will not be as high except that we also need an amendment ensuring that federal deficit takes priority in budgeting plans (meaning it needs to be paid off ).  The only reason that we should ever allow debt again would be for war or maybe you can suggest something I can not think of but it should be pretty great.

We will not be in the business of assisting people as that is a state or local government’s place – except of course all of our military need to receive all of the care that is needed for them and I do mean the BEST of care possible. I really do not think this is the area where cuts are made except for inefficiencies/beauracracies.

Since I am a realist and do not see Social Security being overturned as unconstitutional (as it is) we need to come up with a plan that supports savings accounts/stocks etc.  Pick an age and make it 50 years and older or 45 – I do not care and everyone below will need to continue paying taxes to fulfill the current agreement for that age up to death. For everyone else it from now on it will be a choice – a savings account with your state government, a savings account that you can not access until you retire (whatever age but you can not work anymore – you can invest but not work) or invest in stock market/mutual funds that again are not accessible or any combination of the 3.  This will be totally tax free.  So now citizens are personally responsible for their own lives.

I think we need to actually clarify our economic system so that it cannot change with the wind and have an amendment to the Constitution stating that we are a capitalistic country and believe in unrestricted free trade.  That cronyism eliminated as far as is legally possible and that the rules of capitalism (contract law, property rights, laws against fraud and theft, be considered sacrosanct and inviolable).

We need an amendment to the Constitution stating that every citizen has the right to work and not be forced to join and pay a union.  Also added into that all government positions cannot be unionized.

We need to support minimum standards for all grade levels and have a national test for those standards.  All states can do their own thing with public schools as I propose the Department of Education is eliminated but all students must meet the standards we desire for our citizens.  Keep in mind that I believe that you do not lower standards but always raise them and eventually more people will achieve them.  We need an electorate that understands our government and Constitution, can read to a 12th grade level, do basic math (multiplication tables in their head to 12’s), know how to count money without a machine, understand basic English grammar and how to write at a 12th grade level, need to understand the actual history of our country and a general understanding of world history – particularly how it affects current events as with a little study you become aware of how things repeat themselves (might that be because no one ever learns or hears about the lesson?) and science.  Again religious beliefs have no place in the school except that you can believe what ever you want but need to understand what others in the scientific community are doing and why whether you accept that or not.  Our platform should be clear in stating that school is not for preaching anyone’s belief system – again that is what parents are for!   Also that our platform clarifies that government is not there to promote whatever the latest scientific trend is.  Oh and by the way I do not think that government should be concerned with nutrition pyramids or picking foods for us but I would support offering physical activity requirements in public schools – whatever happened to Kennedy’s physical program?

All insurance can go across state lines and federal standards will be set for insurance companies (based on protecting the consumer not giving them something)

A federal fund will be set up for states to borrow from for emergencies at the going interest rate.  The loan will be based on percentage of costs and will not fulfill all that is necessary as again citizens must accept personal responsibility for choice in life such as where to live.

The federal government stops funding anything not allotted to it in the Constitution (just about everything we are currently involved in).

We do not financially assist another country unless there is a real time return for that – can’t think of that occurring other than rebuilding after wining a war.

There is so much more but I think I make my point – social issues belong in the social market not the government.  Freedom is paramount as long as you hurt no one – or your rights extend to where they touch mine but not beyond.  Personal responsibility is the guide for all laws and regulations.

I think that any reasonable person would see that Romney would have no issues with agreeing on most of these points (if not all) and Santorum would have issues with most of them.  To me that clarifies the issue as to whom is conservative and whom is not.  Gingrich would also have issues as it would not allow him as President to have those BIG IDEAS as they have nothing to do with the Federal Government.

And while I am rambling I have a point to make regarding the Moon site that Gingrich and his followers want – am I the only person to remember that there is an international treaty that states that no country can do anything proprietary on the Moon?

So any of you who want to join and support my platform, add to it or clarify it let me know and those who have issues with it – let’s discuss it rationally.

