Thread: Santorum wins Alabama--They're going to have to go after Santorum on EXTREME social views

Originally Posted by Agnostick

1. What is a "conservative?" -- There's probably a thread from five or six years ago, in one of the other subject areas around here, that deals with this question. Is it someone with conservative fiscal ideas, but rather moderate or liberal social ideas? Someone with moderate or liberal fiscal ideas, but conservative social ideas? Someone who's extremely conservative in every aspect of their life?
   
   
2. It ain't over 'til it's over -- Here's a simple exercise: First, think back to the early morning of September 11, 2001. Think about getting up that morning, getting ready for work, packing lunches for the kids, etc. Now, contrast that to where you were, what you were doing, what you were thinking at noon that day... only four or five hours later. Think about how much changed in those few hours: foreign policy, safety and security, air travel, mood, morale, life, death.
   
   Now, realize that we're more than three months away from the conventions... and six months away from the general election.

Well I think your first question is actually pretty simple to answer. I mean, what does the word "conservative" mean in the simplest terms? To CONSERVE. So the question is, to conserve what exactly? Well to conserve culture, or a way of living perhaps. In the context of America, I would say it is to CONSERVE the founding principles and philosophy of this nation. To conserve what the Founders gave us and what they tried to create in this nation. To conserve the most basic law of the land: the Constitution. Part of that of course is to look at the original intent of the Constitution and what the Founders believed was the fundamental role of government in our lives. And to "conserve" that, really the only way to do it is to be fiscally conservative considering not only how the majority of the Founders felt about debt itself, but also because to have a "limited government" or "enumerated, specified powers" you MUST have a small national government and that in itself ensures fiscal responsibility. So, to answer your question, it is about conserving original principles and philosphy and the Constitution. And what are those founding principles? Your right to Life, Liberty (living your life the way you want as long as you don't trample on the rights of others), and Property (and to keep the fruits of your labor). It also included among other things, a disdain for foreign involvement and entangling alliances and an extreme dislike for fiat currencies.

I mean think about it this way: The original or "true" of anything would inherently be the "first" of that particular thing. A "true" conservative would have to, by definition, be the first brand of "conservatism" not the later versions or latest version. So "true" conservative would be those who hold Classic Liberal views about the role of government, markets, and the intent and purpose of our Constitution. The "neo" or "new" conservatives can't possibly be "true" conservatives because that literally makes no sense. The original of anything will be its "true" version, not the new kid on the block. Example: say a restaurant sells their "classic cheeseburger" for 10 years, but then one day changes it to "the new Classic Cheeseburger". Now obviously the "new" burger is not the "old" burger. It is different. But which one is the "true" Classic Cheeseburger? The one that was sold for 10 years or the one they just created 2 days ago? Well, which conservatism is "true"? Classic Liberal style free market philosophy, the philosophy of John Locke, and the ideas of liberty as expressed by the Founders and a belief in the original intent of the Constitution OR the "new" conservatives who about 20 years ago started in the Democratic Party, co-opted the GOP, and now control the GOP. Which would be "true"? I think the answer is rather obvious.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

Well I think your first question is actually pretty simple to answer. I mean, what does the word "conservative" mean in the simplest terms? To CONSERVE. So the question is, to conserve what exactly? Well to conserve culture, or a way of living perhaps. In the context of America, I would say it is to CONSERVE the founding principles and philosophy of this nation. To conserve what the Founders gave us and what they tried to create in this nation. To conserve the most basic law of the land: the Constitution. Part of that of course is to look at the original intent of the Constitution and what the Founders believed was the fundamental role of government in our lives. And to "conserve" that, really the only way to do it is to be fiscally conservative considering not only how the majority of the Founders felt about debt itself, but also because to have a "limited government" or "enumerated, specified powers" you MUST have a small national government and that in itself ensures fiscal responsibility. So, to answer your question, it is about conserving original principles and philosphy and the Constitution. And what are those founding principles? Your right to Life, Liberty (living your life the way you want as long as you don't trample on the rights of others), and Property (and to keep the fruits of your labor). It also included among other things, a disdain for foreign involvement and entangling alliances and an extreme dislike for fiat currencies.

