Santorum defenders, explain this...

And I'm agreeing with you, but that isn't what you said.
You said that Democrats 'believe' in big Govt intrusions into our lives and that my friend simply isn't the truth.
In fact if you look at the platforms and the actions of each party the ONLY party that seems to 'believe' in having big Govt control people, it's the right/conservatives.
The latest round of BS from them proves this, birth control was settled 40 years ago, but for some reason they are insisting a big Govt solution to a problem only they can see.

 

What a clwon, and there still people who will still vote for him...

 

Basically, a social conservative is a person who actually believes in evolution, (whether he willonsciously admit to this or not).

A social conservative is a person who has faith in the science that says a society is under the force of natural Social Darwinism.
He believes this requires the adaption to the real world or his society could become extinct.

This is why we see evidence of resistance to radical ideas and progressive theories about inventing changes in society, while scotch taping mistakes made already without remediating or eliminating those false steps.

For instance, a social conservative is a person who sees that Welfare has failed to help the kids of Single Mothers and actually, contributed to their abuse.
Welfare is not working.

A social conservative is a person who see that dictators like Hitler will talk and talk, but only direct force will change their behavior.
Talk is not working.

A social conservative is a person who sees the failure of 45 years of pleading for Safe Sex and paying for Sex Education which has not stemmed the consistent and regular appearance of the same 1.2 million abortions and the 1.5 million illegitimate babies every year.
That is not working.

A social conservative is a person who see $5.00 gas at the pump and says failure to drill for oil in America is not working.

A social conservative is a person who realizes that failed education in America does not improve when it is treated by large expenditures of money and lower academic standards.

A social conservative is a person who sees that promoting sexual promiscuity does have ill affects upon society in that the number of criminals growing out of Single Mother families where the absence of a fatherly authority early on is at the root of the problem.

A social conservative is a person who knows that Unions are a way around anti-trust laws that will grant one segment of society, the members of that organization, the unfair trade benefits and advantages with the society as a whole.
Unions become a form of taxation without representation.
The whole society not part of that union will pay both profit to the capitalist investor in the services and goods brought to the market place, but will also pay "value added" costs demanded by the union, especially their organizers.


et etc etc

 

Affirmative Action? Universal Healthcare? Higher taxes and support for other various social programs? What do you call those?

I understand what you are saying though in some respects. I don't believe the democrats want big government to control every part of our lives. But on some of these issues they clearly translate into bigger government.

 

LOL

Santorum believes only self control will stop the growth of Single Mothers who are raising the very kids who are America's social problem, not big government control.

Santorum is criticizing the Cultural Institution.

While setting a good example in his own life, Snatorum is recommending that government use the Religious Institution to support the Political Institution's efforts to eliminate the $600 billion Welfare Budget.

Santorum is saying that the Political Institution has tried the failed Sex Education programs and free condoms in public schools for 45 years now, and it does not stop the same 1.2 millioin abortions nor the same 1.5 millionillegimate babies adding to Welfare.
Santorum is saying that Laws have not and will stop the crime that is growing at double the rate of Single Motherhood.

Santoum is saying that Social Darwinism has always required religion to control the sexual excesses of young people which can and will drive a healty society into extinction.

 

Social Darwinism is exactly whats wrong with Santorum and it is exactly why he will never get elected to the presidency. Social Darwinism believes that white men are superior to the second class citizens (AKA everyone else). People will not tolerate religious bigotry and sexism being forced into their faces. People like Santorum would love to see religious institutions and government institutions as one in the same. As a lawyer Santorum should know better. But he either doesn't know any better or he doesn't care what the constitution says.

Dave, you're logic fails to recognize that teenagers are going to have sex whether you tell them to or not. Taking away things like contraception and education about sex and the reproductive system only invites bigger problems for our youth. Kids will be kids you know.

 

Funny....
hahaaaaa....

I especially like the one liner about "the one thing most women will not tolerate is a man telling them whats best for them."

Chris Rock says women have the advantage in arguing with their husband that they do not have to make sense.

LOL
So true.

We see that women have evolved with a focus on the domestic side of the real world while men, like capitalists competing in the wild with one another, have evolved on the Supply Side of the economic equation.

American women who haev a "thing" about not listening to a husband tell them stuff are even more demanding of their boy friends.

This observation explains how a matriarchy grows right up inside of what was once a profitable "man's world."
It explains how bigger and bigger "nests" could end with a housing crash that even two working people could not really afford.
It explains how Politically Correctness can quell the instinctual male Homophobia the can only happen when the women have enough social power to protect the Gays.






It explains why a nation becomes more and more socialistic and less competitive and capitalistic as the Distribution System focuses on Demands rather than Supply.

It explains why women have long believed that money grows on trees.

 

I agree with you.

This fact is why healty societies created a time and a place for them to have sex and the babies which will appear thereafter.

This is why healthy societies institutionalized the idea of Marriage and all the ritual and pomp and preparation for it as soon as baby dolls could be understood by little girls to mean they were headed toward motherhood.


The Institution of Marriage is so important to a healthy society which knows the Family Unit is the building blocks of good citizenship that religions grew up in support of matrimony and opposed to sexual promiscuity.

 

I sure wouldn't call them 'controlling our lives', not by a long shot. Explain how affirmative action 'controls' you in the same way that forcing you to tell your employer why you use birth control does? Higher taxes, (which are now at record lows and bankrupting us) how does that 'control' you in the same way that, being forced to show proof of citizenship does?
How does any of these evil social programs 'control' you in the way that outlawing a union does?
Words have meaning, "control" has meaning and the right LOVES to control where the evil Democrats don't.

"bigger Govt. is NOT "control every part of our lives". Look at the legislation from the right, try to find one piece in the last 30 years that didn't control the people.