2 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Aristotle, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Debt Budget, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, GOP, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Rick Santorum, Tea Party, Teaching, Uncategorized, Unions, Welfare

Another week….another loss for Rick Santorum

So when we last left our plucky stubborn psychopath last week he was desperately trying not to cross the mark of being over 300 delegates behind Romney. As always, he failed miserably.  But not for lack of trying.  After all he went down to Puerto Rico with that winning ‘You must speak English you filthy foreigners’ line.  Rick, you sweet talker.

Then he tries to tell all the press that Romney and his fancy “math” doesn’t work.  And that Rick Santorum and only Rick Santorum knows the real delegate count…does he have proof?  No.  He has faith, and that is all Rick needs…well that and a functioning cerebral cortex couldn’t hurt (but that might hurt chances for Santorum to continue running his little freak show).

So apparently from his concession speech, Rick Santorum made it clear that his campaign is and has always been about freedom.  The freedom to not be any religion other than Christian.  The freedom to pick and choose winners in the market.  The freedom to be told whom you can and can’t marry.  The freedom to be told what you can and can’t buy for…entertainment.  The freedom to choose to be in a union or be in a union.  The freedom to sell votes to the highest bidder.  The freedom to ignore basic arithmetic.  The freedom to ban contraceptives.  Freedom.  Rick Santorum truly has run a campaign about freedom.  I’m just not sure that Rick Santorum has ever opened a dictionary.

Meanwhile the rest of us know that Rick would probably create a government 10 times as intrusive as anything Obama has come up with if he could.  Isn’t that frightening?  I personally like the part in his speech where he talks about how the GOP nominee has to be someone who can appeal to all of America. Now, it is moments like that when you realize just how self-deluded and mentally unstable Santorum really is.

But it really doesn’t matter as Romney pulled out this week with 47 more delegates than Santorum did.

Total                        R            S            G            P

Iowa                                    28                        6            7            0            1

New Hampshire            12                        7            0            0            3

South Carolina            25                        2            0            23            0

Florida                        50                        50            0            0            0

Nevada                        28                        14            3            6            5

Minnesota                        40                        2            17            1            9

Colorado                        36                        12            17            2            1

Maine                                    24                        9            3            0            7

Michigan                        30                        16            14            0            0

Arizona                        29                        29            0            0            0

Wyoming                        29                        12            7            1            6

Washington                        43                        25            7            0            8

Georgia                        76                        19            3            52            0

North Dakota                        28                        7            11            2            8

Tennessee                        58                        16            29            10            0

Alaska                                    27                        8            7            3            6

Oklahoma                        43                        13            14            13            0

Vermont                        17                        9            4            0            4

Ohio                                    66                        38            21            0            0

Virginia                        49                        43            0            0            3

Massachusetts            41                        38            0            0            0

Idaho                                    32                        32            0            0            0

Kansas                        40                        7            33            0            0

Virgin Islands                        9                        4            0            0            1

Guam                                    9                        6            0            0            0

Northern Marianas            9                        6            0            0            0

Alabama                        50                        11            19            12            0

Mississippi                        40                        12            13            12            0

Hawaii                                    20                        9            5            0            3

American Samoa            9                        9            0            0            0

Puerto Rico                        23                        20            0            0            0

Illinois                                    69                        42            10            0            0

Unpledged Delegates                                    27            2            4            1

So Romney has a total of 558.   (Or just short of the 50% mark).

So let’s use some of the assumption we’ve been working with.

Romney will take winner-take-all states Maryland (37 delegates), D.C. (19), Delaware (17), California (172), New Jersey (50), and Utah (40).  That will bring Romney’s total to 893.  And if we assume he gets half of proportional states he will easily win: New York (95), Connecticut (28), Rhode Island (19), Oregon (28) and New Mexico (23) his total goes to 998.  He will probably win more than half, but let’s give Ricky the benefit of the doubt.  With 998 he only needs 146 delegates of the remaining 669…or 22%.  Fun Fact: Romney has been averaging 42% of delegates in proportional states…a mere 41% if you take out the outliers.  So let’s see, a man who is averaging 41%, has all the momentum, and isn’t a raving psychotic has to only get 21% of the vote.  In other words, Mitt Romney can phone in the rest of this primary and still win easily.  I will go as far as to make a prediction…Mitt Romney will enter the convention with over 1200 delegates.