I mean think about it this way: The original or "true" of anything would inherently be the "first" of that particular thing. A "true" conservative would have to, by definition, be the first brand of "conservatism" not the later versions or latest version. So "true" conservative would be those who hold Classic Liberal views about the role of government, markets, and the intent and purpose of our Constitution. The "neo" or "new" conservatives can't possibly be "true" conservatives because that literally makes no sense. The original of anything will be its "true" version, not the new kid on the block. Example: say a restaurant sells their "classic cheeseburger" for 10 years, but then one day changes it to "the new Classic Cheeseburger". Now obviously the "new" burger is not the "old" burger. It is different. But which one is the "true" Classic Cheeseburger? The one that was sold for 10 years or the one they just created 2 days ago? Well, which conservatism is "true"? Classic Liberal style free market philosophy, the philosophy of John Locke, and the ideas of liberty as expressed by the Founders and a belief in the original intent of the Constitution OR the "new" conservatives who about 20 years ago started in the Democratic Party, co-opted the GOP, and now control the GOP. Which would be "true"? I think the answer is rather obvious.

I don't think Benjamin Franklin or any of other forefathers could have possibly imagined the destruction of a bomb or nuclear weapon that we have today. Nor do I believe that they could have possibly conceived the thought of a suicide bomber. These things were completely out of their world. Yes, there was war--but not like today.

If we could have woken up our Forefathers to witness the destruction and loss of life on 9/11 from "airplanes" something that was not in their world either--& how it was done--they probably would have written in the constitution the Patriot Act--and overwhelmingly approved it. The one thing they all had in common was the safety and defense of this country. There was never any argument there.

This is where Ron Paul goes over the cliff on this issue--and is the reason why he is not winning.

Originally Posted by Oreo

I don't think Benjamin Franklin or any of other forefathers could have possibly imagined the destruction of a bomb or nuclear weapon that we have today. Nor do I believe that they could have possibly conceived the thought of a suicide bomber. These things were completely out of their world. Yes, there was war--but not like today.

If we could have woken up our Forefathers to witness the destruction and loss of life on 9/11 from "airplanes" something that was not in their world either--& how it was done--they probably would have written in the constitution the Patriot Act--and overwhelmingly approved it. The one thing they all had in common was the safety and defense of this country. There was never any argument there.

This is where Ron Paul goes over the cliff on this issue--and is the reason why he is not winning.

The founders would NEVER have written the Patriot Act into the Constitution if they could have seen the future, that is absolutely absurd. What you are missing and faililng to even attempt to comprehend is cause and effect, and consequences of actions, regardless of original intentions. You assume that terrorists with such hatred for us that they would use a nuclear bomb exists on its own, in a vacuum, that it just came out of no where. They just hate us to hate us and hate us so bad for no reason, that they would want to blow us up with a bomb. This is the fundamental difference between the other GOP candidates and Paul. It's simple logic: Why do terrorists come about, not just in the Middle East among Muslims, but ANYWHERE among ANY GROUP? Why? That is the fundamental question.

