I don’t want this tool anywhere near the White House

Not even on a tour.

Wanna hear something funny?

Rick Santorum is actually delusional enough to promote himself as a pro-freedom candidate. I kid you not!  After losing to Mittens in the Iowa caucuses by just 8 votes (if this doesn’t promote the stereotype of Iowa as a bunch of drooling, clueless, fundamentalist zealots, I don’t know what does), the Frothy One™ proclaimed in an unscripted speech that “The essential issue in this race is freedom.”

Right.

This is the guy who essentially wants to ban behavior between two consenting adults, who feels he is better qualified to tell individuals with whom they should spend their lives and use government force to execute his dictates. But he’s all about freedom.

Is there any candidate in the GOP race less invested in freedom, and the idea that individuals are better equipped than government to make decisions about their lives, than Rick Santorum? He’s for freedom, except for the freedom of same-sex couples to get married. He’s for freedom, except when state governments want to enforce sweeping bans on types of private sexual activity between consenting adults. He believes that government doesn’t do things better than we do for ourselves, except for “allocating spending” through pork-barrel earmark projects, and funding religious organizations to do social work, and spending hundreds of millions of federal dollars to promote the benefits of the same state-sponsored marriage that he’s worked so hard to deny to gays. He wants to avoid government-driven, top-down policy solutions—except when he votes to pass a brand new prescription drug benefit without paying for it. He’s a freedom fighter, sure. By which I mean he seems to spend a lot of time fighting against freedom.

I still remember watching one of the debates and hearing Santorum criticize Iran for trampling the rights of gays, and considering the obscene hypocrisy of his utterance!  Apparently, it’s OK for Santorum and his ilk to trample the rights of gays by using government force to enforce bans on private activity between consenting adults, but he can criticize other despotic regimes for violating the rights of gays?

Pot, meet Kettle. You both have something in common.

What really galls me is that this fascist fuck is enjoying any kind of traction! Are we really such complete Neanderthals in this nation that we would continue to use government force to impose our religious morals on others? Do people not see the disconnect between Santorum’s rhetoric and his views?

This is a guy who claimed that gays should just stop being gays! Simple, right?

This is a guy who claimed that “pursuit of happiness” harms America.

This is a guy who opposes individualism and feels the government has an obligation to impose morals and values on its citizens in order to promote his religious principles.

In other words, Santorum is an asshat who believes in freedom – but only for those like him.

Please keep him far away from the White House!

14 responses

  1. Shamelessly lifted from George Takei:
    “Santorum Surges from Behind in Messy Late Night Iowa Three-Way”

    Like

  2. Once again, I must take issue on one point, Nicki dear.

    The issue of gay marriage is hardly one of restricting freedom or enforcing law with the power of police force. Santorum does not advocate using the police to forbid marriage, he simply opposes the idea of the State sanctioning it. I agree with him. Then again, I oppose government sanctioning any marriage. It isn’t the government’s business. This is a red herring IMHO.

    For what it’s worth, I’m against tax-payer funding of pretty much anything except what the Constitution requires. His votes in the Senate for several of the items mentioned in the article you quote SHOULD raise our eyes.

    But…

    Santorum has recanted on several of these items, especially the prescription drug benefit.

    Whether one believes him or not is another matter.

    -Jim+

    Like

    1. Jim, I have to disagree. When you have a government defining what marriage is, that government sanctions a type of marriage. I actually agree with you and believe that defining marriage is entirely a church matter, and should have nothing to do with government, but that’s not what Santorum wants. He wants the government to define what marriage is. He wants DOMA, which is an ABSOLUTE government sanction on one type of relationship. He is for sodomy laws, which are essentially forbidding certain acts via government force. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the government will send SWAT teams to see who’s blowing whom in a shower, but government by its nature is force, and using it to forbid acts between consenting adults and relationships between said adults in the privacy of their own home is immoral and antithetical to the idea of freedom.

      He thinks states should have the power to ban birth control and sodomy, because they’re not “constitutional” rights. So anything not specifically enumerated as a “right” in the constitution can be infringed upon by politicians? Not every right is defined specifically in the constitution, and it was not meant to be so, but when you have a moron such as him claiming that any government – be it state, local or federal should have the authority to invade someone’s privacy in such a manner, there’s no freedom here! Just like much of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated, privacy rights are fundamental in American jurisprudence, and states must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means when they burden said rights.

      As for him recanting… Yeah, so did Newt. Doesn’t mean I want either one of these dildos in the White House.