But please Ricky, please continue in your delusional little world.  You know the world where people want to vote for you, which they don’t, and people can tolerate your existence, which we don’t.  Actually, on second thought, please crawl back under whatever deluded and disgusting hole you crawled out of and leave us alone.

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Mitt Romney, politics, Rick Santorum

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

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

Debate Predictions and Recommendations

From what I’ve been seeing here is what will likely happen in tomorrow’s debate…plus some advice (hopes) that I know will not be making it to Romney, but it’s still an emotional stress relief for me to say it.

From Left to Right: The Fundamentalist Wackjob, The Conservative, The First Emperor of the Moon, Fruitcake...hey, I at least make my bias clear.

 

It appears that as much as Ron Paul hates all three of his opponents, he hates Rick Santorum the most. I think we will see Paul use every chance he has to insult the psychotic fundamentalist.  (On a side note, when commentator’s at Breitbart’s “Bigs” are hitting Santorum despite their clear editorial bias against Romney, you know Santorum is in trouble.  )

Newt also will hit Santorum.  He will hit Romney too, but he has to show why he is not just better than Romney (he’s not) but also that he is better than Santorum (tough call, they’re both sleazy career politicians who can be bought for the right price, so the question is do you prefer arrogant philandering or sanctimonious insanity?).  Of course there exists the distinct possibility that Newt will ignore everyone on stage and spend the entire debate yelling at the moderator…Newt does wacky shit like that, it’s too bad we can’t elect him Court Jester.

 

And given the extreme insanity of Santorum and his campaign over the last few days (questioning theology, defense of the aspiring joke, saying Obama’s a Muslim, running completely on social issues and ignoring the real issue of the economy, not to mention his uber-liberal voting record and the fact that he is absolutely opposed to liberty in any form) they’re going to have a lot to hit him with.  A lot.

 

And with any luck, given that the polls in Michigan and even Georgia are beginning to trend in Romney’s favor, if Ron and Newt sufficiently bloody Santorum then Mitt will come out ahead next week.

The one problem is going to be that when Santorum is not on defensive he’ll be attacking Romney.  Not that he’ll have anything relevant to say, but here is where it is up to Romney.  Mitt has to turn every attack, deflect it and the use that as a springboard to hit Obama.  Every single time.  Mitt has to use every chance he has to hit Obama and hit him hard and never really care about the other three people on stage.

 

And I’ll admit he needs to loosen up a bit.  I have listened to him enough to know when he is passionate about something, and he’s passionate about America and about freedom, but he has spent so much of his life clearly trying to keep his emotions under control in public and he needs to let them out a little.

 

That and I want to again hear “I am convinced that if we do our job, if we lead with conviction and integrity, that history will record the Obama Presidency as the last gasp of liberalism’s great failure and a turning point for a new conservative era.”  That is the line he needs to hit hard.  That was, hands down, the greatest line from all of CPAC and it needs to be repeated.

 

Now I have faith that Mitt will keep his eyes on the prize and focus on attacking Obama.  And I have faith that Santorum will be the crazy asshole he always is, but I really hopes he makes a major campaign destroying gaffe…you know like he’s been doing for days but the liberal media refuses to give those quotes the attention they deserve because they know Obama can beat Santorum (won’t they be shocked when the public proves to be as fickle as always and actually votes the psycho in).

 

Of course the scene I would love to see more than any other won’t occur…I would love it if they gave Congressional candidate Martha McSally a few minutes to deliver a message to Santorum in person.

