Social Issues

Reason.tv in Iowa: Rick Santorum on the Freedom to Impose Your Values

|

"The essential issue in this race is freedom," said Senator Rick Santorum in a triumphant speech on the eve of his strong second-place showing in the Iowa caucus.

But what kind of freedom is Santorum talking about? Reason.tv caught up with Santorum at a campaign stop at Des Moines Christian Assembly in Urbandale, Iowa, where he spoke to schoolchildren and their parents about the importance of electing a leader who will promote good social values to the citizens. 

"Why wouldn't leaders in this country stand up and promote marriage?" asked Santorum. "Stop, in any way they could, the sexual promiscuity that goes on that leads to out-of-wedlock births."

Santorum picked up the endorsement of Jim Bob Duggar, patriarch of the Duggar family (of TLC's "19 Kids and Counting"), who sung the national anthem to kick off the festivities. Also in attendance was social conservative activist and founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Ralph Reed. Reed has not endorsed a candidate in the race yet, but he stresses that social conservatism remains a core value to GOP voters. 

"You're not going to do well, either in Iowa or beyond, if you're not pro-marriage, pro-family, and pro-life," said Reed. "Whether you're coming from a libertarian perspective or a more traditional conservative perspective."

If GOP voters want candidates who are ready to fight the culture war, Santorum seems ready to deliver.  

"I love it when the Left, and the president, says, 'Don't try to impose your values on us, you folks who hold your Bibles in your hand and cling to your guns,'" Santorum said. "It's equally imposing values. It's just in their world, if it's Biblically based or religiously based, it's out. If it's anything else, bring it on." 

About 2:30 minutes.? Produced by Sharif Matar and Zach Weissmueller.

Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive immediate updates when new material goes live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

294 responses to “Reason.tv in Iowa: Rick Santorum on the Freedom to Impose Your Values

  1. So, when Reed says “pro-marriage, pro-family, and pro-life,” does that mean he is all for expanding the institution of marriage so more people can get in on it and have “real families”?

    1. A person who’s pro-dollar probably doesn’t want to fire up the printing presses to produce as many of them as possible.

      1. No, but people who are pro-marriage do tend to think that more marriages would be a good thing.

        Unless you just think that all gay people should stop being gay or die (which may well be what Santorum believes), why wouldn’t you think that marriage would be a good thing for gay couples too? Don’t their families (and they exist whether you like it or not) deserve the stability and goodness supposedly provided by marriage? Or should the children of gay couples just go fuck themselves?

        Probably too nuanced questions for someone who just thinks fagots are going to hell. (note this is all directed at Santorum, not crimethink).

        1. No, but people who are pro-marriage do tend to think that more marriages would be a good thing.

          Doesnt follow. I think less people should get married based on, amongst other things, the divorce rate.

          1. That’s why I didn’t say “all people”. I think that most people who describe themselves as pro-marriage do think that more people should get married (for example, people who have a child together).

          2. I keep wondering why folks are so eager to deny gays the franchise of marriage seeing how well heteros have done with it.

        2. Children of gay couples?

          1. Ever hear of adoption? I didn’t say “offspring of gay couples”.

            1. Yeah, but gay adoption is an artifact of the state that can be ended at any time. It’s not an natural happenstance like children produced by heterosexual couples.

              1. Don’t be an idiot. Gay adoption is not an artifact of the state.

                When dogs suckle kittens or cat’s protect babies is that ‘an artifact of the state’?

                The nurturing instinct and parenthood precedes the state, tautologically.

                All the state does is try to regulate your choice of who you want to nurture or otherwise affiliate with.

              2. Wouldn’t “straight” adoption be as much an artifact of the state?

              3. All adoptions are artifacts of the state. Are you saying that no adopted child’s adopted parents are really their parents?

                A child who thinks of you as their parent and of whom you have physical custody is your child no matter whose vagina it came out of. The law has nothing to do with it.

                1. They’re parents by edict of the state. Yes, for hetero couples also.

                2. A child who thinks of you as their parent and of whom you have physical custody is your child no matter whose vagina it came out of.

                  So if you steal a baby from a nursery and raise it as your own, it becomes your child?

              4. “”It’s not an natural happenstance like children produced by heterosexual couples.””

                The same could be said of a single person adopting a child.

              5. Like the natural happenstance that occurs between two drunk teenagers in the back of a Chevy Camaro.

                Like the beautiful magic that takes place in a dark alley, against a woman’s will.

                Yeah, homosexuality is totally unnatural. Forget about Rome, the birthplace of democracy, and all the gay sex family men were having.

        3. I don’t see how they can either. Even if they are going to hell, getting married isn’t going to make them go to double hell. I can understand the argument against judicially mandated gay marriage because that opens the door to polygamy. But if the legislature does it, I don’t understand why people get so pissed about it.

          1. What’s wrong with consenting adults having a polygamist marriage?

            1. It fucks up the society by depriving men of the opportunity to marry. It also has only been practiced in grossly misogynistic societies. If you legalized it, most people wouldn’t partake. The ones who would would be either radical Mormons or Muslims. Both of which would practice it for the sole purpose of oppressing women.

              1. And when the women can march into the courthouse and sue for divorce – with all the legal protections that are associated with such law-suits – husbands who are more abusive than the ones in monogomaour marriages will be up shit creek.

              2. If the women were being oppressed, they couldn’t fairly be said to be “consenting,” could they?

                1. Generally they are not “consenting”. Polygamy exists in places where there is tremendous social pressure on young women to do it. If you legalize it, you allow segments of the society where that pressure exists to thrive.

                  Would it be happening everywhere? No. But it would be happening in small enclaves where the social pressure would pretty much deprive young girls of a choice.

                  1. Would it be happening everywhere? No. But it would be happening in small enclaves where the social pressure would pretty much deprive young girls of a choice.

                    John, I respectfully disagree with you.. Prohibition does not work.

                  2. I suppose we should outlaw marrying someone of the same religion too, lest someone somewhere be socially pressured to do so.

              3. It fucks up the society by depriving men of the opportunity to marry.

                ???

                Polygamy would presumably open the door for polyandry (ie one woman with multiple husbands) as well as polygyny, so it would actually increase the opportunity for poor men to marry.

                Also, group marriage which is a much more natural arrangement than monogamy if we look at human prehistory.

                1. Tulpa,

                  Who the fuck are you White Indian? And women are wired differently than men. Women are not as interested in multiple partners as men. Polygamy would not mean equal polyandry.

                  Go find me a society where polygamy exists that is not backward and radically misogynistic. If you do, I will consider it. But as far as I know none exist.

                  And as far as group marriage, it is natural I suppose in a state of nature or some kind of tribal society. But it has never arisen in anything approaching a modern or agricultural society.

                  1. Women are not as interested in multiple partners as men.

                    This is the traditional view that’s never been confirmed by any actual rigorous study. And the sexual behaviors of women in contraceptive-laden societies would seem to indicate otherwise.

                    “We need to cut down on all these out of wedlock births because women want to have sex with the same man for their entire lives!” Yeah, right.

                  2. And as far as group marriage, it is natural I suppose in a state of nature or some kind of tribal society. But it has never arisen in anything approaching a modern or agricultural society.

