Rick Santorum's candidacy ...

ThomasT

I knew that was going to get some sort of sarcastic reply. Ok, it's funny. But seriously, I've known lots, and I mean lots, of pretty devout Catholic Christians. And, afaik, they're good people. Ok, not counting the priests. But really, the devout Catholics who haven't been proven weird seem ok.

SHISHKABOB

yeah I agree, I've also known lots of great Christians. But I've also known lots of great people who were not Christian.

personally I think a good person will be a good person regardless of their faith, and vice versa. Therefore I think that Santorum is really just using his faith to win votes, which is gross IMO.

mheslep

It's clear that socialized medicine is not an easy thing to reverse, even if it has happened in small countries.


Yes, he's c..r..a..z..y. C'mon.

Does this Jefferson sound apocalytic?

The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield


Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny

Gokul43201

I think you misunderstood what I was referring to. I'm more amazed about the statement that no country that has lost its freedom has ever regained it. If you look at my post again, you'll see that it was this particular statement that I was questioning the judgment behind making.

From a political point of view, yes, I think so. How is a message that it's too late to return to the glory days supposed to get the electorate to the polling station?

I suppose the argument might be that we're not quite past the point of no return just yet, but with 4 more years of Obama (or Romney?), we definitely will be? That logic is a little difficult to square with the view that things went to hell in a handbasket the moment O was sworn in.

Does either of that sound remotely close to: No country that has lost its freedom has ever regained it?

Jefferson is making careful observations on the nature of government, not throwing out off-hand statements that are blatantly erroneous.

Astronuc

Looks like Santorum won the caucuses in Kansas.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...efuls-15893854

Evo

Kansas is known for it's religious leanings in education and politics, IMO, causing some rather embarrassing decisions.

AlephZero

For amusement only: Four quotes allegedly by Santorum, and four allegedly by Supreme Leader Khamenei. Who said what? http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...party?page=0,0

(I say "allegedly", because I haven't attempted to verify the sources).

ThomasT

Me too.

Me too.

I don't see anything particularly reprehensible about that. He's, apparently, a very religiously Christian guy and there are lots of very religiously Christian people in the US. Why would he not attempt to appeal to that constituency?

I won't vote for him, but pushing his religious orientation is part of the game as currently circumscribed. It's up to people who don't agree with that sort of thing to vote for a different candidate. Which I certainly will.

mathwonk

aleph, i only got two of those right. i am one of those people who isn't sure whether santorum's nomination would help republicans or democrats more. but if it helps republicans i'm pretty nervous, because he seems not to appreciate separation of church and state, (or was that khameini?)

Angry Citizen

I've been predicting a splinter in the Republican Party since a little after Obama was elected. The seems to be three factions in the Republican Party, all vying for control. One is, of course, the traditional Republican establishment responsible for Bush the Elder and Reagan and the '94 Republican takeover, which makes up perhaps half of the current constituency. Another is the libertarian wing, which I feel makes up about 10% (about the share Ron Paul is getting on average). And lastly is the Christian Conservative side, responsible for Bush the Younger. These make up the rest.

What fascinates me most about this is just how unstable the relationship is. Libertarians and Christian conservatives are practically antithetical to one another in every respect except their particular brand of laissez-faire economics. "Secular" Republicans see Christian conservatives as a threat that must be beaten down, else their party will find itself on the losing end of a youth generation that is overwhelmingly liberal on social issues. If the libertarian wing starts to defect, then the tenuous balance of power between Democrats and Republicans will break leftward. If the secular Republicans can't defeat the Christian conservatives, then the Republicans will find themselves marginalized. It is of the utmost importance for Republicans that they find a way to purge the influence of Christian conservatives while maintaining them as a loyal voting bloc. I don't think it needs to be said just how unlikely this scenario will be.

This is what I see happening. This 'war' between Christian conservatives, secular Republicans and libertarians will play out all the way to the convention. Santorum will lose, but it will be much closer than Romney will feel comfortable with. Romney is not going to be accepted by all of the Christian conservative movement, but he will be accepted by most. The Republicans are going to lose this election unless the economy turns into a train wreck and/or Europe succumbs to its imminent recession too soon. Obama has placed them in a checkmate no matter who wins the primary. Blame will be placed on the Christian conservatives, and they will no longer enjoy the status as the favored wing of the Republicans. This will translate into more traditional Republicanism, but I think it'll take another sound thrashing after 2012 (perhaps the 2014 midterms) before they wake up and smell the fact that Keynesianism - and dare I say it socialism - is back in vogue.

Evo

Seriously? And what is his definition of pornography, scantily clad women? Playboy magazine? How many billions of dollars will he spend to keep Americans from looking at risque pictures in the privacy of their homes? No more nudity in films? Book burnings? Label all above IMO in case it's not clear that I am asking.

Continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/r...222833811.html

Hobin

I'm not from the USA, but surely there aren't that many people who agree with Santorum on this one? Or am I underestimating the anti-pornography movement in America?

Jimmy Snyder

That should lock up the hypocrite vote pretty tight.

mheslep

He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

lisab

I'm sure there are lots who would agree with him, while they're in church. But in the privacy of their own homes...

Evo

There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_s...#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.

Char. Limit

Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition. And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.