      Like

  3. Well, what is interesting to me is that the government must define something if it intends to regulate or license it. DOMA does that…defining the term “marriage” as it has been used in the West since before the Roman Empire. It is those who want to change the definition that have the burden of proof to do so – again assuming government will license or regulate it.

    The obvious answer is simple: heterosexual unions are “marriage” and homosexual unions are “civil unions.” Or call them both civil unions.

    The problem here is that the vast majority of the American people oppose the idea of gay marriage as an equal relationship with traditional marriage. The reasons for this decision are myriad: some religious and even some secular and legal. I think Santorum represents those folks.

    To be clear, I don’t believe government has a place here. PERIOD. It’s none of their business. Marriage and family law has accomplished one thing in the past one hundred years: screwing up the family through the force of laws and essentially relegating fathers to second-class parents. Government destroys pretty much all it touches.

    In addition, I agree with Santorum that States – NOT the Federal Government – have the rights to pass their own laws about what behavior is moral or not. The Texas sodomy case is bad law. States and local government, not the Supreme Court.

    I agree with you that banning certain things with the force of government force should be carefully considered and rarely invoked. And I oppose attempts to restrict freedom outside the Constitution.

    Like

    1. C. S. P. Schofield

      “The problem here is that the vast majority of the American people oppose the idea of gay marriage as an equal relationship with traditional marriage”

      It’s been a few years since I was tracking this closely, but as I recall the numbers used to run something like this:

      Those who would approve of a legal construct like “Civil Unions”, intended to have 100% of the legal status of marriage; 60% to 65%

      Those who do not want to see “Gay Marriage” recognized; 60% to 65%

      So, at least a few years ago, the problem was a matter of nomenclature…not that that made it simple. For one thing, the cynic in me would expect that it would take two decades worth of lawsuits to MAKE Civil Unions legally equal to Marriage, even if that was the stated intent of the legislators. And that’s not expecting any organized opposition, just many, many instances of some sphincter in a position to say “no” clenching up just to show he can. Recognizing “Gay Marriage” would probably only cut that in half.

      BTW: In a history of the State of Iowa (HAWKEYES) Phil Stong said that Iowans will often vote for some dingbat simply to see how big a fool he will make of himself.

      Make of that what you will.

      Like

  4. “To be clear, I don’t believe government has a place here. PERIOD. It’s none of their business.” — THIS. In a nutshell.

    “The problem here is that the vast majority of the American people oppose the idea of gay marriage as an equal relationship with traditional marriage. The reasons for this decision are myriad: some religious and even some secular and legal.” — As far as I’m concerned it’s simply none of their business. They can oppose it all they want. Every single gay person I know (and I know a lot – I used to do musical theater! LOL) simply wants to ensure their relationship is not prohibited or persecuted in any way. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for people to say the hell out of each other’s business, and Santorum represents the assholes who just can’t leave well enough alone.

    My view is – whatever you call it is semantics. It’s a contractual relationship between consenting adults on one level, and simply two people who want to spend their lives together on another. And THAT is none of Santorum’s or anyone else’s business.

    “In addition, I agree with Santorum that States – NOT the Federal Government – have the rights to pass their own laws about what behavior is moral or not.” — I disagree with that. A right is a right. It’s infringement on said right no matter what level of government does it, and rights should never be violated by any government entity.

    Like

  5. I’m not familiar with large groups of Christians, Mormons, Muslims, or Secularists hunting down gays and lesbians and throwing them in the streets while beating the hell out of them for having sex in ways that are…unconventional by some religious standards. Am I missing something? And I don’t think Santorum cares what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms. So this idea of yours that there is some special punishment meted out against Bill and Ramone or Tina and Donna is something of a red herring to me.

    I agree that basic human rights are not subject to governmental regulation. But is sexual behavior one of those basic human rights? If so, the slippery slope approaches rather quickly.

    So I see this issue differently, Nicki. This is more a matter of law and ethics of human behavior than basic human freedoms.

    But I still love ya, you adoreable atheist!!:)

    Like

  6. I’m not familiar with large groups of Christians, Mormons, Muslims, or Secularists hunting down gays and lesbians and throwing them in the streets while beating the hell out of them for having sex in ways that are…unconventional by some religious standards. Am I missing something?

    — Muslims… maybe not in this country… he he But then why have the laws? My point is that laws are for the law-abiding. Sodomy laws are meant to regulate private behavior. Why have them or even push for them if you’re not going to enforce them?

    And I don’t think Santorum cares what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms

    . — Yeah. He does. “The former Pennsylvania senator came under fire in 2003 when he suggested that gays did not have the right to privacy with respect to sexual acts.