                    It’s not practical for an agricultural society (which most societies in the world either are currently or were in the recent past) because inheritance — an extremely important facet of agricultural societies — is a problem. This is particularly so if it’s difficult to determine which kids belong to which father, a problem we don’t have anymore.

                    I’d argue that something approaching group marriage is going on in the younger generations in the west.

                  3. John,

                    I don’t think you know much about how women are “wired.” Maybe if you spent a little more time with this “wiring,” polygamy wouldn’t rankle you so much.

              4. How would polygamy deprive men of the opportunity to marry? It’s not like they can force a woman who wants to marry a man with multiple wives to marry them instead. That woman still gets to choose what she wants to do. And why cant that man just marry a woman with multiple husbands? There is no law against communes, so this type of behavior already exists. The problem today is that the government is choosing which contracts are legal in a discriminatory manner.

              5. “It fucks up the society by depriving men of the opportunity to marry.”

                You could say the same of serial monogamy (ie, alphas marrying a woman for a decade or two, then trading her in for a younger model, over and over). Biology being what it is, most men aren’t terribly interested in nearly menopausal women, so the fact they are single doesn’t help the marriage market much, especially for young men looking to start a family. But serial monogamy is actually worse, since it not only deprives men but also women of long-term marriage. So why not heavily restrict divorce, or at least restrict remarriage for divorcees?

            2. It also has only been practiced in grossly misogynistic societies.

              So has monogamy. In fact, monogamy only exists because of the need of a patriarch to guarantee the authenticity of his heirs. Hence the very different societal reactions to violation of monogamy by a husband vs. by a wife.

              1. So has monogamy.

                No it hasn’t. I wouldn’t call modern western society grossly misogynistic, the claims of Jezebel aside. Monogamy exists because of the desire of women to have a stable provider for her children. Monogamy is about woman’s need to eliminate competition from other women.

                1. Monogamy exists because of the desire of women to have a stable provider for her children.

                  Pop-Sci book The Red Queen came to the same conclusion; basically the natural order of things boils down to monogamy with cheating, similar to how many birds structure mating. Men go for quantity over quality when passing along their genes and women vice versa. And both seek to hide their cheating so as not to disrupt the cushy situation of already having a steady mate or provider.

                  1. Is there actual rigorous study done in this book, or is it armchair speculation?

                    And of course, monogamy with cheating is not monogamy.

                    1. I wouldn’t call it rigorous since it’s not written by a biologist for peer review, just a NY Times science writer cataloguing a particular hypothesis. But it keeps a good series of footnotes and references to the papers it pulls much of the hard science from, iirc. Interesting read, but it is 18 years old so I’m sure at least an update is in order.

                2. Monogamy exists (and is gasping its last breaths) in the West because it’s a holdover from a time when western society was somewhat misogynistic.

                  You can’t possibly look at sexual behavior in the West and claim it’s still dominated by actual monogamy. Serial marriage and divorce is not monogamy. Marriage and cheating is not monogamy. Certainly the fucking around that the younger generations do is not monogamy. Where the hell is monogamy in this society?

                  1. Monogomy with cheating Tulpa. People have always cheated and gotten divorces. But that is a long ways from group marriage. Jesus Tulpa don’t tell me you are one of those people who thinks the world was all June and Ward Cleaver before the 1960s? I have a newsflash for you, people have always screwed.

                    And the rise of promiscuity is the result of the easy access to birth control. Back when cheating meant the serious risk of a bastard, it was less attractive. So if anything it is the unnatural state of available birth control that has driven promiscuity not some return to nature.

                    1. John you’re a mess. It’s simply none of your business the quality or quantity or other peoples’ relationships. It is as simple as that. It is called freedom of association, America would do well to embrace it.

                      And birth control is as natural as any other drug. Further condoms and other less healthy contraceptive options have been around for quite a while.

                      Again, it’s none of your business what drugs other people employ if they don’t interfere with your own freedom.

                      You need a serious lesson about the difference between positive (freedom to tax other people so you can have a pony, freedom to send cops into someone’s bedroom because you don’t like their playtime) and negative freedoms, (life, liberty, and property).

                    2. It’s simply none of your business the quality or quantity or other peoples’ relationships. It is as simple as that. It is called freedom of association, America would do well to embrace it.

                      Just because you shouldn’t be able to pass a law against something doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion about it.

                    3. Just because you shouldn’t be able to pass a law against something doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion about it.

                      Who said otherwise? Are you implying the person I was responding to doesn’t want laws passed in this regard? If so I think you are misreading.

                    4. Well, then, the “it’s none of your business” argument doesn’t hold. He may be (or may not be) a jackass for wanting to use the power of the state to enforce matters, but I don’t think there’s a rational reason to think libertarians can’t pass judgement on bad behavior.

                    5. Jesus Tulpa don’t tell me you are one of those people who thinks the world was all June and Ward Cleaver before the 1960s? I have a newsflash for you, people have always screwed.

                      And thus we didn’t really have monogamy, so any claimed societal superiority from monogamy is a mirage.

                      And you can’t deny the very different treatment cheating husbands and cheating wives have gotten historically and even today.

                      Back when cheating meant the serious risk of a bastard, it was less attractive. So if anything it is the unnatural state of available birth control that has driven promiscuity not some return to nature.

                      The social and legal disadvantages of having/being a bastard ain’t natural either. They’re rooted in the monogamy tradition which is artificial.

                    6. “So if anything it is the unnatural state of available birth control that has driven promiscuity not some return to nature.”

                      Are condoms birth control? People have been using prophylactics, ingesting witch hazel, and surgically (albeit crudely) aborting since the dawn of the first Chinese and Egyptian empires.

                  2. Monogamy exists (and is gasping its last breaths) in the West because it’s a holdover from a time when western society was somewhat misogynistic.

                    And that’s why women from time immemorial have been complaining about men’s “commitment issues”? Yup, those men, needing to be dragged kicking and screaming into the chance to oppress women.

          2. Im pissed about state licensed marriage altogether.

            1. Then don’t get one. You are free to call yourself “married” without getting a license. People do it all of the time. It is called common law marriage. The state doesn’t have a monopoly on marriage.

              1. I am pissed about the existence of state licensed marriage. It shouldn’t exist.

                1. I am pissed about the existence of state licensed marriage. It shouldn’t exist.

                  I worked with several very religious and very liberal black women (as if there were any other people that were both religious and left-wing in this country) back in 2008 when the subject of gay marriage seemed to have a full head of steam. When the subject came up one day I proposed that the simplest solution would be for the state should have no role in marriage whatsoever and they were quite alright with it.

                  This surprised me considering their background. But if two people that want the state involved in basically everything and are not too fond of homosexuality are a-ok with gov’t non-involvement in marriage then why do we even bother keeping the institution around? It seems to be a lot more trouble than it’s worth.

              2. The state has no business being a part of marriage at all. Lack of monopoly does not make what they are doing ok.

                1. The state has no business being a part of the land you own either. Does that mean they should stop issuing land titles?

                  1. Unless you own your land by allodial title, you don’t own it-the state does. I believe there is only one remaining state that allows for allodial title left.

