[Santorum] criticizes the pursuit of happiness! He says, “This is the mantra of the left: I have a right to do what I want to do” and “We have a whole culture that is focused on immediate gratification and the pursuit of happiness ... and it is harming America.” And then he says that what the Founders meant by happiness was “to do the morally right thing.” He really doesn’t like the idea of America as a free society, where adults make their own decisions and sometimes make choices that Santorum disapproves.
March 16, 2012
"Does Rick Santorum hate freedom and happiness?"
Asks a WaPo blogger (Allen McDuffee), after reading what Cato Institute Executive Vice President David Boaz said:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
84 comments:
If it makes Santorum happy to say these things, and others happy to hear it, who the hell is anyone to criticize them for it? Should we celebrate their own pursuit of happiness?
Actually he is not calling on the gov't to restrict your actions. He is calling for self control. Big difference.
Chuck said: he is not calling on the gov't to restrict your actions. He is calling for self control.
Santorum would make a much better preacher or inspirational speaker than presidential candidate.
A free society, as envisioned by our Founders, was predicated on the expectation that the society in question would be peopled by mature adults. It hasn't quite turned out that way.
If he's promising a crackdown on internet porn, I'd say he's "calling on the gov't to restrict your actions."
I think any fair reading of what Santorum said would lead to the conclusion that people ought to be able to defer immediate pleasure for long term happiness.
Although I don't like Mr. Santorum, I've long since given up on assuming that he'll get a "fair reading."
My guess is that Santorum is not opposed to happiness, but rather puts other things as higher priorities, such as doing the morally right thing.
The thing is, is that doing the morally right thing doesn't always mean that you are not happy, but rather that when given the choice between the two, you pick the morally right, instead of the happy, choice.
I could be wrong here, because some of our Puritan ancestors really did seem to be into unhappiness. But, Santorum, as I understand it, is classically Roman Catholic, which did and does allow happiness, except maybe to some of its more extreme orders.
The funny thing here though is that he probably isn't all that far from Mitt Romney here. Their religions differ, but both seem more than willing to live happily within the constraints of such. And, I think that Romney's may be harder to live within, given the requirements for a mission, tithing, etc.
Which is why both seem to resonate more with a lot than does Gingrich, who does seem to have put his personal happiness above that of doing the morally right thing over the years. Maybe he is now dedicated to doing the right thing, but it is much harder to believe in him, given his history. (My understanding is that Gingrich has had more wives than Santorum and Romney combined, despite the later being possibly descended from polygamists).
This is code for saying that his political opponents are Godless hedonist communists.
Actually he is not calling on the gov't to restrict your actions. He is calling for self control. Big difference
Really? If that is true, then his stance towards the War on Drugs should be re-legalizing those substances while still continuing to educate people on the potential dangers involved. You know, much like we do with booze and tobacco....
There's a difference between happiness and fun. Nuance.
H. L. Mencken described Santorum's puritanism best: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
I don't think Santorum hates freedom; his record suggests that he wants the Government to control it, however. At great expense.
Santorum, on the other hand, is viewed as the opposite a theist fascist prude.
You get 72 virgins at the end, is the plan.
Santorum would make a much better preacher or inspirational speaker than presidential candidate.
Yes and no. On the one hand, I don't think that we really want that much of a scold in the White House. We had that with the last moral Democratic President, and that wasn't very pleasant.
But, I think that a lot of us would be more comfortable with the head of our government making decisions on a moral, and not expedient, and personally enriching, basis, as have the last two Democratic Presidents.
Is this something Santorum said recently? If he said it recently, he really needs a kick in the butt to remind him that even excellent ideas about morality will be used to distract from the economy.
I like the way he thinks. Doing the right thing leads to happiness if you take the long view.
Santorum is a prig and a humorless scold. He exemplifies Mencken's definition of a puritan.
I see Madison Man got there before me.
Saint-orum is sending out a standard Christian message in hope that voters will admire his courage for doing it.
But most voters tend to run away from that message, which is that "there is no peace for the wicked."
He is right of course. That's why it is offensive. Voters want freedom to pick and chose the sin/atonement strategy that works the best for them to attain the level of happiness/contentment they like.
well, the "meat" in here is the future attractiveness of the Republican Party to 20 somethings. My kids, who are now independent of parental influence,but who continue as believers aren't attracted to the 80's style Religious Right candidate. On top of that they tend to be libertarian in their approach to public morality and the government. My sense is they're pretty typical of their age group.
PS Romney doesn't light their fire either.
I'm not a big Santorum fan, but too many people neurotically pursue pleasure trying to become happy. Pleasure and happiness are two different things.
Santorum said would lead to the conclusion that people ought to be able to defer immediate pleasure for long term happiness.
I take Santorum's statements at face value and at that, he's just being moral scold. He clearly believes that his motivations are righteous, but those of everyone are suspect. Nobody is yet qualified to simply pursue happiness.
This isn't new. In my former religion, the top dogs often made the argument that free agency was really free if you chose anything they didn't approve of.
"... He really doesn’t like the idea of America as a free society, where adults make their own decisions and sometimes make choices that Santorum disapproves..."
Seems like all Santorum needs to do is become pro abortion and he'd be the perfect liberal Democrat.
Does happiness and freedom have anything to do with Internet porno?
"On the one hand, I don't think that we really want that much of a scold in the White House. We had that with the last moral Democratic President, and that wasn't very pleasant."
That said, be fair to the guy. He is making nuanced arguments which is something that the Left refuses to admit the Right does. It's far simpler to discount arguments as stupid or evil than deal with them on the merits.
Penguin,
I agree with you on the war on drugs, but to be fair, there are no candidates on either side who amek that case. Santorum doesn't really stand out as far as drug legalization. I can find other reasons to not vote for him.
This is code for saying that his political opponents are Godless hedonist communists.
I don't think that he gets away with this with Romney. Obama maybe, despite him not really being a communist, but rather, more a fascist style socialist.
With Obama, I don't think that you can actually call him godlesss, but rather, that he doesn't spend much time or effort on this side of his life, as evidenced by sitting in Rev. Wright's pews for 20 years, and how he really does not understand scripture that well.
Hedonism? I may agree there. Shutting down airspace over NYC or traffic in LA for his personal pleasure would fall into that. As well, as a truly slacker work style, apparently working far less than any of his recent predecessors, probably all the way back, maybe, to Eisenhower (and, some of that was misdirection), along with numerous expensive vacations to hang out with the 1% of the 1%. Indeed, it sometimes looks like he views the Presidency primarily as a vehicle for his and his family's personal aggrandizement.
And, maybe Santorum is onto something here. Even if the President, whomever he may be, gets to live in the big house, have the biggest plane, with the best parking places, etc., in a time like this, when so many are suffering, a lot of Americans resent that he seems to almost flaunt it.
What Lyssa said.
This McDuffee guy seems to think that "happiness" is a good thing.
And it is.
So, if to be happy is good, can one be truly happy in doing an ungood thing, in pursuing that which is not good? And does one then have a right to pursue that which is not good?
Or in seeking to be happy with and through that which is not good, does one set aside the pursuit of happiness, which is an inalienable right (cannot be alienated, i.e. given away)?
Or are our rights and liberties dependent upon what is good, what is true? Does one have the natural freedom to pursue that which is untrue? Does one have the freedom to be unfree?
If it makes one happy to be a slave, does one have the freedom to be one?
Oh, come on Bruce, Democrats especially, but also Republicans, almost always use morality as an excuse to increase the largess and control of government. Wasn't NCLB justified as the moral thing to do? Didn't Obama justify health care reform on a moral basis and make direct appeals based on that?
So, maybe what we need is something between the moral scolding of a Santorum and the hedonism of an Obama. Someone more likely to lead by example, but not through moral posturing and lecturing, but still making decisions by doing the morally right thing.
Did the Declaration of Independence, from which this nation obtained the phrase, "pursuit of happiness," set in stone a fundamental right to unrestrained hedonism?
And are those who subscribe to this the hedonistic (or sadism and/or masochism) theory of happiness willing to concede the other clauses pertaining to "truth" and that rights originate in a "Creator"?
Does happiness and freedom have anything to do with Internet porno?
Not much to do with happiness but everything to do with freedom. I hate the stuff but would not argue to limit it.
Dennis Prager on happiness here.
He's thought about it alot, and has pretty good insights, I think. One is that the pursuit of happiness is not the pursuit of pleassure.
"So, maybe what we need is something between the moral scolding of a Santorum and the hedonism of an Obama.'
WTF?!
What "hedonism" does Obama display, profess, or encourage?
You know, again, there are many reasons to deplore Obama, but you guys are totally missing the boat, condemning him for fantastical reasons that aren't even true, and ignoring his real evils.
It's really, really sad when a presidential candidate says something akin to "True freedom consists in living according to moral law" and a sizable fraction of the punditry goes "Whaaat?".
I know lots of folks think Little Ricky is dumb as a box of hammers because he just isn't in to buttfucking, but, come on folks, the quote on "true freedom" above would just be a commonplace in western moral philosophy.
Please, do us all a favor: if you think moral philosophy is something that one pulls out of one's ass, fresh & new as the morning's donuts, please keep a respectful silence. Do any of these people have anything vaguely resembling an education?
Certainly those on the left derive a perverse pleasure and happiness in being angry and bitter and hateful and miserable all the time.
Indeed, they are happiest when they are their most discontented and angry.
Bad move by Santorum. I don't want the gov pushing me around. He can be as religious as he wants in his private life but that is his religion, his morality, don't try to foist it on us.
Americans want to be fixed by a President. That is odd in itself. But lets review the diagnosis we are getting by our potential fixers:
Gingrich accuses us of being dumber than him.
Santorum accuses us of being immoral.
Romney accuses us of being financially ignorant.
Paul accuses us of being an Evil Empire.
Obama accuses us of owning more property than the poor people of the earth.
So why did we throw out the only positive message about us coming from Old 999, the good leader named Herman Cain?
Saint-orum must be on to something here. Americans want to be accused of being bad people.
Finally the point of all these "happiness" peregrinations...
I guess Santorum thinks he can do without the libertarian wing of the GOP.
This election will turn on fiscal matters. Santorum's constant effort to pivot the debate towards issues dear to the hearts of social conservatives is more than a distraction, it helps Obama and his policies escape some long overdue and well-earned scrutiny. This country doesn't need a debate on the nature of happiness -- though I suspect Jefferson had more of a utilitarian model in mind rather than a traditional Christian notion, i.e. no happiness in this World when he choose that phrase for the Declaration -- we need to face the consequences of unmanageable debt.
Frankly, I beginning to suspect Santorum is a less a candidate an more an insurgent.
Bruce:
You hit on the key word "Lead". We need a leader - neither Saintorum nor Obama is a leader.
Romney has leadership skills but, unlike an Obama or a Saintorum, Romney won't be in our faces day after day after day.
I agree with ya Patrick; this isn't the only reason to not vote for him. Like you said, most of the other candidates (Ron Paul being the only current exception?) share the same opinion about the Drug War Policy.
Which is kinda weird, seeing how poll-after-poll shows that most Americans want to see serious changes in that policy. I reckon nothing will change until people stop voting for the same ol' same ol'...
Did the Declaration of Independence, from which this nation obtained the phrase, "pursuit of happiness," set in stone a fundamental right to unrestrained hedonism?