 

And he wants big Govt to do it.
Why do you righties want more Govt in our lives?

 

People like you have this unfounded suspicion of women. Apparently you and Santorum by default think all women are promiscuous and are cruel to men. I am neither. It is unfair to blame all women for social ills and think we are immoral by default. That is like saying that all men are violent rapists or something. I would be angry if someone was prejudiced against men in that way.

For the record, I don't support the welfare state. No one gives me welfare. Im a single student trying to support myself.

it's kinda funny though that no one is talking about the guys who have 5 different kids with 5 different women who they don't support not to mention the stds they spread everywhere. Are you telling me these guys aren't responsible for the welfare state too? I guess they own a penis though so they are exempt from all judgement unlike those who posess a vagina.

And no one decides what's best for me whether they are a man or woman.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you abolishing the constitution mentally and as principals to guide with then?

If that is the case than your opinion slants more to a totaltarian rule then Rick Santorum ever could be.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you abolishing the constitution mentally and as principals to guide with then?

If that is the case than your opinion slants more to a totaltarian rule then Rick Santorum ever could be.

 

It depends on what you believe the Constitution says. Ultimately I don't believe in a weak central government. Thats what lead us into a civil war in the 1860's. There needs to be a central government that unifies the states so that disputes can be addressed through the proper channels and that there is some consistent form of unity across the board. Otherwise our country runs the risk of being divided to the the extent that it suffered many years ago. But the federal government's role needs to be limited.

It should not be promoting religious doctrine down our throats that people like Rick Santorum would love to see happen. If you want to argue that the Constitution should be followed to the T, look at the first amendment. It prohibits Congress from favoring or prohibiting the practice of religion. Rick Santorum has a law degree and he should know better. If he wants to believe that religion is the foundation for creating a healthy lifestyle and growing a good family, thats fine. But he should never have the authority to institutionalize or promote laws that favor religious doctrine and ideology. What he is advocating is completely unconstitutional as it violates the first amendment. An amendment that everyone in this country is familiar with.

 

Our country "used" to operate under the directive of the Constitution? Hmmmmm

And actually Santorum is simply saying he will enforce the laws already in place. He can't and won't create obsenity laws. Since he is far right---he is pro-Constitution.

Its his distractors that dismiss the inconvenient parts of the Constitution and consider it outdated.

 

What you are saying that any laws you don't agree with promote religious ideology? And thus should be void? That is convenient.

 

I pretty sure that he's saying that laws should be religiously neutral. I'm not a catholic. I wasn't raised a catholic. Why should catholic principles put on the law books?

 

Yet another myth.

 

What I'm hearing is that obcenity laws are....religious laws. But that isn't true. Its a fraud concept...designed to twist and manipulate opinion.

The simple logic is that our laws derive from our values--what we consider important for our society....and everyone has values religious or not.

What I am hearing is that only people who hold the same values as the non-religious or anti-religious should be allowed to make laws.

An exception would be if the value is shared by the religious and anti-religious and the anti-religious wants the law. Do not murder is shared by both--the Atheist and the fundamental Bible-Believing Christian. So it must be a valid law---- if the Atheist says so.

The current obscenity laws are disdained by the Atheist but considered enforcable by the fundamental Bible Believing Christian (among many others). But the Atheist says such a law shouldn't be allowed because it was created by people who don't share their values?

Atheism and anti-religious activism have quite a totaltarian foundation within many of its arguments.

 

No............

 

The reason that things like obscenity laws are a problem is that obscenity as a concept that is subjective. What counts as obscene? I'm sure my definition is different from a conservative Christians. What in your opinion is obscene? Why would someone have the right to tell me what I can watch or read or whatever if I'm not hurting anyone?

An example of what most fundamentalists would see as obscene is the HBO show Game of Thrones. I've been a big fan of the series since I read the books it was based on as a teen. This series features some pretty graphic violence where people are hacked to death with swords and stuff. Also features rape incest and murder.

Now you may question why I would want to watch this. I think there is an assumption that if you watch or read something then you somehow condone whatever it depicts. I can barely bring myself to kill a spider. Are you telling me I'm gonna start beheading people with a sword because I read a fantasy novel?

Why would someone have the right to censor my tv show because it goes against their bible? Isn't that infringing on my rights to watch what I want?

Remember, there are people who view things like romance, Harry potter and pg-13 films as obscene. Jane Eyre was considered controversial when it was first published. It's a slippery slope.

 

I listened to and met Santorum today. I like him. He mainly talked about what this country needs for the economy, and what we need to do to replace Obama, and it sure isn't nominating "Obama-Lite" Romney!

He is smart, personable, and correct if you look at the total context of what he says and what he has said.

 

You are totally missing my point. Re-read my post and then if you want...argue this again. But I suggest you leave religion out of it. Because when I debate...I don't bring up the fact that you are Godless or something like that. I debate the subject. Which...is one of the most complicated subject around.

You'd be more logical if you would use the argument of free speech in otherwords...then whether I read the Bible.

 

Fortunately the government prohibits you from doing plenty of things with your penis.

Has anyone even suggested that? But I'm curious how you'd respond to an argument from the public health perspective that the government can require you to use contraception, unless you're having sex within marriage. Or maybe that the government can remove you from public contact once you've contracted, say, an STD. Would the following type of legislation freak you out?

By the way, that's already law, and it's not based on a religious doctrine.

 

Yes, being far right doesn't give a person a monopoly on being pro Constitution. Being far right in most cases, as recent history proves, means you are anti-Constitution!
If you think that you are swallowing the same type of myth as, Democrats hate guns, Democrats dont have jobs, Democrats don't bathe, Democrats hate America, Democrats are anti-business, drilling for oil will lower the price of gas, on and on and on.
If you want more myths just turn on fox ot talk radio, they spew them by the truck load.