              3. I believe that some states have eliminated common law marriage through legislation, or limited the places where it has legal weight.

              4. Then don’t get one. You are free to call yourself “married” without getting a license. People do it all of the time. It is called common law marriage.

                Not in Virginia you don’t. Virginia does not recognize common law marriage. It also does not recognize same-sex marriages.

                The state doesn’t have a monopoly on marriage.

                See above re: Virginia.

                1. IT is not illegal to move in with each other, call yourself married and so forth. So why are you so called anarchist so fucking worried about getting the blessing of the state? And what do you care if other people do?

                  1. “”IT is not illegal to move in with each other, call yourself married and so forth.””

                    It is in Florida.

                    http://www.wctv.tv/home/headli…..45313.html

                  2. IT is not illegal to move in with each other, call yourself married and so forth. So why are you so called anarchist so fucking worried about getting the blessing of the state?

                    Because being legally “married” gets you certain automatic legal benefits and has certain automatic legal effects that you don’t get simply be living together and telling everyone that you’re married.

                    Yeah, I know – people say “well you can deal with all that by creating wills and contracts and advance medical directives, etc., etc., to achieve the same end result.”

                    Sure. Except that all of that costs money – and can easily cost $1,000 or a few thousand dollars. Those who legally are recognized as “married” don’t have to spend all that money to gain those benefits.

              5. Actually John, the existence of Common Law marriage has never been for two people to claim such a status but for the STATE to claim that they have one for the division of property and the imposition of responsibilities towards children should the couple split.

                You have it backwards: Common Law couples are married in the eyes of the Law as much as any other married couple and without ever marrying…

                1. True clast. But in the end, the only reason anyone wants a “license” is to suck benefits from the state. If you really don’t care about the state, call yourself married and don’t worry about it.

                  1. I want to stop others from sucking benefits from the state, ie ME.

                  2. Nah. I got the license to suck benefits from my employer. They insisted that I get the license. I argued with HR for months about it, since they would have given my now wife benefits had she been a dude.

                2. I Kahn, you misunderstand common law marriage. The common law is that people whose public statements & acts lead observers to believe they’re married are married. It is not an imposition of married status on people who have sought to avoid that status. The only imposition is against trying to have things both ways.

              6. “The state has no business being a part of the land you own either. Does that mean they should stop issuing land titles?”

                Land titles reflect state interests in property and don’t really reflect natural property law that well. True property ownership is much more dynamic than land titles facilitate.

                Same with state versus natural “common law” marriage.

                1. Land titles reflect state interests in property and don’t really reflect natural property law that well.

                  Thank God. “Natural property law” is an incoherent mess that would be impossible to enforce.

                  1. Im not convinced there is “natural property law”.

                    Not unconvinced either. I think I agree with Tulpa for a rare change.

                    Twice this week, I feel dirty.

                2. True property ownership is much more dynamic than land titles facilitate.

                  That’s quite the sugar-coating.

                  As in, if I leave my broccoli field fallow this year to replenish its nutrients, someone else can jump in and plant tomatoes and now it belongs to them.

                  Or, I plan to let my artificial forest grow for several years so I can harvest mature trees, and someone jumps in after a year and cuts it all down for themselves because I’m not using it.

                  1. Leaving property for only a year doesn’t give up ownership of it. Doing nothing about someone else coming in and doing their thing with it after a more significant amount of time has passed, does.

                    If you want to harvest mature trees from a large forested area to which you claim ownership, you need to make some effort to establish your boundaries and make sure that access to your property by others is on your terms.

                    Property law is even written to sort of replicate these concepts. Its just corrupted by nonsense like property taxes, water rights, resource rights, covenants, and the “public land system” that allowed the government to grant ownership to people who never set foot on the land.

              7. “The state doesn’t have a monopoly on marriage.”

                Sure it does. It has a monopoly on a privileged class of people, with special state granted protections and subsidies.

                If the state doesn’t have a monopoly on marriage then you should not mind the state having no involvement at all then hmm?

  2. I’d prefer the revolution to be clean and bloodless, but if it does become violent, I call dibs on Santorum.

    1. Let the streets run tan with Santorum!

      1. I must admit, that is the first thing I think of whenever I hear his name.

      2. That simultaneously made me laugh and throw up a little in my mouth

      3. Let the frothing begin.

    2. You can have Santorum, as long as I can get either Hannity, Huckabee, or Olbermann, deal?

      1. Fine, but let me know if you need a hand.

      2. I call Pauli Krugnuts.

        1. Krugman seems like the kind of guy who should be destroyed when his own creations rise against him.

          1. That is a good point. Ok. I will take Orin Hatch.

          2. And Dick Durbin.

            1. You bipartisanship is commendable.

        2. Haha. Man, I wanted hannity. Guess I could settle for second rate Mark Levin.

          1. I’ll give you Hannity as long as I keep Huckabee and Olbermann. Man, those two have amazingly punchable faces but in entirely different ways.

      3. I call Bernie Sanders AND Pat Leahy!

      4. I don’t care who all you guys get, as long as I get Robin Meade.

        Wait, are we talking about the same thing?

      5. I call Ted Nugent

        1. Good luck with that, because not only is the dude massively heavily armed, with multiple fully-automatic weapons, he knows how to use them and is fucking nuts.

    3. Dibs on Markey!

      I wouldn’t kill him: grinding grain on the wheel of pain in the day, and then shoveling the shit out of the stalls he shares with the horses at night would be karmicly appropriate for that savage.

    4. *snicker*

      If there are any revolutions, the smart money says you’ll be a lot more likely to be on the business end of it than leading it. Trust me on this one – a revolution is the last thing you want. Elsewise the expression of peevish sanctimony on the faces of Santorum and his kindred followers may be the last thing you ever see.

  3. Russia 1912:

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblo…..28201c.jpg

    America 2012:

    http://img252.imageshack.us/im…..midnt1.jpg

    See the difference? There is none! WAKE UP! DOWN WITH THE 1%!

    1. Re: OWS-VP,

      See the difference? There is none!

      That’s because they’re equally wrong. And equally childish.

      1. Come on OM didn’t you know that the Tsars were capitalists?

      2. Why don’t you explain how they are wrong?

        1. Re: OWS-VPS,

          Why don’t you explain how they are wrong?

          The government steals from capitalists. The drawing is upside-down.

          Adn NO, bankers and the Fed are not capitalists. A capitalist uses his or her savings to invest in an enterprise or grow a business. The Fed instead steals through inflation; bankers steal through lending money that was not intended for investment; and the government steals through taxation, debt and debasement.

          1. No, you have it backwards. In a “western democracies” CAPITAL RULES. It controls all. The corporations control our government, they control our foreign policy (BLOOD for OIL), they use the government to steal the wealth of the Global South (oil etc) with the blood of the working class, and pillage this wealth for themselves while leaving a sliver to bribe the so-called “middle classes” of the Global North with, along with numbing them with the new opiate of the masses (TV entertainment, pornography, MMORPGs, professional sports etc) and the illusion that they can change anything at the ballot box.

            Meanwihle, just in case, capital builds a police force to keep down any potential revolt.