2 Comments

Filed under Conservative, Election 2012, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum

A question for my liberal friends about the birth control mandate…

To you who would so eagerly defend Obama’s statement that insurance companies MUST pay for birth control, I would like to present some facts and questions to you.

Before Obama no state had laws denying access to birth control.  (There were a few laws that said that a pharmacist had the right to not issues them, but most of these were equally uncapitalistic because they said the employing pharmacy could not fire them for not performing their job.)  And beside Rick Santorum I don’t think anyone even thinks that we should (granted Santorum is an idiot, but it’s the mainstream media that is not vetting this guy and making his asinine statements the top story every hour, so is it the right that bears the full blame here?).

What Obama is doing is demanding a private company offer a service whether it wants to or not and that every business buy such service whether they want to or not.

Before this women could get birth control by paying for it out of pocket (I am told by women that the generics are about $20 a month, and $240 a year seems a small price to pay to not have to pay thousands a month to raise a child) and if need be could go to organizations like Planned Parenthood and get them for free.  So as far as I can tell was there were not any women denied access to birth control.

But since you don’t want to deal with that reality, let’s not deal with it.

Instead let me ask you a question.  What happens when a president you don’t agree with gets into the office?  If Obama has the right to demand that private insurance companies and private businesses provide a particular medical service or product, then every president has that power.  Ignoring the unconstitutional nature of a president ruling by dictatorial fiat, let’s ask what happens when another president gets into office.  As you seem to think the presidency has this absolute right without consulting Congress or even getting a law passed (even though I don’t think Congress has the right to do this either) what would happen, if, god forbid, the nation takes a complete leave of its senses (which it’s been known to do) and elects Rick Santorum or someone like him?

You’ve already granted the president the power to say what insurance companies must provide.  So what happens if a small minded lunatic gets into power and says that, say, all insurance companies must cover the costs for psychological therapy to help gay people learn to not be gay.  Certainly insane, but you’ve already argued that a president has the right to declare what insurance companies must cover without even having to consult Congress.  If you give Obama the power to do this now, what is to stop someone you don’t like from requiring something you don’t like.  Isn’t it better to let private companies decide, and if you don’t like what that company does, get another job.

I like birth control and would be exceedingly happy if more people the world over used it, but I love liberty more and would never demand a company provide it if they didn’t want to.  Liberty and choice is what makes a life or a nation great, not imposing my will and preference on others.

Just because you’re getting something you want doesn’t justify expanding government power.  You should never give the government more power.  More power always leads to abuse of that power.  And a reasonable person should realize that the White House will at time be inhabited by someone with whom you disagree with on every single issue.  Are you willing to give them more power?

So let me ask, are there any crazy or stupid so-called medical practices you don’t support and are you willing to say that there will NEVER be a president in office who would believe in them?  Or do you think limited government might be a safer choice?

It’s not about birth control.  It’s about an unconstitutional expansion of government power.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Congress, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Obama, politics, Religion, Tyranny

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…probably the dumbest of the month is of course from Santorum

“I don’t stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney,” Santorum said. “I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.”

This is probably because compared to Romney, Rick is nothing but a bleeding heart big government liberal…Next to Obama he kind of sort of comes off as a conservative (not really).

Let’s look at Rick’s track record. All of it liberal

Voted against a nation wide option shop rule that would have stripped unions of their monopoly power and revitalized the economy…like any good liberal would.

He supports big government spending; just look at his numerous earmarks. In fact in his defense of his previous earmarks in the Senate he states, “I’ve now opposed earmarks because they were abused.” You want to call Romney a flip-flopper but ignore that, fine; you have a Constitutional right to be a moron. I also like the “were abused” part…as if they were ever anything but a way to buy votes.

As we recall from the South Carolina debate he wants to give all felons the chance to vote. Good liberal stance.

And he tried to get a bill passed that would abolish the National Weather Service (an organization that is key maintaining the internal safety of the nation, you know one of the actual functions of government) and give all those duties to a company that was in his home state and paid him lots of money. So we already know that like any good liberal he can be bought and paid for.