Yes. As long as my hedonism does run into yours, damn right it does. If freedom doesn't mean I, or anyone, has the right to be a hedonist, then it isn't freedom.
Trad
So why did we throw out the only positive message about us coming from Old 999, the good leader named Herman Cain?
Because a Republican who waves his dick all over Amercia can not be elected President. Apparently, Cain has, realized that, and got out.
Santorum is just a misery, through and through. Such an old woman. He was probably like that when he was five years old. He always reminds me of my bitter, old-maid sister in law.
"I believe He [God] is pleased and delights in the happiness of those He has created; and since without virtue man can have no happiness in this world, I firmly believe He delights to see me virtuous." -- Ben Franklin
Oh, come on Bruce, Democrats especially, but also Republicans, almost always use morality as an excuse to increase the largess and control of government. Wasn't NCLB justified as the moral thing to do? Didn't Obama justify health care reform on a moral basis and make direct appeals based on that?
But, was it done for moral reasons, or in order to gain power for himself and his cronies?
But, you are right. For many on the left, much, if not most, of their legislation has been purportedly done for the benefit of one disadvantaged group or another, and some of them may actually believe that they are doing good.
The reality though, is that most of what they have done, at least since the death of JFK, domestically, has been highly counter productive to almost an extreme, starting with the War on Poverty destroying the black family and instituting a culture of dependency. Which just seemed to make the requirement for government assistance in these areas even more urgent, and those reactions inevitably made the situation even more dire.
So, maybe part of what Santorum is illustrating here is that the left here seems to be insistent upon replacing personal responsibility with government responsibility, regardless of the long run consequences. And, that maybe, just maybe, personal responsibility is a better, long run, approach to these problems.
One reason that the motives of all these reformers pushing bigger government are often in question, is that while they claim to be trying to help the common man and the less fortunate, they invariably make sure that their friends, families, and cronies get rich in the meantime, and as a result of those actions and programs.
This Santorum guy is too sophisticated for all of the smart people in the room.
Now, it does seem wrong to say that true freedom is the ability to do what you ought to do, the ability to do the “right” thing, rather than what you might want to do. After all, if I can’t do what I want, if I am restrained from doing as I please, either by outside influences or by self-restraint, then how can I be truly free??
But if we really care to think and reflect upon it, rather than just engage in unreasoned rage, it becomes clear that I can be truly free while restrained from doing as I please because true freedom is necessarily restrained.
True freedom, by its very nature, is necessarily limited, in that it is inalienable, that is, it cannot be alienated, that is, it cannot be given away. If freedom were able to be given away, if one was free to be unfree and able to choose to be a slave, he obviously would no longer be free or in a state of freedom.
Authentic freedom exists only in order, not disorder. A choice or act is freely made only when it is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, with an understanding of the nature and consequences of that choice or act. If one cannot, because of external factors or because of a defective internal conscience, recognize what is true and what is false, what is good and what is evil, then one cannot make an informed and intelligent choice. Error and falsehood does not lead to truth, it leads to further error and ignorance of truth. Consequently, making erroneous choices, choosing to do that which is wrong, which is contrary to truth and order (in other words, to "sin"), distorts and impairs one’s ability to further recognize truth and good over that which is false and evil. To do that which is inconsistent with truth is not freedom, but is instead being confined and controlled by error.
If you insist on doing as you please, rather than following the road map and the road signs, pretty soon you are going to be on the wrong road going in the wrong direction. Now you are no longer free to get where you had planned to go, you are instead a slave to your own foolishness.
Freedom necessarily is dependent and contingent upon truth. Thus, it is necessarily limited by truth, including moral truth, such that the ability to engage in something contrary to truth, as one might want to do, is not freedom at all. Eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge does not free us, it does not make things clearer, it does not make us like gods, empowered to choose and determine what is right and what is wrong; it only enslaves us to error and unhappiness.