            1. You just got PWNED, Old Mex! PWNED!

              1. I smell a redditor

            2. “The corporations control our government”

              And so clearly the solution is more government and more government regulation. GE, GM, and Solyndra like the way you think.

              1. No, corporations should be abolished and replaced with worker’s rule.

                1. So – a worker’s paradise? Like – in China? Cuba? North Korea? The now defunct Soviet Union?

                  Pass.

            3. I see your SoCon underskin showing.

            4. I’ll meet you half-way and agree that it’s bad when govt. and business get together to screw the people. It’s bad when govt. policies end up being corporate welfare and are used to limit competition, create monopolies, etc.

            5. Nobody else wants to call out this troll on its Santorumesque Puritanical moral crusading?

              Hey troll – I know who you’re votin’ for in the Republican primaries, you family values flag-waver, you!

              1. Global south vs. global north? Ugh, you’re the worst kind of commie.

                Nevermind, you’re right. If the sun people took over the world 500 years ago instead of those evil resource-grubbing westerners then everything would have been distributed equally and by now there would big communes on Europa mining heavy water for our starships’ cores.

            6. You are quite confused.

              Government is indeed the sword of capital, it always is, it is the point of government.

              But you want to sharpen it. We want to dull it, or perhaps remove the sword altogether.

              My rich neighbor is no threat to me, unless rubes like you agitated for a stronger government to protect you.. from the government.. that is owned.. by capital.. yeah, how has that worked out so far?

              In all governments capital controls the government, the more power the government has, the greater that control. Look at Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, etc.

              The most empowered governments concentrate capital the most.

              The least empowered governments allow for more dispersed capital.

              The FUNCTION of the state is to protect capital from competition.

    2. How come those people don’t have big flat-screen TVs? Those look like, like, 32-inch at most. And I know they ain’t high-def.
      Fuck Sony!

      1. It’s symbolic, moron.

          1. But now I’m confused. Are the flower and happy face symbolic, too?
            How about the tanks?
            And the Capri pants on the surfer dude at the bottom left, who apparently represents the Australia part of the Global South?
            My head is spinning.

            1. Yes, they represent how the corporations and capitalists keep us properly sedated and opiated (through TV, movies, porn, MMORPGs, professional sports, advertising) so we don’t rise up.

              Of course, if we ever do, they have an increasingly militarized police force just in case.

              The tank represents the American/western military forces that rob the Global South of its material wealth to redistribute first to captial, and then a small sliver to the American middle classes to bribe them with.

              1. “Yes, they represent how the corporations and capitalists keep us properly sedated and opiated (through TV, movies, porn, MMORPGs, professional sports, advertising) so we don’t rise up.”

                ::bring bring: Hello capitalism, it’s socialism. You win.

              2. Ummmm…

                People don’t rise up because all of that stuff is way better than your dystopian communist nightmare.

              3. But the Capri pants, man! The Capri pants!

                1. They represent all of the bitchin’ wave you’d be catchin’ if he didn’t have to work summers at his capitalist pig dad’s dealership.

                  His dad totally has a dealership. Did I say that?

                  1. His dad totally has a dealership.

                    Reference thread winner!

                2. The guy in capri pants represents individuals oppressed by heteronormative cisgendered society. Are you even trying?

              4. Can we pull all Western influence and aid out of the Global South, wait about ten years till they all starve or die of disease that Western medicine could cure and then go get the material wealth?

                1. I call “turban” from that guy at bottom middle. I think I could rock that thing.

              5. Yes, they represent how the corporations and capitalists keep us properly sedated and opiated (through TV, movies, porn, MMORPGs, professional sports, advertising) so we don’t rise up.

                Man, I’m not sedated and opiated. I’m drunk.

              6. Yes, they represent how the corporations and capitalists keep us properly sedated and opiated (through TV, movies, porn, MMORPGs, professional sports, advertising) so we don’t rise up.

                Wait – you’re saying that the government is making us play WoW? That it’s part of some cynical corporate-driven plot to… what exactly?

                From my POV, you OWSers are the ones playing a “role-playing game”. You’re pretending that your mere existence is important to everyone else, that your worthless Art History education should be earning you the money that no one promised you but that you’re certain should be yours (there are many, many open jobs in the manufacturing sector; you want a job?), that there’s actually some intellectually defensible principle in, say, demanding that your school loans for useless degrees be forgiven (bad investment, IMO), that your complete lack of contribution to society entitles you to something that you’ve not earned.

                You’re all playing pretend (read: role-playing) and need to grow up. Period.

    3. I’m still trying to understand why OWS-VPS thinks the Russian army was exploiting the rich.

      1. I’m still trying to understand why OWS-VPS thinks the Russian army was exploiting the rich that trolling websites is going to win any converts..

    4. No one wears spotted ermine stoles anymore, silly.

    5. I am going to keep posting this same tired shit over and over until you decide you hate me!

      1. Oh Slapdick McGee! Will you ever learn?

      2. I hate you already. Does that mean you’re done?

        I didn’t think so. *sigh*

    6. I mean, seriously, wouldn’t it be cool if I could be posting these 1920’s style posters to your blog comments from Zuccotti Park? I know, it would be!

      But I don’t have a job and no money for mobile broadband so I have to go to the local library. Bummer.

    7. You want the ball? You want the ball?

      Go fetch, boy!

    8. Wait, I don’t see any monocles, top hats, or walking sticks among the 1%ers. Definately made up.

    9. See the difference? There is none!

      You’re right. Commies haven’t been able to come up with any original material in the last 95 years. The same bullshit then is the same bullshit now.

  4. “You’re not going to do well, either in Iowa or beyond, if you’re not pro-marriage, pro-family, and pro-life,” said Reed. “Whether you’re coming from a libertarian perspective or a more traditional conservative perspective.”

    The recent surge by Santorum would indicate the contrary, that one does not have to be for those things, only pretend to be in front of people with a short memory.

  5. The guy was my senator. As a legislator, as one among 100 equals, he’s fine.

    But all this social con stuff, yep, he’s really genuine about it and may actually follow through if elected Prez.

    He’s not quite Greg Stilson mixed with Pat Robertson and a noggin filled with popery, but I wouldn’t vote for him for the top job even if a naked Jessica Alba carrying a pitcher of Troegs Nugget Nectar asked me to.

    1. but I wouldn’t vote for him for the top job even if a naked Jessica Alba carrying a pitcher of Troegs Nugget Nectar asked me to

      Wow. Although as a west coaster, I haven’t had the pleasure of trying nugget nectar, I do understand how highly touted it is in the beer community. This is the most forceful denunciation of a candidate I could ever imagine. I tip my top hot and monocle to you good sir.

      1. “”highly touted it is in the beer community.””

        Haven’t tried it either. I really like Innis and Gunn beer.

  6. 1. achieve wealth
    2. breed like fucking crazy
    3. bring these assholes the Armageddon they pray for.

  7. It ain’t just the Left that doesn’t want your values imposed on us, Santorum.

  8. “We believe that the values that are taught at home around the kitchen table, and in the church, synagogue, temple or mosque, should be reinforced by the schools and not undermined by the schools.”

    Public schools should feel honored that evangelicals trust them to instruct their children in matters of faith.