He supports big government intrusion in your personal life, like whether or not you can use birth control. Yes Obama forcing churches to pay for birth control is wrong because it takes away people’s and organization’s freedom of choice…on the other hand advocating to outlaw birth control strikes me as the exact same sin in reverse.

Santorum wants to eliminate the corporate tax on manufacturing. Eliminate corporate tax good. On just one sector of the economy, that would be called picking winners and losers, you know, what socialists do. Also I’d like to congratulate Rick and recognizing the importance of the American manufacturing industry in boldly entering the 19th century…because last time I checked we’re not a manufacturing power and we aren’t ever going to be again…but that would require even the smallest modicum of knowledge about an economy.

Rick stated that every child has a right to a mother and father. So after he outlaws them gays (yes because I trust a man who is so afraid of gays he has to make his hatred of them the central point of his campaign…and then one has to ask about how many children he has, and if the word overcompensation comes to mind), he’s apparently going to force widows and widowers to marry whether they want to or not…because if it’s a right, and it is a right, then it needs to be enforced by government force. Inventing rights, that’s a liberal thing last time I checked.

Santorum: Letting the family break down and in fact encouraging it and inciting more breakdown through this whole redefinition of marriage debate, and not supporting strong nuclear families and not supporting and standing up for the dignity of human life. Those lead to a society that’s broken.

Uh-huh…it’s good to know your priorities are psychotic.

And apparently he thinks abortion and gays destroyed the economy.

“If you think that we can be a society that kills our own, and that disregards the family and the important role it plays, and doesn’t teach moral values and the important role of faith in the public square, and then expect people to be good, decent and moral when they behave economically, if you look at the root cause of the economic problems that we’re dealing with on Wall Street and Main Street I might add, from 2008, they were huge moral failings. And you can’t say that we’re gonna take morality out of the public square, morality out of our schools, God out of our schools, and then expect people to behave decently in a country that requires, capitalism requires some strong modicum of moral consciousness if it’s gonna be successful.”

Actually Rick, capitalism requires leaving people alone (something you’ve never been a fan of), it requires fair rules so that even the worst aspects of human greed are channeled into something productive, it requires the government not playing favorites (like you want to do with manufacturing), it requires not having government pork spending (a big favorite of yours). Actually Rick, capitalism does not mean psychotic theocracy which you think it does.

“They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

Well given what a F!@#ing idiot you are, let me tell you of a country where that happened. It’s called the United States of America. England, Australia, New Zealand, and Hong Kong have also done well when they implemented the small government conservatism. The man literally just said he wants to legislate what people do in their bedrooms. Yeah that’s a conservative.

Yes we need ethics and morals to rule our society. But those need to come from the churches, from parents, from culture in general to control government…never, under any circumstances to have morality controlled by government.

And as I recall he was pretty dismissive of Bachmann during the debates…probably because he thinks her place should be in a kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

And don’t even get me started on that man’s sick vision of America.

The problem is that he isn’t the conservative alternative to Romney or even Obama…he’s the big government religious alternative to Mao and Lenin.

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Mitt Romney, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Rick Santorum, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

Santorum the Big Government Statist

In case you forgot about this article I suggest everyone go read this excellent article by Dan Mitchell.

If You Liked Bush’s Big-Government Policies, You’ll Love Santorum’s Statism

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”–Edmund Burke, considered to be the father of modern Conservative thought

No, that’s not the stupid quote.  I don’t think Burke ever said a stupid thing in his life.  Even the points I would disagree with Burke on vehemently would still be genius.

I just quotde that to frame this idiotic statement from last night’s GOP Debate.  This little tidbit comes from lover of big government, regulations and unchecked executive power, uber-liberal Rick “What Constitution?  I have my wacky interpretation of the Bible!” Santorum.