Would you wake up one day hating a group or country so bad that you would be willing to strap a bomb to your back and kill someone or a host of people? I doubt it. Now, if say a group or another country interfered in America's affairs and a bomb of theirs accidently blew up your children, you'd at least be pissed about that, I would think. This really is just simple logic. People in other countries for the most part, go about their everyday lives, just living like you and me, and usually they go about living in much tougher circumstances than we do - like our grandparents did. They concentrate on just surviving and feeding their children day to day. How the hell do these people who are busy just surviving (like say in feudal Afghanistan) all the sudden get the motivation to go kill "infidels" overseas? Sure, SOME of those folks might just be crazy motherfuckers who want 72 virgins when they die for Allah, sure SOME of them might actually be like that. But think for just a minute: Does this describe EVERY terrorist? Is there ANY validity to the idea that our foreign intervention, no matter how well intentioned MIGHT have negative consequences like pissing people off overseas, especially if an accidental incident occurs like with the soldier in Afghanistan who went crazy and killed numerous INNOCENT civilians? Now, that is not America's fault, that is the fault of the soldier. But incidents like that occur exactly because we are over there, interfering in their affairs, otherwise that guy would never have been able to do that. Now this guy had 4 deployments in 10 years and he just snapped. That would not have occured had we pursued a different foreign policy - particularly that expressed by the majority of the Founders. Don't you think this soldiers actions will have negative effects in the long run? Of course, its stuff like this that fuels terrorism and fuels recruitment of terrorists by terrorist organizations. This is what happens, it doesn't just materialize out of thin air. It becomes much easier to recruit a young person, naturally rebellious anyway, if they see destruction and innocent deaths around them and can be manipulated by terrorist groups who are fighting us. If we weren't over there interfering with incidents like the shooting in Afghanistan happening, recruitment for terrorist orgs would be MUCH harder to accomplish, especially had we never interfered to begin with 60+ years ago. There would be no reason and no drive for such a thing. Killing innocents like this guy did though, will fuel terrorism. Then we respond. Then more mistakes. Then more innocents die. Rinse and repeat the cycle, this is how it happens.

The Founders (especially Washington) told us to stay out of others' affairs. There is at least a POSSIBILITY that had we done that for the last 60 years, we wouldn't be having problems with terrorism to begin with. I mean if we minded our own business and just traded with people and did our thing why in the hell would anyone just wake up and hate us enough to try to blow up a city with a nuke? They wouldn't, it's ludicrous, just like you aren't going to randomly wake up tomorrow and hate Russians enough to smuggle a nuke to Moscow and try to blow it up. Now if Russians had bases all in America, interfered with us, hunted Russian terrorist cells in America and accidently blew up your house, killing your family in the process you MIGHT become angry enough to at least support someone who MIGHT do something like that. Think about it.

The Founders were keenly aware of how war is used to advance the cause of state and tyranny and destroy liberty. They never would have agreed with the Patriot Act, ever.

I'm guessing based on your response that you are perfectly fine with the NDAA, correct, since it is the direct descendent of the Patriot Act?

Originally Posted by Agnostick

1. What is a "conservative?" -- There's probably a thread from five or six years ago, in one of the other subject areas around here, that deals with this question. Is it someone with conservative fiscal ideas, but rather moderate or liberal social ideas? Someone with moderate or liberal fiscal ideas, but conservative social ideas? Someone who's extremely conservative in every aspect of their life?
   
   
2. It ain't over 'til it's over -- Here's a simple exercise: First, think back to the early morning of September 11, 2001. Think about getting up that morning, getting ready for work, packing lunches for the kids, etc. Now, contrast that to where you were, what you were doing, what you were thinking at noon that day... only four or five hours later. Think about how much changed in those few hours: foreign policy, safety and security, air travel, mood, morale, life, death.
   
   Now, realize that we're more than three months away from the conventions... and six months away from the general election.

You stated someone who is 'EXTREMELY" conservative in every aspect of their life? So basically you're telling me that Rick Santorum is a "fiscal conservative."--LOL

Again you Santorum supporters have absolutely no idea--nor pay any attention what-so--ever to his past voting record while in the Senate.
Maybe you should start READING about your candidate before you make yourself look like a total FOOL. There is absolutely NOTHING conservative about the way Rick Santorum spent our money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/us...pagewanted=all
What A Big Government Conservative Looks Like | RedState
Flashback: Rick Santorum Caught in Medical Malpractice Doubletalk | Video - ABC News
Rick Santorum, 'Stealth Lobbyist' - ABC News

HAVE FUN-----btw you have a great analogy there--comparing Rick Santorum to 9/11--because a Santorum nominee will actually be comparable to that disaster.