    1. Separation of school and state and problem solved.

    2. Good to know that Ralph Reed thinks that public schools should reinforce Sharia Law.

  9. I’m guessing the Duggars support Santorum because they know how the whole fetus fetish gets newsplay and they related to him. Although taking photos of the miscarried fetus still strikes me as less creepy than playing with a 2-hour old dead infant.

    1. What is the infant story? I keep hearing references to it. But have never heard it explained.

      1. Santorum’s wife had what amounts to a partial-birth abortion in 1996 to save her life and her health.

        See THEIR abortion is *different*.

            1. What a fucking dirt bag. “Carrying a fatal defect”? How did they know? Doctors are wrong about that kind of stuff all of the time. You don’t kill your kid because you think it is going to die.

              My guess is that the kid was likely to turn out profoundly disabled and they didn’t want to bear the burden so they whacked it.

              What a piece of shit.

              1. Nah, it’s like one of those Divine Tests. God was just on the phone when he meant to tell Santorum that the demand to kill his child was a joke.

              2. Meh.

              3. “Carrying a fatal defect” – it wasn’t blonde haired and blue eyed?

    2. …playing with a 2-hour old dead infant.

      Were they using it for second base?

      1. I’m picturing a Weekend at Bernie’s speedboat/beachhouse thing.

    3. So he had both an abortion AND a dead baby toy? Two separate instances? Fuck me, this dude is whacked.

      Fuck you again, Iowa, for giving this dipstick new life.

  10. “I love it when the Left, and the president, says, ‘Don’t try to impose your values on us, you folks who hold your Bibles in your hand and cling to your guns,'” Santorum said. “It’s equally imposing values. It’s just in their world, if it’s Biblically based or religiously based, it’s out. If it’s anything else, bring it on.”

    HE is strictly speaking correct. The Left loves to impose their values on everyone. They are just like the religious right in that respect.

    Now whether that means it is good idea for anyone to impose their values on people is another matter.

    1. no, just like pro-choice does NOT mandate abortion. santorium seems confused about the establishment clause.

      1. No just mandate everyone pay for abortions via their taxes and every hospital and medical program provide an abortion or go out of business because you can’t run a hospital without taking medicare.

        They just mandate that no one be allowed to own a gun. They just mandate that no one be allowed to order transfat at a restaurant, or use a cell phone while driving.

        Other than my right to have sex and an abortion, I can’t think of a single area of my life that the left does not want to control in down to the finest detail. It goes all the way into what light bulbs I can use, how much water my toilet uses, how I can defend myself and my home, what I can teach my kids (see cases where CPS has taken children away from families deemed to be radical racist) and so forth. The modern left is completely about using the government to enforce a strict and conformist set of cultural values.

        1. who am i to argue w a screed like that? good luck

          1. It is all true. Rick Santorum isn’t telling me how much fat can be in my foods. Rick Santorum isn’t going through my garbage to ensure I am recycling.

            Tell me an area of life outside of sex the left doesn’t want to control?

            1. John, they want to control sex too. But in a like totally non-traditional way that’s inclusive to the differently-abled and isn’t heteronormative.

              1. Male Gaze?!!!

            2. “”Rick Santorum isn’t going through my garbage to ensure I am recycling.””

              How much a President will interfer with you choices should be a big concern for everyone.

              Santorum showed me his hand when he voted to pass a special federal law to keep Terri Schiavo alive.

        2. I think that there are a lot of people on the left that are opposed to all of that (to some extent that is how I started out). But for some reason, most will still vote for whatever douche has a D next to their name. I largely blame the tactic (used by both sides) of saying “OMG, this is the most important election ever. If our opponent wins, the world will end”. As fucked as our two most recent presidents have been, I don’t think that is ever really the case.

  11. “You’re not going to do well, either in Iowa or beyond, if you’re not pro-marriage, pro-family, and pro-life,” said Reed. “Whether you’re coming from a libertarian perspective or a more traditional conservative perspective.”

    It would be a much better world if all these cultural conservatives went back to the Democratic Party, like they were before Reagan brought them into the Republican Party.

    They still have Democratic Party values–going back to popular sovereignty. They think our rights should be put up to a vote, and the losers don’t have any.

    If the Republicans don’t find a way to put the culture war crusaders back in the Democratic Party, where they belong, they’re never gonna make any headway at all on fiscal responsibility and other economic issues–it’s as simple as that.

    I don’t care who you’re screwing as long as you lay off my paycheck. Everybody that thinks being “pro-family”, and all the code that entails, is more important than what the government does with their paychecks are people that really need to learn to think about themselves rather than what other people are doing in their bedrooms.

    I hope Santorum falls on his face in New Hampshire. He’s like everything stupid about Bush the Lesser–but even more so.

    1. They can’t Ken. The Republicans only took half of the cultural vote. The other half still runs the Democratic Party. And the two sides hate each other. So they basically ruin both parties.

      1. They came up for grabs in the South over what Kennedy and Johnson did to them on segregation.

        They need to be snubbed in a big way somehow to send them back. I want total, complete alienation. The Republicans would do better to take a drubbing or two and lose the evangelical vote, rather than to limp along like this and make themselves look…

        As Clinton famous plaque used to say, “It’s the economy, stupid!” If Santorum wins the nomination, Obama isn’t about to run his campaign on the economy. Obama can’t win on the economy.

        If he’s running against Santorum, Obama will turn this into a question of culture war shit Santorum has said over the years–that’s Obama’s best chance of winning. And I don’t want another four years of Obama’s brand of central planning.

        And all because Santorum can’t keep his stupid mouth shut about shit that doesn’t really matter anyway?

        It really is about the economy!

        Reagan basically ignored the religious right when he was in office, but there were still culture war conservatives in the Democratic Party, with Al and Tipper Gore leading the way in that regard…

        This is not the party of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater anymore. And the sad thing? I think Santorum’s got juice with the swing vote. He can make a viable play for the Tea Party people, who won’t back Romney because of RomneyCare, etc.

        Santorum’s worse than Bush on foreign policy, too. Just like Bush the Lesser but more so.

        1. The problem is that the eat your vegetables left still run the Democratic Party.

          And it is no the GOP, it is the country. This is not the country of Reagan and Goldwater anymore. The whole country has gone mad.

          And yes, stupid is too weak of a word for running a cultural conservative in a year when the Democratic President is a 21st Century Hoover. I just don’t get what the SOCONs want sometimes. Even Romney the closet liberal he is would give them all the judges and DOJ lawyers they want. And that is what matters. It is like they have to have someone up there telling the world how their enemies are the agent of the Devil no matter what.

          1. Romney is actually starting to look…acceptable. Oh…my stomach just heaved a little.

            1. I am still waiting for the Huntsman surge. He is the only one left and half way acceptable.

              1. Seems a bit too technocratic for my tastes, but I agree that he would be vastly preferable to Santorum.

              2. My sentiments exactly John. I hope he hangs in there.

              3. You mean his surge out of the race?

                Otherwise you’re going to be waiting a loooooong time.

                Plus he’s been a dick to Ron Paul.

                1. Name one person who hasn’t been a dick to Ron Paul, including everyone at Reason and all of us commenting here.

            2. As a (very) narrow choice between ROMNIAC, Obama, and Santorum, I would choose ROMNIAC.

              But, its not that narrow. So I won’t.