It is, and only can be, by doing what we ought to do, doing what is right and good, that is, acting in conformance with truth, acting in a manner consistent with the truth for which we were made, that one can be free and, therefore, happy.
This Santorum guy is too sophisticated for all of the smart people in the room.
No. He's not.
He is, however, applying for the wrong job.
What "hedonism" does Obama display, profess, or encourage?
He mostly doesn't profess such. But, with Obama, you always have to see the walk, and not listen so much to the talk. The talk is cheap, the walk is not.
I mentioned the many vacations to expensive places to hang out with the 1% of the 1% (at our expense), and shutting down NYC air space, so that he and his wife could go to a show there. And, shutting down traffic in LA during rush hour a couple of times for fund raisers. And, the record number of days golfing.
Also, note that he appears to actually work less than any President since probably Eisenhower, spending his Presidency enjoying the perks of the office, without really taking on many of the responsibilities. His predecessors, including those 20 years his senior, tended to work well more than 8 hours a day, most days, with appointments and other obligations heavily scheduled from maybe 8 in the morning until dinner time. Obama? Many days, he appears to have only one or two things on this schedule, above and beyond playing golf, picking brackets, and raising money for another four years.
Maybe he is another Eisenhower. But Eisenhower had extensive experience delegating (Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, etc.) Obama really had none before gaining this office.
Holy crap, Robert Cook and I agree!
I have put my affairs in order and I am awaiting the arrival of Jesus.
I much preferred Reagans Happy Warrior style to Santorums style of neo-puritanism.
One more:
"[T]here exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness...." -- George Washington's First Inaugural
As several people have noted, Boaz, perhaps intentionally, confuses instant gratification with true happiness and that a lot of what Santorum intends to get across is about self control. Problem is, it doesn't come out that way.
That said, Santorum is a hard core statist as bad as GodZero and wants to outlaw everything he doesn't like at the Federal level.
Tank said...
So why did we throw out the only positive message about us coming from Old 999, the good leader named Herman Cain?
Because a Republican who waves his dick all over Amercia can not be elected President. Apparently, Cain has, realized that, and got out.
Oh, for Christ's sake.
He had to get out because a bunch of over-the-hill Ms Flucks lied their asses off and said he made a pass at them.
A couple of years from now, they will have all been proven to be liars and we'll be reminded of the words of Ray Donovan, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?".
I agree though, that America probably doesn't want to be led by a moral scold. We had that with Carter, and it didn't go well with the American people.
But, I don't think that we want someone living large either, like our current President seems to be, while the rest of the country suffers.
I understand freedom requires restraint. I just disagree with Santorum where the restraining needs to be. I don't trust him in many ways to respect Liberty when he is doing the restraining.
I am going to vote for the person who will restrain government and not for the person who'se first instinct is to use the Government to restrain individuals just because he thinks his Bible said so.
I'm following you, Bender. Clear as a bell.
People fear someone else imposing the limits instead of us imposing limits on ourselves. Much like I fear Obama wanting to limit the amount of wealth we can have.
Bender,
That argument goes over better at the Newman Center than in a general election. What unites the GOP is that we want to reduce the corruption, size, power, and cost of federal government. We want to restore the constitution. We don't want gov pushing us around.
We already have a leftwing moral scold in the White House. I don't want to repplace him with a GOP moral scold.
Quite frankly, as an adult American, I am tired of being lectured to by Government employees, regardless of party, who think they have all the answers.
Steve K: Yes. Santorum and all presidential candidates need to focus on the economy and leave off this stuff. Even though I like what he said, it is only a distraction from what matters most in this election.
But, I don't think that we want someone living large either, like our current President seems to be, while the rest of the country suffers.
What I meant there is that much of middle class America is turned off by anyone living large, and, esp. by those who didn't earn it honestly.
But, there are plenty in this country who do like see people getting to flaunt it, getting to live large. I think that it is some sort of voyeurism. Think of those soap operas where everyone is rich, beautiful, and spend their time having multiple sexual partners throughout the series, and all the problems that causes. Or many of these "reality" shows, where a bunch of 20 something losers live in mansions together and just seem to be obsessing about their mary-go-round of sexual escapades with each other. The commonality, it seems, maybe in being able live large, without actually having slaved away for decades to get there.
Is the target market for these shows the people who work hard day in and day out? Or the slackers, who spend their lives watching their plasma TVs, dreaming about how great it would be if they too could live that same life style. I think that the answer is obvious - most of us don't have the luxury to watch or interest in those hedonistic types of shows.
Did you know that when September 11, 2001, came around, that we had already been at war with radical Islamists for decades? That it did not begin with the attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon?
All of you social agnostics, you Big Tenters who want to avoid and run away from these fights, you are living in a September 10 world.
Santorum is not raising these issues -- he is responding to them. You don't want this kind of stuff being discussed in elections, you don't want government involved in such stuff? GOVERNMENT ALREADY IS -- and Lord Obama has been actively seeking to involve government in even more of your personal lives, imposing his own leftist and arbitrary conception of "morality" on you.
Santorum has no desire to control you or your lives. Although you all seem all too willing to let the Dems control your thinking on him.
This election will turn on fiscal matters.
Let me re-phrase that -- this election ought to turn on fiscal matters, and will if the debate is sharply focused. If this goes on it only works to the advantage of Democrats. Like it or not most Americans are functional hedonists and have been for sometime. Santorum's efforts to closely couple happiness and traditional Catholic notions of morality will only engender suspicion in the electorate.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and MSNBC whisper a word here and there about Santorum, and all of the anti-social con Republicans start going into convulsions and spasms over him. Who are the puppets here?
The left pulls your strings and you dance for them.
Oh, for crying out loud, Bender, get off your high horse.
No, the Dems and liberals don't pull my strings, or tell me how to think. Neither do the likes of the perpetually dour Rick Santorum.
I can read through his position papers, take a look at his record and decide I won't vote for that sour old woman all by myself, thank you.
At some point you have to grow up and stop being a little baby looking for a daddy figure to do everything for you, including making your moral choices for you.
You're awfully touchy there, N.
Well, whatever makes you happy.
Talk about being dour. All you've done here is bitch and moan.
And Santorum didn't make you that way -- you chose that for yourself.
Touchy? Moi? Not so.
I don't appreciate being told I'm stupid and/or brainwashed because I don't think Santorum is a wise choice for the Republican party.
I think that the problem arises when it comes unbalanced from the obligations that we have. Sure, pursue happiness, but not at the expense of your responsibilities.
And if your pursuit of happiness should lead to misery? Are you going to ask us to rescue you?
Following the so-called "culture war" over the years has made it clear to me that a lot of religious folks don't want to live in a morally pluralisitic world. I find that ironic given that that Christianity is equipped to do so but many Christians don't seem to realize it. The Golden Rule and love your neighbor as yourself is to be practiced toward everyone, most especially the sinner. IMO, most Christians seem to do the opposite when it comes to dealing with those who live lives outside of Christian social norms.
Yes, some Christians seem ill-equipped to deal with the notion of personal responsibility (and the freedom contained therein), which is the gift Christ gave us. Odd, that.
They only way they are able to be virtuous is if there is no other choice. In which case, there is no virtue, but they don't seem capable of understanding that.
Sometimes, too, they fall into the "it's not fair" babyishness when others don't make the same moral choices they do and aren't immediately struck by lightening.
OK, N., you enjoy the snark and strawman, we can see.
But since you mentioned Him, and since you are not stupid or brainwashed, what did Christ say makes us free?
Well, not committing adultery, for one thing. Even if it's "virtual" adultery...
Just sayin'.
Just sayin', huh?
Come on, N, it is a famous quote. Even atheists know it.
What did Jesus say makes us free?
The Declaration of Independence gave “the people” the right to choose and install any government they deemed appropriate to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The word “happiness” is misunderstood today to mean something like citizens have a right to a good mood or material things, when at the time its meaning was “chance” – meaning, a citizen had the right to pursue opportunity.
What makes me free is that I AM free and I will fight to keep it so. It certainly isn't Rick Santorum channeling Billy Graham.
Santorum is a wannabe theocrat. He wants you to live by his religion. Obama wants you to live by his values Both of them are self-righteous and off putting.
I find it amusing that Santorum really, really opposes Iran - which is a theocracy - because they force everyone to live by the leaders' moral beliefs :-) Apparently he has never done his shadow work :-)
To defend the family is good, imo. But to define, for everyone) what family means is oppressive. For some their dog or their cat is part of their family. For some, there is only one parent. For some, close friends become family. It is personal, not collective.
So you want a Catholic Taliban, is that it, Bender?
You want to spit in the face of God AND spit in the face of our founding fathers?
No free will, no freedom of religious expression. Just mandate Catholic dogma into law and that's it, eh? That's the truth that will set us all free -- by mandate, complete with morality police and all?
Santorum can believe what he wants, he can rant about it, lecture, scold, whatever. He can't, however, claim he's going to focus on the porn industry and expect to win in THIS election season. Ain't happening, and that he doesn't have the sense to realize that only proves he's not a good candidate and would make a terrible president.
Yes, some Christians seem ill-equipped to deal with the notion of personal responsibility (and the freedom contained therein), which is the gift Christ gave us. Odd, that.
Bender and N seem to think they are at odds but I don't think so. They probably live different kinds of lives but I'd bet their political solutions are pretty closely matched.
Try having an intelligent discussion, N, instead of all of this irrational snark and hate against personalities.
Yes, truth sets one free. Truth. And one is not and cannot be free to choose or will his own truth. You cannot will that which is false to be true.
That is not tyranny, that is the nature of truth. It is the first condition of genuine freedom.
Good.
Now go tell that to little Ricky.
No amount of spin on his part is gonna make him the winner of the Republican primary. That's the truth, regardless of what he'd like to think is the truth.
OK, I tried, but you appear to be incapable of a grown-up discussion on the merits. You can go have your knee-jerk tantrums on your own.
Yes, and you and your internet girlfriend can run off to your private chatroom now.
Santorum has no desire to control you or your lives.
Look at the bills he has supported, and voted for. They tell a different story.
MadisonMan said...
Look at the bills he has supported, and voted for. They tell a different story.
Obama has made his career out of supporting bills that control people's lives (and deaths). He has supported bigger bills that aim to control us even more in the future.
This whole issue is another sideshow aimed at men instead of women.
1) Santorum is done.
He screwed up on the English vis a vis Puerto Rico, he screwed up when talking about going after porn.
An organization wanted to study the effects of porn on men...they couldn't find any men to be in the control group. Not enough men...any.
Which is a shame, because he actually did a good job on contraception: "not going to use govt to make changes, but the feasibility of widespread use needs to be debated as much as race does" was pretty good.
2) re: This election is/should turn on economic matters...
Actually, you can't separate moral and economic. The Democrats' economic moves have failed, and clearly failed...they are making a moral argument to be allowed to continue less-than-effective economics. For instance: it is a moral value judgment to say that Green energy is more important than cheap energy, and that it is worth further impoverishing poor people and keeping people unemployed in order to force everyone to pay a higher price for energy in any of its forms...and thus enact policy that prevents hydrocarbon production, raises CAFE standards, shuts down coal plants long before obsolescence.
So you can make an economic argument those decisions were wrong...but you'll have to address the moral component, as well.
Same with Obamacare.
Same with contraception mandates.
Same with affirmative action.
Same with Gunwalker/Fast&Furious.
Everything is being defended from a moral values perspective.
Post a Comment