Originally Posted by Oreo

You stated someone who is 'EXTREMELY" conservative in every aspect of their life? So basically you're telling me that Rick Santorum is a "fiscal conservative."--LOL

Again you Santorum supporters have absolutely no idea--nor pay any attention what-so--ever to his past voting record while in the Senate.
Maybe you should start READING about your candidate before you make yourself look like a total FOOL. There is absolutely NOTHING conservative about the way Rick Santorum spent our money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/us...pagewanted=all
What A Big Government Conservative Looks Like | RedState
Flashback: Rick Santorum Caught in Medical Malpractice Doubletalk | Video - ABC News
Rick Santorum, 'Stealth Lobbyist' - ABC News

HAVE FUN-----btw you have a great analogy there--comparing Rick Santorum to 9/11--because a Santorum nominee will actually be comparable to that disaster.

No offense Oreo (I know we disagree on some stuff on here, but honestly I agree with you on Santorum 100%), but if you are going to chastise Santorum supporters for ignoring his Senate record, you need to pay ALOT more attention to Gingrich's House record, and even his record during his time as a legislator in GA, especially from a fiscal standpoint. To be fair, if you are going to criticise Santorum lobbyist ties, well you have to do the same with Newt, especially given his ethics woes and 300,000 dollar fines. If you criticise Santorum on NCLB (which I do to), then you have to criticise Newt on voting for the Dept of Education in the first place. Criticise Santorum over the debt ceiling? Ok, criticise Newt for that too; he's voted for it as much as Santorum has, maybe more. Gingrich is no fiscal conservative either, I don't care what his record with Clinton was. Sure, there were balanced budgets, but look at his entire history, which I've posted numerous times. Santorum is no fiscal conservative, neither is Gingrich. And perhaps the BIGGEST reason why: both support a foreign policy of interventionism and pre-emptive war which costs trillions of dollars to implement and maintain. You cannot be a fiscal conservative and keep advocating for trillion dollar wars at the same time. Wars cost LOTS of money. And as bankrupt as the US is, where do we get the money? Tax the people more? Borrow yet more trillions from China? Or perhaps print that money out of thin air just like QE 1,2,3? I mean you yourself said you agree with Paul on economics and the Fed. So surely you are keenly aware of the problem economically of printing a trillion dollars or borrowing it. So how is it that one is fiscally conservative, but advocated for an expensive, active military intervention policy around the world? How does one pay for that while being "fiscally responsible". Answer: You don't. You borrow the money, tax the people, or print the money. Which would be our problem economically to begin with. How about this: Stop the welfare state AND the militarism (not defense - just pre-emptive wars with every country we deem MIGHT be a threat one day)?

Originally Posted by ericams2786

No offense Oreo (I know we disagree on some stuff on here, but honestly I agree with you on Santorum 100%), but if you are going to chastise Santorum supporters for ignoring his Senate record, you need to pay ALOT more attention to Gingrich's House record, and even his record during his time as a legislator in GA, especially from a fiscal standpoint. To be fair, if you are going to criticise Santorum lobbyist ties, well you have to do the same with Newt, especially given his ethics woes and 300,000 dollar fines. If you criticise Santorum on NCLB (which I do to), then you have to criticise Newt on voting for the Dept of Education in the first place. Criticise Santorum over the debt ceiling? Ok, criticise Newt for that too; he's voted for it as much as Santorum has, maybe more. Gingrich is no fiscal conservative either, I don't care what his record with Clinton was. Sure, there were balanced budgets, but look at his entire history, which I've posted numerous times. Santorum is no fiscal conservative, neither is Gingrich. And perhaps the BIGGEST reason why: both support a foreign policy of interventionism and pre-emptive war which costs trillions of dollars to implement and maintain. You cannot be a fiscal conservative and keep advocating for trillion dollar wars at the same time. Wars cost LOTS of money. And as bankrupt as the US is, where do we get the money? Tax the people more? Borrow yet more trillions from China? Or perhaps print that money out of thin air just like QE 1,2,3? I mean you yourself said you agree with Paul on economics and the Fed. So surely you are keenly aware of the problem economically of printing a trillion dollars or borrowing it. So how is it that one is fiscally conservative, but advocated for an expensive, active military intervention policy around the world? How does one pay for that while being "fiscally responsible". Answer: You don't. You borrow the money, tax the people, or print the money. Which would be our problem economically to begin with. How about this: Stop the welfare state AND the militarism (not defense - just pre-emptive wars with every country we deem MIGHT be a threat one day)?

In my 59 years--Newt Gingrich was the ONLY one that got the Federal government to CUT spending. And he did it with Bill Clinton. He helped to balance the budget for 4 years in a row--and left office with a budget surplus. That's what counts to me. Albeit--it doesn't look like he can win this--but as far as his accomplishments he did great.

Originally Posted by Oreo

In my 59 years--Newt Gingrich was the ONLY one that got the Federal government to CUT spending. And he did it with Bill Clinton. He helped to balance the budget for 4 years in a row--and left office with a budget surplus. That's what counts to me. Albeit--it doesn't look like he can win this--but as far as his accomplishments he did great.

Isn't it a bit dishonest to credit Republicans with balancing the budget and leaving with a surplus when they voted along party lines to block the legislation that made it happen?

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

Isn't it a bit dishonest to credit Republicans with balancing the budget and leaving with a surplus when they voted along party lines to block the legislation that made it happen?

You want to try that one again? Newt Gingrich wrestled with Bill Clinton to cut government spending and he did it.

Originally Posted by Oreo

Clearly--you're not real informed on Rick Santorum. He is not what he is saying out there on the stump. FISCAL CONSERVATIVE--NOT. SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE--too much.

Only 7% of independent women are still supporting him. By the time Obama gets done with him-- the only woman who would vote for Santorum is his wife. And judging that women are 52% of the electorate--we would lose the house and senate seats. Meaning an all out LANDSLIDE for liberal democrats.

Conservative women apparently like him. What's The Obama going to do about that? Lie some more?

Santorum won AL and MS, but he didn't rack up a significant delegate margin in either place, in fact Romney got 12 delegates to his 13 in one of those contests. And then Romney swept Hawaii and American Samoa, winning back much of the gap he had lost in the two states he lost.

The anti-Romney vote thru this stretch as closed the gap some:

Romney 498
Santorum 239
Gingrich 139
Paul 69

That's 498 to 447.

The gap was 75 going into the stretch of AL, MS, MO, LS, KS, and Hawaii and Samoa.

They've cut into it by a third.

Santorum needs margins in MO and LS coming up to blunt what will certainly be a defeat in Illinois.

Just as they close the gap, IL comes around and that's 69 delegates and Romney will jump right back out again should he crush in that state.

At this point, Santorum needs to win winner-take-all PA and he and Gingrich and Paul need to take 70% of the vote in TX if they have any hope in hell of amassing more delegates than Romney, who will breeze through CA and NY with wins.

Santorum and the rest will need to peel off Indiana and NJ in a few weeks as well, and they'll need to combine for more delegates in NC to overtake him in delegates.

Still could happen that they combine for more delegates, but so far the super delegates are giving Romney the edge. Take them away right now and the gap isn't 51 anymore, it's like 20.

Originally Posted by Oreo

In my 59 years--Newt Gingrich was the ONLY one that got the Federal government to CUT spending. And he did it with Bill Clinton. He helped to balance the budget for 4 years in a row--and left office with a budget surplus. That's what counts to me. Albeit--it doesn't look like he can win this--but as far as his accomplishments he did great.