    “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” he told The Associated Press.”

    Santorum – “sodomy laws properly exist to prevent acts which ‘undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family.'”

    But is sexual behavior one of those basic human rights?

    — Of course it is! Sex is a basic human function, and as such is absolutely a human right.

    But I still love ya, you adoreable atheist!!:)

    — Awwww! I love you too, Jim. The good thing about people who care about one another is that they can disagree and still walk away with that love in their hearts.

    Like

    1. Santorum is touching on the slippery slope involved with deciding what sexual behavior is or is not a human right.

      And by advocating that sexual behavior is a basic human right, you have created a fascinating ethical problem. To wit: What are the boundaries to sexual behavior or is it limitless? Santorum’s opposition to sodomy is philosophically sound for a society that values traditional views of human life and family. Heterosexuality is the only way to create new life. Two parents of both genders is still the best way to rear children. Not to mention the potential health problems involved with homosexual sex (especially for men).

      Look…I’m not putting a Santorum sticker on my car anytime soon. And as I said, I oppose his stands on using government the ways he’s done in the past that are extra-Constitutional. But the moral degradation of American society deeply concerns me. I’m not advocating send in goon squads to yank muff munchers or stem suckers off each other. I am, on the other hand, advocating changing hearts and minds with another way of thinking about our lives.

      And I happen to think that a reasonable approach to understanding the teaching and practices of those who follow Jesus deserves a fresh look.

      -Jim+

      Like

      1. As long as said behavior is between two consenting adults, who are we to put limits on it?

        Santorum’s opposition to sodomy is philosophically sound for a society that values traditional views of human life and family. Heterosexuality is the only way to create new life. Two parents of both genders is still the best way to rear children. Not to mention the potential health problems involved with homosexual sex (especially for men).

        Santorum has every right to oppose whatever he wants. What he doesn’t have the right to do is regulate private behaviors between consenting adults. I know plenty of loving, stable gay couples who have adopted and raised wonderful, well adjusted children. I also know plenty of heterosexual couples who have abused and neglected their children and raised little shitheads in the process. I’m a single parent, and I live with my boyfriend. I guarantee you I have raised better, smarter, kinder, better-adjusted, independent-thinking kids than I would have if I had stayed with my ex! And they’re certainly better off than if they remained with their married, drug-addicted foul waste of space parents. There is anecdotal evidence on both sides, but there’s no objective, scientific, verifiable proof that two parents of both genders is the best way to raise kids. “The best” is a subjective term in and of itself. Personally, I would rather look at the content of the parents’ character, stability, intelligence, etc. than what they do in the bedroom, which is no one’s business but theirs.

        But the moral degradation of American society deeply concerns me.

        It concerns me as well. I just don’t consider two men who dedicate their lives to one another, live in peace, make a decent living and are contributing members to society as part of said degradation. Homosexuality is more than just sex.

        And I happen to think that a reasonable approach to understanding the teaching and practices of those who follow Jesus deserves a fresh look.

        That would depend on how you define “reasonable.” Banning personal behavior because a politician happens to be of a particular faith and has the power to do so is hardly moral.

        BTW – Jim, check your yahoo account. I sent you an email earlier.

        Like

  7. “I’m not familiar with large groups of Christians, Mormons, Muslims, or Secularists hunting down gays and lesbians and throwing them in the streets while beating the hell out of them for having sex in ways that are…unconventional by some religious standards.”

    I am, and I have the scars to prove it.

    Like

    1. I can’t take back those acts…nor can I speak for those who advocated violence. And I won’t commit the No-Dumb Scotsman Fallacy either.

      But as a person of faith myself – and a knowledgeable person about Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shinto, and Hinduism – I can say that no person who truly lives by the principles espoused by those religions actively could hurt anyone for their sexual practices.

      And for what it’s worth (and you get to decide), I love and accept you as you are and believe.

      -Jim+

      Like

  8. So long as the government regulates marriage, every otherwise-marriageable person has the right to equal treatment and protection under the law. I’d be fine with all government-licensed contracts being “civil unions,” and “marriage” being left to religions.

    Incest should continue to be banned for the psychological health of children. They need an environment wherein relationships are not based on sex in order to develop the ability to have such relationships — professional, friendship, etc.

    Like

  9. I love why “christans” hate gay marriage, yet forget that Jesus also said that looking in lust is adultery, we loved other another…. I hate the way church tearts gays.
    PS I know you wrote you are an antist.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: