Libs are freaking out (or pretending to) over Rick Santorum questioning whether contraceptives are good for women or the country.
Even though Santorum made it clear that his thoughts on contraception would have no impact on what he would do as President, the libs keep making this about his Presidential campaign. He wouldn’t force anyone to do or not do anything when it comes to contraception.
I just have to wonder, where on Earth would libs get the idea that a President’s personal views on contraception would have him forcing his own views down other’s throats?
Hmmm. I wonder.
That’s the thing about liberals, they see no limits to power. Every whim is a possible mandate. If you think it, it should be universalized and enforced. They don’t understand believing in something but not forcing others to act on their beliefs.
But rememer, Santorum’s personal beliefs are a danger to the country while Obama’s mandates forcing others to bend to his will are perfectly fine.
February 23, 2012 at 4:27 pm
What about Romeny and morning after bill in the debate last night?
February 23, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Yeah, totalitarianism is only good when it's my totalitarianism.
February 23, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Liberals see no limits to power, but libertarians do. Libertarians are defending the Church right now. Liberals are not. Santorum has already made it clear, though, he's anti-libertarian. He much prefers joining with liberals so that he can enforce his whims on America. The liberals will be happy with this, for whatever Santorum can get done can be reversed- this is the sad reality of political law.
The man is compromised. Give it up already.
February 23, 2012 at 6:25 pm
August, we are all sinners. Have you a candidate who is not compromised?
February 23, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Libertarians do not stand against abortion. Enough to lose my vote right there.
February 23, 2012 at 7:51 pm
He much prefers joining with liberals so that he can enforce his whims on America.
Santorum is right to note that conservatives are not libertarians, as much as we might agree on certain things. The difference is that while libertarians view limited government as an end in and of itself, conservatives embrace limited government because experience has shown that an over-active government almost always works as a destroyer of traditions, and therefore undermines traditional morality.
February 23, 2012 at 9:23 pm
When is Santorum going to just reply with, "Of COURSE contraception (the pill) hurts women. It's a CLASS 5 CARCINOGEN!"
That's right. "The pill" causes breast cancer. For crying out loud – this IS harming women in this country. Morally AND physically!
When is Rick going to get the memo!
February 23, 2012 at 10:00 pm
Yes! Brilliant analysis. The funny thing about this kind of thinking is that it cuts both ways. I imagine those who are upset about this are like Cookie Monster in their logic. "You not agree with me. So I make you do it my way and I take all your cookies!" While I know Santorum (as Pres) would not create a ban on contraception it wouldn't be simply because he didn't want to ('cause I think he would like to see a law banning them as I would someday) it would be because that's not in the job description. Congress does that stuff… by writing new laws. Yes, that's right, the President doesn't write laws (at least he's not supposed to). Perhaps the Cookie Monster people will get this someday?!?
February 23, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Santorum is going to play the same Supreme Court nomination game that has been played since 1972.
We've got a better chance convincing more libertarians that abortion is wrong on libertarian grounds (and it is) than we do of Santorum doing much of anything about abortion.
Ron Paul would remove the jurisdiction on the subject from the Supreme Court, which would return the issue to the state. Pre-Roe v. Wade, most of the states had pro-life laws on the books. The vote has to take place in Congress, which would let us see how many of our politicians are actually pro-life. Advocacy gets turned into big business in this country both for the professional advocate, and the politician- if abortion is ended overnight, how many people in D.C. on the pro-life side actually lose personally? ALL OF THEM! Sure some of them are good people who will rejoice even if it means the reason for their job no longer exists, but, really, do I need to finish this sentence?
Meanwhile, as I mentioned, even the mainstream pro-abort libertarians are defending our rights because they have principle based integrity, and there would be fewer deaths following their principles rather than other peoples whims.
February 23, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Obama is a tyrant – the HHS mandate makes that abundantly clear. However, this does not discount liberals' concerns regarding the same from the GOP. After all, they were the ones to concoct the NDAA provision authorizing the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial. Both parties have been tainted by authoritarian rule.
February 23, 2012 at 10:43 pm
St Torum has obviously not let his supposed anti-contraception views interfere with voting for funding for abortion and contraceptive providers. I believe the man. Actions speak louder than words.
February 24, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Anyone know anything about the priest on O'Reilly (Fr. Edward Beck) who called Santorum an "evangelical Catholic?" He also had problems with what Santorum said at Ave Maria about Satan's attack on the USA.