              If the headlines on the Monday before the election are “DEAD HEAT!! TOO CLOSE TO CALL!! TEXAS UP FOR GRABS, WILL DECIDE ELECTION”, I still won’t vote for ROMNIAC.

              1. Huh? So between BO and Romney you would support Romney or not?

                1. BO. I would rather have BO in office and get blamed for the mess than have an incompetent Romney in office ensuring the leftist can blame everything on evil small government types.

                  1. So you care more about avoiding blame than actually avoiding the obvious problems another 4 years of BO.

                    Typical libertarian, unfortunately.

                2. Try to follow Tulpa:

                  Of the three, ROMNIAC is the least bad.

                  But, nothing can bring me to vote for ROMNIAC.

                  1. I admit it is difficult to follow that.

                    You would let your personal aversion to voting for him prevent you from helping bring about what you think is best (or at least less bad) for the country?

                    1. Well, see, that’s where it gets complicated. In the long run, having the Repubs lose this election might not be the worst thing for the country as a whole. Sure, Obama is teh suxxor, but the scale of change we need may just require that one of the current parties implode and be replaced.

                    2. Yeah. I’m gaga for Paul or Johnson, but I honestly couldn’t care less if the next president is Romney or Obama.
                      And as I’ve argued before, protecting the free market “brand” might be better served with an Obama reelection.

                    3. I think the only reason Obama dialed down on the socialism was because of the reaction he provoked by way of the Tea Party. If the Tea Party hadn’t come through like it did, he’d still be doing the same ObamaCare, stimulus spending, etc. that he was doing before.

                      I don’t equate Romney or Santorum with the solution to any of our political problems. If a libertarian’s gonna cast a protest vote, why not cast it for a Libertarian?

                      I have little doubt that Santorum or Romney would be better than Obama on teh socialism, but not enough to make the huge changes this country needs. A vote for Romney is a vote for mediocrity and continuing along the path Obama has chosen for us–just at a slower pace.

                      That might be the worst possible prescription for our problems right there.

          2. Not the country, the world. Tell me some place where it doesn’t apply.

    2. “They think our rights should be put up to a vote…”
      _

      no, in fact the crux of the pro gay marrage argument is that civil rights CANNOT be voted on.

    3. Reagan didn’t bring traditionalists in to the GOP. Starting about 1975, the religious “right” decided that’s where they could make their mark in many states, so that’s where they went and quickly made themselves indispensible as activists.

      Squirrels keep eating this.

  12. “Whether you’re coming from a libertarian perspective or a more traditional conservative perspective.”

    You gotta love that Reed even mentions Libertarians at all. RP is having an effect on the national dialogue.

  13. I declare his nickname to be The Sweater (that’s different than his name being a nickname for post-anal hershey squirts).

    So we can have Mittens & The Sweater. And they can be a Saturday morning cartoon.

    1. Is The Sweater the Jacket’s evil twin?

  14. The Duggar guy is named Jim Bob? ERROR JOKE OVERLOAD

    1. If you grow up with the name Jim Bob Dugger, could you really be anything but some kind of evangelical nut? Think about it, Jim Bob Dugger, Orthodox Jew or Jim Bob Dugger, Satan worshiping death metal guitarist doesn’t really work.

      1. Jim Bob Dugger, Satan worshiping death metal guitarist doesn’t really work

        no…no, I’m feeling like that one works.

      2. Satanic guitarist is fine, but he’d have to call himself something like DeR Kristraper, or something like that.

      3. They are Quivers. Get it right.

  15. Every time I open my incif file (which seems to be a lot lately), I realize the quality of reason trolls has gone seriously downhill.

    1. Fuck you. If you would just walk past our camps and take our pamphlets I wouldn’t have to do this.

      1. You know, you might be on to something here.

        1. YOU DON’T WANT TO WALK PAST MY CAMPS!

      2. But I don’t have a job and no money for mobile broadband so I have to go to the local library. Bummer.

        As was noted above, there are jobs. You just think that you’re too good for “those kinds” of jobs. You know, the one’s that are beneath your station in life.

        And the library thing, that’s not drawing sympathy here. Care to explain why the gov, that is taxpayers, should be on the hook to make all that access to information and technology available to people who, like you, aren’t even paying for them? We, the employed, have paid for that for you as well.

        What, pray tell, exactly have any in the OWS-VPS *super-snicker at every reading!* done to have deserved my respect?

      3. FWIW, I’m purposely avoiding your camps.

        Even still, you don’t have to do this. With every reality-denying comment and link, you’re only making yourself, and the entire OWS movement, look like a bunch of immature, spoiled brats. Which you are.

  16. Santorum
    aka fecal spooge.

  17. Current 538 projects for NH:

    Romney 43.1%
    Paul 24.2%
    Santorum 12.3%
    all others below 10%

    That would break down the 12 delegates:
    Romney 8
    Paul 3
    Santorum 1

    1. Romney can’t capture a majority in his own back yard? He can probably be okay with 43%. But if he can’t get over 40 in New Hampshire, he has got some problems.

      1. I think his national cap is 30-35%.

        It might be enough to win the nomination, and it might not.

      2. You think Ron Paul is going to get a majority in Louisiana? Gingrich in South Carolina?

        1. I think Texas is its own backyard.

          Ive never heard cajuns complaining about all the Texholes moving into the state.

          1. The Massholes aren’t Republicans.

            1. NH has (mostly?) open primaries.

              1. Not quite open. If you are registered D or R, you can’t change affiliation on election day to vote in the other primary. But more people are unaffiliated than registered with either party, so it largely works out that way. If you are unaffiliated, you can register republican or democrat at the poll and then change back on your way out. So I’ve spent about 15 minutes of my life as a registered Republican.

            2. Some of them are. They do have some republicans in MA. And NH probably appeals to them.

        2. Romney practically lives in New Hampshire. He has been campaigning for five years. He is the only candidate who appeals to Northeastern liberals. If he can’t win 50% in New Hampshire, where can he win that much?

          1. It’s extremely rare for a candidate to win 50% in a 5 way race where all the candidates are viable.

          2. As a lifelong NH resident, I am still kind of surprised that Romney does so well. There is a pretty healthy general disdain for MA here.
            The SE part of the state has pretty much become New Massachusettes, though, I shouldn’t be too surprised.

            1. Romney left office in 06 as one of the most unpopular governors in America. Everyone I know from Mass, and I know a few, hate his guts. I can’t figure out who up there is voting for him.

              Are people really so stupid they will vote for someone they hate just because he is from nearby?

              1. I wish I knew the answer. I think it is mostly that people fall for that slick shit that he pulls off so well.

              2. Since I became a voter 20 years ago, I have noticed that it’s always about the lesser evils for the vast majority of voters. Always. ALWAYS. Fear is what dominates people’s voting decisions. Hence, Romney – a dull, hated, robotic shyster who also happens to be a) a known quantity and b) not all radical and principled and shit.

              3. Are people really so stupid they will vote for someone they hate just because he is from nearby?

                You realize you just contradicted your claim that Romney should be over 50% in NH because it’s close to MA.