When you look at the TOTALITY of what he has done, you are wrong. He may have been the major reason several budgets were balanced, but when you look at the overall saving from all those balanced budgets he helped get passed and compare that to the TOTAL of the debt ceiling increases he voted for, all the foreign aid he has voted for, his vote for the Dept. of Education (this one alone, if you take every budget for this Dept. from 1970's up, equals more than anything he ever saved in that budget), and all the other bills he sponsored and voted for that cost billions upon billions of dollars, the amount he saved in those balanced budgets, once again when taken from a "whole picture" perspective is rather miniscule, especially when compared to 16 trillion in debt, a lot of which he helped bring about.

I understand your support for Gingrich because of the balanced budgets, and it is awesome he was able to do that (albeit with a Dem President), but when his WHOLE record is compared to a guy who never voted for a single tax increase, has never been lobbied because it is a waste of time, has never voted for ANY increased debt, and who has NEVER voted to raise the debt ceiling, well, I honestly don't see how the hell Gingrich's record even honestly compares to that, from a fiscal standpoint.

And you never addressed my question about foreign policy: how does one advocate for endless wars and being the policeman of the world, spending trillions on war, while simultaneously claiming to be "fiscally conservative"? Where do we get the money Oreo? Seriously, where? It's the same as Obamacare, we can't afford that and we definitely can't afford a war with Iran - unless of course you are endorsing higher taxes, more borrowed money, or the printing of more money backed by nothing. So which is it, pick your poison.


BUT don't complain about Obamacare or Obama's spending of our national treasure anymore, when you want to support a candidate who wants to spend an equivalent amount of money on yet more war. It's the same thing: more debt, more inflated currency, more taxes, less liberty.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

Conservative women apparently like him. What's The Obama going to do about that? Lie some more?

Obama doesn't have to lie--about Rick Santorum--there's video's staring Rick Santorum all over the net about his current & past statements--like this one.-- This one is titled birth control contraceptives HARMS women and SOCIETY.




Now can you possibly GUESS how many times this would be run by the Obama reelection committee should by some miracle Santorum becomes the nominee--OH and believe me there are a lot more than just this one. I could go on all night with video's of Rick Santorum statements.

What Santorum is saying here--is that we're having to much SEX and he wants it STOPPED. Of Course Chris Wallace on Face the Nation called him out on this issue a couple of weeks ago.

On Fox News Sunday today, Chris Wallace brought up Rick Santorum‘s strong opposition to birth control, including his past comments that taking birth control gives people a license to engage in a sexual lifestyle that is not “how things are supposed to be,” and asked the Republican candidate how why he is so passionately against something that is used by a significant number of women in the United States.

Wallace asked Santorum if contraception is something the Republican party should be taking on as an issue in 2012, given public steps being taken against it like the Blunt amendment last week. He noted that if the amendment had passed, any insurer could choose not to cover birth control. Santorum insisted it was much broader than that, covering a whole list of services, with Wallace noting that birth control is surely one of them. Santorum argued that the idea of a conscience clause should not be a controversial one, because preserving people’s personal religious liberties is a strongly American concept.

That’s when Wallace brought up Santorum’s personal beliefs on birth control, and cited a statistic from the CDC saying that 99 percent of women between ages 15-44 have used birth control at some point in their lives. Given that statistic, Wallace asked Santorum if he really believes they are engaging in practices outside of “how things are supposed to be.” Santorum said he’s just reiterating the position of his church. He found it personally amazing how siding with the church makes one “out of the mainstream” these days.

HIS church- the-Catholic church doesn't believe in birth control contraceptives--I can't think of another religion that believes birth control contraceptives are BAD.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-wal...ation-remarks/

Santorum: Vote for Ron Paul if You Want Limited Government

This tells you about all you need to know about Santorum.