 And with right-to-work, look, I represented the state of Pennsylvania, which is one of the — which is not a right-to-work state. If you look at who voted for the right-to-work bill in the Congress, those who came from right-to-work states voted for it. Those who came from non-right-to-work states represented their states. I wasn’t going to vote in Washington, D.C., to change the law in my state.
I support right-to-work. I actually, as president, will sign and advocate for a right-to-work bill, but when I represented the people of Pennsylvania, I made the decision that I wasn’t going to do in Washington and change the law in my state when my state didn’t want to have that provision in their laws.

So let me get this straight, you support right to work, but you voted against it?  Oh I’m sorry, I misspoke.  Rick Santorum filibustered a right to work bill.  He didn’t just vote against it, he tried to prevent it from even getting a vote.  Way to support your supposed values, Rick.  This wasn’t like Romney’s excuse of “I had a liberal legislature, let’s see you do better.”  This was “I joined the enemy to actively prevent you from engaging in a basic capitalist right which is covered by your right to pursue Happiness.”  It was “I thought my getting reelected was more important that the Declaration and Constitution and reason.”

Oh yeah, I trust this guy.  I trust him to not only try to legislate every aspect of my personal life, but to continue to sell us out to the unions every chance he gets.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Declaration, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Individualism, Laws the GOP should pass, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Unions

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.)

Today’s stupid liberal quote come from uber-liberal and Christian Sharia supporter Rick “I will trample every freedom history has ever known to establish my theocracy” Santorum.

Putting the “Fun” back into psychotic fundamentalism

From Rick Santorum’s 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 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 damn book.

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, 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).

 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.

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.

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 thought…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 know if there was enough 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.  (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 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.

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 him for treason?

***

On a side note this is the second time in the last couple of weeks I’ve had to attack a Catholic who also happened to be a communist and who tried to use religion as a cloak for his evil.  What the hell?  I’m a Pagan, but believe it or not, I have a lot of respect for Catholic doctrine and the Catholic Church.  While neither is perfect, they have done far more good for the world (philosophically and materially) than they have done harm.  When did it get infested with this socialist tripe?

7 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Founding, Free Will, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Individualism, Natural Rights, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Selfishness, Tyranny

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…

Today the quote comes from a fan of massively intrusive government, socialist Rick Santorum:

“And that’s sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we’re seeing it in our society.”

 

He has a problem with the idea that “the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions.”  Notice he doesn’t say the state has a right to limit how you act on your wants and passions (which it does if said wants and passions hurt another person)…but he actually said the state can legislate your wants and passions.  Your thoughts and feelings.  What you usually think of when you hear the terms “Thought Crimes” or “Big Brother” are nothing compared to what Santorum wants.  Not even entitled to the sanctity of your own mind.  Nope, the government can legislate that too.

 

I’m sorry, you idiot, but you’re running for the nomination of the Republican Party which is supposedly the party of conservatives.  And true conservatism means you can live out any want or desire or whim you have so long as it does not harm another.  You can be as miserly, as sexual bizarre, as charitable or as boring as you want and as long as you do not directly hurt another person you can.  Because, unlike you Mr. Santorum, we believe in liberty, not a Christian version of Sharia.

2 Comments

Filed under Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Founding, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Happiness, Individualism, Tyranny

Reflections on Iowa

I’ll be honest I wasn’t foolish to think Bachmann would win, but I thought she would do better than she did.

As my friend the Snark Who Hunts back said “Some might disagree, but the fact that Bachmann is 6th, below Gingrich and Perry just shows misogynism is a bigger problem than racism.” In my opinion those who disagree are in denial.

But here is the real problem you had two options (in reality you only ever have two options) Pragmatism and Principle and most of our choices are a balance between these two (principle is important, but only a fool fights the good fight over everything).  And then there is the Republican Party which somehow manages to never go with pragmatism or principle and consistently manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory…time…and time…and time…and time again.

Let’s look at Iowa.

Pragmatism says Romney and maybe Gingrich.  Perry is a stuttering fool, Santorum will scare the moderates to death, Romney will also scare the conservatives into seriously asking ‘is Obama really that bad?’ Huntsman who?  Now I love Bachmann, and I think she could beat Obama in a head to head, but if you’re going for the safe bet I’ll admit she would not be it.  So really Romney is the pragmatic bet, with Gingrich as certainly safer than anyone but Romney.

As for principle. There is Bachmann.  Santorum is only a social conservative who would eagerly regulate every aspect of the economy and your personal life if he had the chance (he is the boogeyman liberals fear Republicans are…and people voted for him?!), Perry wants to tell you what medical care you should have and is willing to unconstitutionally use executive orders to do it, Romney is a Massachusetts conservative (possibly read liberal…unless what he is saying about doing the best he could with the liberal legislature is true, your call, I believe him), Gingrich has said very liberal things and done very conservative things (and vice versa, so it’s a toss-up).  And not only is Ron Paul evil incarnate when it comes to foreign policy (the wet dream of genocidal lunatics the world over) he is beginning to sound so small government that he wants to not just go back to the gold standard, but would rather go back to the Articles of the Confederation.  And then there is Bachmann who is a take charge small government capitalist who wants to defend liberty in the world and whose only flaw is that she is a little too socially conservative.  And who’s Huntsman?

Let me say up front to the roughly half of the state of Iowa that voted for Gingrich (not my preference but you can at least pass the no brainer test), Romney, or Bachmann, I did not mean to insult you, you at least have reasons for your votes…but honestly over half your state voted for Obama and now this.  How do you stand it being surrounded by so many dumb people?

So who does Iowa pick?  The Devil and the Socialist Puritan.  WTF!  They are neither the principled choice nor the pragmatic one.  Does corn make you stupid?  I now see why The Music Man is placed in Iowa, it’s the kind of place where people would actually think “Trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pool” is a legitimate argument.  Is the smartest thing anyone ever did in that state was plow under their corn field and build a baseball stadium…oh wait that was also fiction, I guess no one in that state was even bright enough for that.

I’m sorry but there is absolutely no excuse for this.  Cain, Gingrich, Romney, Bachmann at least theoretically have (or in Cain’s case had) ideas.  Romney, Gingrich, Cain (for a while) seemed electable.  But no let’s have half the state vote for the dimwit twins.

If you voted for either of these not so affable dunces, you should know that you are a terrible, terrible, person because you have no excuse.  But to the people who voted for Paul especially I have a simple message.  I want to thank you m!@#$%f!@#ers for giving the Democrats ammunition.  For the next decade when Democrats unjustly claim that the GOP which tries for rules that will give everyone equal opportunity are racists (ignoring that their policies almost seemed designed to deny minorities opportunities in life) every non-racist in the GOP is now going to have to deal with the fact that apparently 20% of the GOP (in Iowa) felt Ron Paul was a viable option.  And quite frankly when the Democrats point that little tidbit out, there’s not a lot we can do, because, sadly it’s a valid point.  Thank you Iowa voters for giving Democrats ammunition against us.

To the rest of the country, let’s show the truth that we are not racists and it’s only the Iowa-GOP that’s suffering serious mental issues and make sure that Ron Paul does not crack single digits again.  If you have to verbally berate Ron Paul supporters until they are huddled in fetal position in a corner rocking back and forth, know that you are doing it not just for your party but your country and I am with you in spirit (if you can convince them by reason, but they’re supporting Ron Paul, they’re a bit beyond reason at this point).

You know, Ron Paul used to be fun, when he was harmless.  He was our Dennis Kucinich.  The crazy kook, the wacky drunken uncle of our political family, who we kept around for the humor of it.  How in the name of the dear lord almighty did you get 20%!

Ford, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain and now this.  What is wrong with our party?  Why can we not even choose a pragmatic or principled candidate?  Why must we always nominate losers who are the worst of all possible worlds?

Please, the rest of nation, prove Michael Barone right that “As Iowa goes, so goes Iowa.” 

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Michele Bachmann, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Tyranny