Rick Santorum Megathread: A Frothy Mixture of Opinions

[Lakeland]

Right, which is why Santorum's statements will amount to little more than statements. It's a constitutionally protected right. Frankly I don't care if Santorum was the bishop of New York or whatever, he's got a long road to hoe before he can get anything out of the whole church/state business. And I'm saying this as an avowed atheist, I don't care about his religious views, just like I don't care about any other presidents religious views.

Presidents get to appoint judges, and Santorum judges would likely shit all over said protections.

Whoopdedoo.

[Alien Space Bats]

WTF is "cultural marxism"?!?

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

<reads article>

So, it's essentially a load of crap.

<pause>

Your use of that term says a whole lot more about you than it does about Barack Obama.

[Revolutopia]

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

<reads article>

So, it's essentially a load of crap.

<pause>

Your use of that term says a whole lot more about you than it does about Barack Obama.

Not only Obama, all of us liberals who believe women and homosexuals deserve equal liberty.

[Grave_n_idle]

You should be.

When people disagree with Santorum's politics, immediately assuming that means the solution is simply restating them again in poorly-formatted blocks is just silly.

Apology accepted. Try harder next time, though.

I doubt any of you actually know what they are...

Well, now you know better.

That try harder thing? Do that.

[Alien Space Bats]

Whoopdedoo.

That you don't care much for substantive due process is also quite revealing, Lakeland.

You wouldn't happen to be a fascist, would you? We do have a few of them floating around here, GWO being the most prominent.

[Lakeland]

I doubt any of you actually know what they are...

Well, now you know better.

That try harder thing? Do that.

Please list the policy platform planks from memory. I'll hold my breath.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, now you know better.

That try harder thing? Do that.

Please list the policy platform planks from memory. I'll hold my breath.

Hold your breath all you like. I'm not the one making silly assertions.

*shrug*

[Lakeland]

Whoopdedoo.

That you don't care much for substantive due process is also quite revealing, Lakeland.

You wouldn't happen to be a fascist, would you? We do have a few of them floating around here, GWO being the most prominent.

Conflating due process with religious opinions. Can't roll my eyes hard enough. Where do you get off?

Seriously, how do you think your life will be effected by "religious armageddon", I have absolutely no fears about my life being adversely effected as a non-religious person by Santorum. Why do you think yours will?

[Lakeland]

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

<reads article>

So, it's essentially a load of crap.

<pause>

Your use of that term says a whole lot more about you than it does about Barack Obama.

Sorry, when did I say I was talking about Obama, I'm talking about you sir, and people of your ilk.

[Lakeland]

<reads article>

So, it's essentially a load of crap.

<pause>

Your use of that term says a whole lot more about you than it does about Barack Obama.

Not only Obama, all of us liberals who believe women and homosexuals deserve equal liberty.

Define "equal". Define "liberty". I certainly hope you aren't talking about positive liberty. You know where that led....

[Revolutopia]

Not only Obama, all of us liberals who believe women and homosexuals deserve equal liberty.

Define "equal". Define "liberty". I certainly hope you aren't talking about positive liberty. You know where that led....

The right to marry whom one chooses, the right of bodily sovereignty, etc.

[Lakeland]

Define "equal". Define "liberty". I certainly hope you aren't talking about positive liberty. You know where that led....

The right to marry whom one chooses, the right of bodily sovereignty, etc.

Positive liberty through societal endorsement for the first example. The body of the mother but not the child for the second example.

Sorry but no.

Also, your responses are quite myopic. I would simply define equality as equal opportunity, and liberty as freedom to do as one pleases with out any expectation of societal endorsement or restrictions, factoring in of course the permission of people whom you may be acting upon.

[Wikkiwallana]

For a socialist, Uncle Joe sure liked to live like an aristocrat. Can you show me where he equally distributed property and political power to all the common Soviet people?

Oh right, no true Scotsman/Communist.

Again you demonstrate that you don't understand how No True Scotsman works.

Edit: typo

[Wikkiwallana]

The right to marry whom one chooses, the right of bodily sovereignty, etc.

Positive liberty through societal endorsement for the first example. The body of the mother but not the child for the second example.

Sorry but no.

Also, your responses are quite myopic. I would simply define equality as equal opportunity, and liberty as freedom to do as one pleases with out any expectation of societal endorsement or restrictions, factoring in of course the permission of people whom you may be acting upon.

A foot race where one person starts at the starting line, another halfway down the track, and the third in a ten foot deep hole is not equal opportunity.

[Alien Space Bats]

Conflating due process with religious opinions. Can't roll my eyes hard enough. Where do you get off?

Well, unlike you, I actually listen to what Rick Santorum says. Both he and Mitt Romney - indeed, every Republican candidate - support the nomination of judges who oppose substantive due process; Santorum in particular has said that he does not agree with the Supreme Court's findings in Griswold v. Connecticut, while Romney has chosen Robert Bork as his principal adviser on judicial appointments, a known critic of Griswold.

Overturning past Supreme Court rulings isn't just a matter of having enough votes on the Court to get the job done; you have to have Justices who are willing to roll back the underlying legal principles behind those precedents, and then reapply new principles to all of those case that may have been touched by the now-defunct principles.

Thus, overturning Roe (the right to an abortion, which is the main political goal) requires the reversal of Griswold (the right of married couples to use contraception); once Griswold is gone, Lawrence (the right to private sexual relations) and Heller (most gun control ordinances found unconstitutional) disappear as well (although Heller might survive if Scalia shares Thomas' opinion on the continued applicability of the Privileges and Immunities clause in the wake of the Slaughter-House Cases).

Of course - and this is why conservatives are playing with fire on this - the unraveling of substantive due process isn't likely to stop with Griswold; it will flow back further through past precedent to impact a whole host of 19th Century cases establishing broad freedom from arbitrary economic regulations, because the doctrine of substantive due process essentially began as a doctrine supporting the concept of economic freedom. Blowback, indeed.

The result will be a dramatic increase in state regulatory authority across the board, touching almost every aspect of American life. But this should hardly be surprising. Robert Bork - who has been at the forefront of this fight - has always been a big believer in authoritarian government.

That suits Rick Santorum fine, as he believes that Big Government should serve as an enforcer for Big Religion. His greatest hope is to undo the separation of church and state for the sake of making the latter subservient to the former, all in the name of promoting morality.

Seriously, how do you think your life will be effected by "religious armageddon", I have absolutely no fears about my life being adversely effected as a non-religious person by Santorum. Why do you think yours will?

Do I have to wait for the authorities to come for me before I protest their offenses against others? Or can I learn from Martin Niemöller's example?

[Alien Space Bats]

Sorry, when did I say I was talking about Obama, I'm talking about you sir, and people of your ilk.

As I've never even dreamed of using Marxist analysis to criticize existing social structures, then it's even less appropriate that I had imagined.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Conflating due process with religious opinions. Can't roll my eyes hard enough. Where do you get off?

Well, unlike you, I actually listen to what Rick Santorum says. Both he and Mitt Romney - indeed, every Republican candidate - support the nomination of judges who oppose substantive due process; Santorum in particular has said that he does not agree with the Supreme Court's findings in Griswold v. Connecticut, while Romney has chosen Robert Bork as his principal adviser on judicial appointments, a known critic of Griswold.

Overturning past Supreme Court rulings isn't just a matter of having enough votes on the Court to get the job done; you have to have Justices who are willing to roll back the underlying legal principles behind those precedents, and then reapply new principles to all of those case that may have been touched by the now-defunct principles.

Thus, overturning Roe (the right to an abortion, which is the main political goal) requires the reversal of Griswold (the right of married couples to use contraception); once Griswold is gone, Lawrence (the right to private sexual relations) and Heller (most gun control ordinances found unconstitutional) disappear as well (although Heller might survive if Scalia shares Thomas' opinion on the continued applicability of the Privileges and Immunities clause in the wake of the Slaughter-House Cases).

Of course - and this is why conservatives are playing with fire on this - the unraveling of substantive due process isn't likely to stop with Griswold; it will flow back further through past precedent to impact a whole host of 19th Century cases establishing broad freedom from arbitrary economic regulations, because the doctrine of substantive due process essentially began as a doctrine supporting the concept of economic freedom. Blowback, indeed.

The result will be a dramatic increase in state regulatory authority across the board, touching almost every aspect of American life. But this should hardly be surprising. Robert Bork - who has been at the forefront of this fight - has always been a big believer in authoritarian government.

That suits Rick Santorum fine, as he believes that Big Government should serve as an enforcer for Big Religion. His greatest hope is to undo the separation of church and state for the sake of making the latter subservient to the former, all in the name of promoting morality.

Seriously, how do you think your life will be effected by "religious armageddon", I have absolutely no fears about my life being adversely effected as a non-religious person by Santorum. Why do you think yours will?

Do I have to wait for the authorities to come for me before I protest their offenses against others? Or can I learn from Martin Niemöller's example?

Wow. It's worse than I thought. Griswold v. Connecticut is on their fucking chopping block? Despite this, there are people, tens of millions in fact, who are mentally deficient enough to vote for them? I'm both furious and very sad.

[Free Soviets]

I would simply define equality as equal opportunity

that way leads pretty immediately to communism

[Revolutopia]

Positive liberty through societal endorsement for the first example. The body of the mother but not the child for the second example.

Sorry but no.
Also, your responses are quite myopic. I would simply define equality as equal opportunity, and liberty as freedom to do as one pleases with out any expectation of societal endorsement or restrictions, factoring in of course the permission of people whom you may be acting upon.

First, you presume I or anyone else cares about your objections to positive liberties. Secondly, the fetus's bodily sovereignty doesn't override the woman's thus she still has the right to self defense regarding the fetus taking her body substances without her approval.

Finally, you act if denying someone the right to marriage and bodily sovereignty is not a restriction. Therefore, if your positions were actually honest you would have to admit that they would have to be covered in your position.

[Lakeland]

Conflating due process with religious opinions. Can't roll my eyes hard enough. Where do you get off?

Well, unlike you, I actually listen to what Rick Santorum says. Both he and Mitt Romney - indeed, every Republican candidate - support the nomination of judges who oppose substantive due process; Santorum in particular has said that he does not agree with the Supreme Court's findings in Griswold v. Connecticut, while Romney has chosen Robert Bork as his principal adviser on judicial appointments, a known critic of Griswold.
-snip-

Ok, stop right there. So you DON'T have a problem with Obama's extrajudicial killings of American citizens? Or do you just not care because he's only killing brown people with silly religions, for now. Not to mention the Obama administration's support of the coup in Honduras, or do you not even know that happened, probably too busy making sure gay people feel good about themselves to care about brown people being gunned down for supporting the wrong candidate I suppose.

Do I have to wait for the authorities to come for me before I protest their offenses against others? Or can I learn from Martin Niemöller's example?

Again, you're just talking about the reverse of "Obama gunna maek Sharia!!!!". Also bringing up the holocaust with regards to religious opinions. Don't make me throw up, maybe I'll go and post in that "Stop making me look bad" thread.

[Lakeland]

First, you presume I or anyone else cares about your objections to positive liberties.
-snip-

You'd better care, after all we both live in democracies. Have a nice day~

[Revolutopia]

First, you presume I or anyone else cares about your objections to positive liberties.
-snip-

You'd better care, after all we both live in democracies. Have a nice day~

Positive liberties are not incompatible with democracy, thus your assertion is unfounded.

[Lakeland]

Wow. It's worse than I thought. Griswold v. Connecticut is on their fucking chopping block? Despite this, there are people, tens of millions in fact, who are mentally deficient enough to vote for them? I'm both furious and very sad.

Right right, it couldn't be that anyone disagrees with you because of substantive philosophical differences. No no, they all have to be stupid, after the all only people that are smart are the liby liberalist of liberals.

[Lakeland]

You'd better care, after all we both live in democracies. Have a nice day~

Positive liberties are not incompatible with democracy, thus your assertion is unfounded.

No, I mean people like me are going to vote against your BS.

[Revolutopia]

Positive liberties are not incompatible with democracy, thus your assertion is unfounded.

No, I mean people like me are going to vote against your BS.

You still have not countered of how by your standards you must support equal right to marriage and bodily sovereignty, as otherwise it would be an imposed restriction.