This priest sounded like he could be som,eong Ms. Pelosi might like.
February 24, 2012 at 1:17 pm
som,eong should be SOMEONE.
February 24, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Ron Paul would remove the jurisdiction on the subject from the Supreme Court,
Yeah, this will never happen. Not just because there's a greater chance of a unicorn getting elected president than Mitt Romney's special assistant number one, but because there's no chance in hell anything like this could pass constitutional muster. Congress has tried to play this game before and has been slapped down.
February 24, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Ron Paul is as "pro-choice" on abortion as he is on drugs–and on charging the government for services that you already charged a private client for.
February 25, 2012 at 2:30 am
Ron Paul believes the states have the right to legalize drugs, prostitution, arguably abortion, and—given his insane hatred for Lincoln—probably also slavery.
Tell me again how much the libertarians love freedom. Admittedly most of them do oppose slavery—except in brothels and sweat-shops—but they also have no problem with huge swaths of the population ceasing to be rational economic actors. Because remember, they favor legalizing drugs, and not just pot, either.
Also, legalized prostitution is pretty much identical with sex-slavery; anyone who knows anything about Asia can tell you that. And the only way to keep it from being a public-health nightmare would be to create massive bureaucracies to oversee it (which they have, in Nevada and the European countries where brothels are legal).
February 25, 2012 at 1:30 pm
What absolute nonsense. Lincoln eviscerated the Constitution, forcing central state tyranny over people who had withdrawn their consent to be governed by corporate shill Lincoln. You are quite free to idolize Americas first tyrant (I won't go into his many illegal actions here) but Ron Paul is fully aware of what the Declaration and the Constitution we are supposed to be living under says and means. Since the only just government rules by the consent of the people Lincoln made slaves of EVERYONE which is why we are in this mess. Living by the Constitution simply means you would be free to wield the sword of state at the local level. You might even be able to outlaw all contraception and force "national service" and require every Sunday Mass in your state. Wouldn't that be sweet? I have no need for pols like Gingrich and St Torum to tell me not to be a drug user or prostitute and am sad that you seem to have such a need. It really is not good behavior and you should try to resist the temptation. Personally, I can decide just fine on my own. You are free to give away your liberty but not free to give away mine. The Asian sex slavery you are so against exists because the people in those countries do not have economic liberty…something we are rapidly losing in this country. The "sweat shops" you complain about like the most rabid Marxist stooge are an ALTERNATIVE to the sex slavery…and usually people are lining up for these jobs which offer much more than they have gotten before. Increased economic opportunity means increased standards of living. Learn some economics besides the Marxist/Keynesian variety.
February 26, 2012 at 7:35 am
First off, way to demonstrate what I mean about Paulbots hating Lincoln.
Second off, peewee, the economies of all non-Communist Asian countries are so unregulated, they generally top lists of "economic liberty" from libertarian magazines. But admit it: you don't even know one thing about Hong Kong or its economy.
They go into prostitution for two reasons: they get into debt, or they are orphans. You see, there is very little regulation on lending in Japan and South Korea, and the industry is dominated by organized crime. But please, O wise one, explain the differences and similarities between the yakuza and kkangpae. Meanwhile—due to a "laissez-faire" attitude toward institutions like orphanages, most of the orphanages in South Asia are…brothels. But again, little boy, you don't even know the basic geography of the region, so why am I even arguing it with you?
Third off, I spit on Marx and Keynes—elsewhere on this very blog, you can find me defending the Laffer curve against gross mischaracterizations by other ideologue trolls. But the fact remains that all economics requires the "rational actor". Drug addicts are not rational actors.
I notice you cannot actually answer my points about Ron Paul's support for legalizing prostitution, but you merely resort to pure ad hominem fallacy. That is the same thing as conceding the debate.
As for sweatshops, I refer in fact to the ones where women are forced to get abortions, lest a pregnancy cut into their work time. I refer to the ones that are actual slavery, but of course you wouldn't have a problem with that.
Sorry, Paulbot, but the fact is your boy Paul is a straight-up Dixiecrat, not a Republican. He's even been endorsed by David Duke and the neo-Nazi group Stormfront. And also the Communist Party of the USA, who know a complete non-threat when they see one. But no, tell us again how morally superior to real Republicans he is.