                And anyway, being hated by Massachusetts voters is not a bad thing.

                1. No I didn’t Tulpa. I find Romney to be hated up there. But that is not Romney’s claim. The fact that his claim is untrue would not bode well for his election chances.

                  1. John as someone who probably hangs out with more conservatives than I, do you know of anyone who actually likes Romney?

                    1. I know one person. My old wedding planner in Boston. That is it. Tony.

        3. You think Ron Paul is going to get a majority in Louisiana?

          I think he’ll win it.

      3. New Hampshire is still not Massoftwoshits. Geographical proximity does not make New Hampshire Romney’s territory. Also fuck Romney and Massoftwoshits and Beantown and Red Sux.

        1. Yep, take PA, we’er practically libertopia compared to NY and NJ.

          1. As long as you don’t want to buy beer in a grocery store or liquor during non-banking hours.

            But as far as guns and taxes go, I agree.

            1. We can’t buy beer at grocery stores in NJ either. Instead we have boatloads of liquor stores and most of them have a large selection of craft beers which, based on my experience with free-beer NYC, makes my life much easier.

              Aside from alcohol, PA is far more libertarian than NJ. Speaking of which, has PA supplanted UT for lamest liquor laws yet?

              1. PA is in the process of liberalizing the alky laws actually. The usual Baptist and bootleggers liquor store union coalition is doing everything they can to stop it though.

    2. If it goes like that Huntsman is probably out. Gingrich and Perry will probably hold on until SC.

      1. Gingrich 9.0, Huntsman 8.6, Perry 1.4 in case you were wondering.

        1. Yeah, Huntsman really needs a top 3 finish in NH to survive. He’s certainly not doing better in SC or FL.

          1. I would kind of like to see Huntsman and Gingrich break 10% just to collect 1 delegate and keep it from going to Romney.

            As long as Paul gets his 3.

            In the long run, it doesnt matter, those wont be Paul voters at the convention, but I want Romney’s numbers to be low.

            1. So you like Santorum and Gingrich.

              1. Huh?

                How does that follow? Im wanting the convention as brokered as possible.

                1. Outside of Ron Paul’s delegates, of course.

    3. With those numbers, Silver gives Paul a 6% chance of winning NH.

  18. I thought Ralph Reed was in prison (casino licence bribes possibly). Did he get out or something?

    I wish I believed in a hell for people like Reed and Santorum.

    1. He got off on the statute of limitations. And he just took money from Indian casinos. It wasn’t illegal. He just tried to launder it so no one would know what a hypocrite he is.

  19. Rick Santorum: “the freedom to attend to one’s duties?duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.”

    I’m confused as to what Rick Santorum is selling. Is it conservatism (a la Bill Bennett)? Catholicism? Or closet Confuscianism?

    1. I am confused as to how anyone is not free to attend to their duties to God, family and neighbors now? If Rick so God damned concerned about attending to his duties to God, why is he running for President?

      1. Rick believes his duties to God include stopping all abortion (except his own wife’s, of course, as noted up-thread) and stamping out teh gheys.

        Laws passed by the nefarious leftist conspiracy thus prevent him from carrying out his duty. Something he will rectify as President.

    2. Confusionism.

    3. Mostly just slavery.

  20. But it’s for your own good!!!

  21. Santorum and Ralph Reed have one important thing in common: they both creep me out.

    The GOP has become quite talented in finding new ways to fail.

    1. santorum or Santorum? They’re both pretty creepy.

  22. I’m as concerned as Santorum is about the cost to taxpayers of out-of-wedlock births. But the way to stop them is not to limit sexual freedom — it is to take away the subsidy that the welfare system, and especially the unfair child-support enforcement system, now gives them.

    When Santorum grows up enough to figure this out, he can be one of us.

    1. If people had to pay for their own children, they would stop having them. And if women were not guaranteed to screw their husbands in a custody fight, they would be more loyal to them. And men might be more willing to get married.

      But that is the kind of second order thinking that is way beyond your typical Congress Critter.

      1. That people are shocked when incetivized bad behavior results in (SURPRISE!!) more bad behavior scares the shit out of me.

        1. As the Iron Law states:

          You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish.

          All hail the Iron Law!

          1. We keep rewarding candidates who want to expand the fed’s role in our lives. And the guys that want to decrease the fed’s role, get slammed.

            I have no question about who fucked this country up. The citizenry. Blaming it on the elected is a great way not to get the problem solved.

      2. “If people had to pay for their own children, they would stop having them.”

        And then we go extinct. Brilliant.

        1. Dense troll is dense.

      3. Do you have numbers to back up your implicit claim that raising a child can be financially profitable because of government money? Because at first glance it seems a really bizarre claim to make.

        None of you ever say what we should do about those children. Let them starve?

        1. People make decisions at the margins Tony. The less something costs, the more they will do it. And no children starve in this country. The First Lady told me so. They are all fat.

          1. Pretty sure the notion that people pop out babies for the financial incentive is part of the same racist Reagan-era anti-welfare bullshit that has absolutely no data to support it.

            If no children starve in this country it’s because government subsidizes their food.

            I’m just wondering, after you’re done pointing the moral finger at poor people then suggesting they contribute to your eugenics program, what do you do about the children who are born?

            1. Tony – don’t be a goof. I have several slightly older middle-class (and white — egad!) friends whose kids have squeezed out their own kids or fathered them out of wedlock. Why? Because they can — because the state helps pay the bills.
              It’s not a rich/poor thing or a racial thing. It’s a responsibility thing. When the state makes it easier to be irresponsible, a lot of people will be.

              1. So say we take away government support, what do we do with the children of people behaving, as you put it, irresponsibly?

                1. Let them eat cake.

                2. What would you do, Tony? In the absence of a welfare state, would you just sit there and let children starve?

                  1. I’d implement a welfare state.

              2. Tony – don’t be a goof.

                That’s like telling a dog not to lick its balls.

            2. “racist”

              Yeah, like the only people who get welfare are black.

              Why can’t people like you use the word “racist” in its proper form, Tony?

              1. Yeah, that gets tiresome. No one is saying that poor black people should be treated differently from poor white people. Even if this was about disregard for the poor, as Tony seems to think, it’s not racist. Why do people assume that black and poor are one and the same?

                1. Sorry you never realized that welfare queens and other stereotypes were racial dog whistles. There would be no anti-safety net movement in this country without Southern racial resentment. Principled libertarians who would willingly sacrifice their own ability to draw SS and Medicare are very few in number, actually.

                  1. “Gog whistle”

                    Fuck. Why bother being rational? Just presume what people are saying is A, instead of B, and if you get paid to do it on cable TV, more the better!

                    1. …and while you’re at it, insinuate that there is not, and never has been, even ONE example of an unworthy welfare leech scamming the system.

                    2. Case in point:

                      http://loyalopposition.blogs.n…..its-there/

                      Fuck Team Red, but at least be honest about critiquing them.

                    3. As for Barry… he’s a hAlfrican-American, so it’s BS to claim criticism of him is based solely on racism.

                    4. As for Barry… he’s a hAlfrican-American, so it’s BS to claim criticism of him is based solely on racism.

                      Not funny enough to be a joke… do you actually think this?

                    5. Fuck your weak-assed sense of humor. He’s HALF black, HALF white, for those who genuinely think it matters.

                      He could be a fucking Tholian, for all I care.

                    6. And, yes, I believe it. It’s a pussy cop-out for anyone to insinuate that criticizing Obama is based in racism, every time he’s criticized.

                      Because some of your fellow Team members do exactly that… then claim “oh, we would never say EVERYONE who criticizes Obama is racist” – while secretly believing it.

                      Unless it’s applied to EVERY situation, criticizing differently-melatonined people is not in and of itself racist. Unless people SAY it is.

                    7. …and while you’re at it, insinuate that there is not, and never has been, even ONE example of an unworthy welfare leech scamming the system.

                      Seriously what is with you and these blatant strawmen?

                      I don’t know how scamming is done in this instance precisely, but such things will always be present in any system. My whole point, which you moral nannies can’t grasp, is that I don’t care who’s “worthy,” I care what their income level is.

                      What’s so extra fucked up about your ultra-puritanical moral obsession is that, after blaming poor people for their own problems then taking all support from them, you support an economic system that minimizes worker income.

                    8. Puritanical? Seriously?

                      You really don’t care if people scam the system, do you?

                    9. Puritanical? Seriously?

                      You really don’t care if people scam the system, do you?

                    10. Shit… squirrel attack.

                      BTW, when I mean “worthy”, I mean “people who don’t scam the system”. But you knew that.

  23. There was a great argument made for traditions. This was not it.

  24. …where he spoke to schoolchildren and their parents about the importance of electing a leader who will promote good social values to interfere in every aspect of the lives of citizens

    ‘because things like *marriage* wouldn’t happen unless we had LEADERS enforcing it… while also forbidding it of others, arbitrarily.

    if you had to choose between 4more years of Obama… or a Santorum administration?…What would you choose?

    Alcohol/sleeping pill overdose is not on the list of choices.

    1. Fortunately, the LP is on the list of choices.

      Im voting for Johnson in am Obama v Santorum race.

      1. You mean that you can actually vote for libertrians!?

        That’s awesome. I’ve been told there that you either vote republican or stay home.

        1. I cringed up-thread when people started talking about ROMNIAC being “no so bad”.

          “We’ll talk a good game until our hand is forced…and then pull the lever for TEAM RED. Sure they keep beating us, but we come back because they promise not to anymore and we can reform them!”

    2. I can’t remember who I am paraphrasing here, but here is how I like to sum it up.

      When offered the choice between being punched in the face and kicked in the balls, I like to at least ask for neither.

  25. What is the point of this article? That candidates push pet social issues? Well Duh!

  26. I can’t believed I lived to see the day the GOP might actually literally nominate ass juice for president.

    1. Ass juice won’t be nominated. He won’t remain popular. Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Newtstits, Fecaleak, and possibly Huntsman are all following a predictable pattern. Only Romney and Ron Paul have a permanent level of popularity.

  27. Kiki has joined the line-up of our fabulous LiveCam girls. She blends sexy charm with wit and intelligence. Always elegant, always fashionably stylish and super smart – that’s Kiki.

    This beauty is fluent in English so she can share your thoughts and desires as well as add some of her own. Kiki sparkles with fresh ideas and she is bubbling with creative talent. She is creating a buzz on the Ukrainian music scene. The lyrics she writes reach out and grab her audience. Her published poems are bringing a whole new dimension to the phrase “Romantic poetry”. We saw at a glance that Kiki is sophisticated and sharp. Her raw passion is just below the surface.

    She is ready, here and now, to share all this intimately with you.

    http://www.hegre-art.com/models#action=show&id=223

  28. Kiki has joined the line-up of our fabulous LiveCam girls. She blends sexy charm with wit and intelligence. Always elegant, always fashionably stylish and super smart – that’s Kiki.

    This beauty is fluent in English so she can share your thoughts and desires as well as add some of her own. Kiki sparkles with fresh ideas and she is bubbling with creative talent. She is creating a buzz on the Ukrainian music scene. The lyrics she writes reach out and grab her audience. Her published poems are bringing a whole new dimension to the phrase “Romantic poetry”. We saw at a glance that Kiki is sophisticated and sharp. Her raw passion is just below the surface.

    She is ready, here and now, to share all this intimately with you.

    http://www.hegre-art.com/models#action=show&id=223

    1. Sorry about the double post.

  29. Why wouldn’t leaders in this country … Stop, in any way they could, the sexual promiscuity that goes on that leads to out-of-wedlock births.

    Well, Mr. Ass-Lube, it may be because they have zero legal or moral authority to do so.

    I really fucking hate this guy, and after the caucus I really fucking hate 30,007 Iowans. This simpleton should have recieved zero votes. At least New Hampshirites have a little more sense. Got it New Hampshire? No one votes for Ass-Lube! I’m serious. Not. one. vote!

  30. Has anyone noticed this: Santorum comports himself in a manner eerily reminiscent of Biden.

  31. Oy vey! How do people not see the difference between allowing people to live their lives as they see fit and dictating morals? If you make abortion illegal based on religious ideologies then a certain moral prerogative is being forced onto everyone. If abortion is legal and one is not being forced to have an abortion then one’s rights are not being trounced, others with differing views are just able to exercise their rights. Gay marriage is the same. If gay marriage is legalized (rightly so) and one is not gay, then by all accounts, it is probably best if one does not engage in such a marriage. But gay marriage certainly does not hurt the integrity of marriage, it just widens the pool of people eligible. How could this possibly be seen as a bad idea? No one has ever told the religious right they are not entitled to thump on their bible whenever they saw fit, some of us would just prefer not to be thumped on our heads by an idiot with a bible in hand. Religion is not the problem, being an unthinking bigot with a God complex is.

  32. When Santorum said “The essential issue in this race is freedom,” my head snapped because he is all for it in one area and not in another and this is just not consistent with Jeffersonian liberalism. The essential issue is individual rights, essentially property rights and the reckless, out of control spending of this corrupt government is threatening those rights. With the serious problems we have today I can’t believe the Republicans are going to the old playbook of “social issues”! Lame, very lame and a sure looser strategy.

  33. I have been with my husband for close to 12yrs now. We have 2 beautiful children together and we are not married. Why? Because we feel that it’s just a formality at this point. Just a piece of paper. Our common law situation is not some dark seeded falacy. The only difference between us and those who are married is a little box ticked on our tax papers. Is our tax bill higher? No. Is our tax bill lower? No. Do we get any special treatment? No. The only people who are losing in a common law situation are the divorce lawyers because if things go south with common law you actually don’t need one unless you want to get custody arrangements put on court papers.
    If they want to enforce or “promote” marriage, they should be enforcing or “promoting” home ownership. Look how many school and property taxes are lost on renters.

  34. With his vintage sideburns and old-school rock hair falling in his face, Jimmy is an irrelevant curio with no place in the modern world. Cut loose from the only life he knows, he returns to his childhood home in Forest Hills, Queens, where he tells his ancient mother (Lois Smith) that he’s actually the Cult’s manager and sometime songwriter, and that he has only dropped by for the day before shoving off on another international tour. After rather too much interaction with mom

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.