"If They Cross Us, They Should Fear Us": Santorum Said It, Not Sure Who Believes It, That Settles It!

I'm disappointed in America to wake up after last night's debate and find that Santorum's bizarre ability to turn what was supposed to be a question about jobs and the economy and CEOs and management around so the answer ended in "if they cross us, they should fear us!" hadn't become a national joke meme yet.

I'm sure it was a disappointment to Ron Paul that both his first two questions involved making him reiterate direct attacks on other candidates. While Paul unleashes his staff to do that in paid messaging and isn't afraid of doing so when asked, Ron Paul isn't running for president to tell us Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are awful and I've never once seen him do so of his own volition. Still, I hope it at least taught his fellow Republicans that if they cross Ron Paul (or his fans), they should fear him (or his fans).

When Paul, as seems likely, with his $13 million fourth quarter money raised and his national base of enthusiasts, is the last man standing in the race against Romney, that should be obvious to all of them (and the Republican establishment).

Reason's Ron Paul archives. My forthcoming book, Ron Paul's Revolution.

Comments

[Alice Bowie]

The statement should actually read as follows:

"If WE Cross THEM, They Should Fear Us"

[rac]

As a two issue voter (taxes, as in lower and guns, as in keeping and bearing them) I will gladly vote for Paul if he wins the nomination. But if he does not, and he runs as an independent, he and his followers are dead to me. One more retarded supreme court justice and...you know.

[Maxxx]

Yeah because Romney is sooooo much better than Obama. With the added bonus that we and free markets will get blamed for his fuck ups.

[wareagle]

what about Romney leads you to believe that he would either raise taxes or erode gun rights, dealing with rac's concern? As to you, what about Romney leads you to believe he'll raise taxes, look for new countries to get into conflicts with, come up with more regulation that screws up the economy, etc?

Unlike ANY other candidate on the Repub dais, with the small exception of Paul in his doctor days, Romney is the only guy in the field (including Obama) who has actually created a real job, who has actually played in the real economic world, and who has some first-hand knowledge about regulations. There are reasons for not being a Romney supporter; calling him a whiter version of Obama is not one of them.

[Tulpa]

what about Romney leads you to believe that he would either raise taxes or erode gun rights, dealing with rac's concern?

Romney hasn't held the same political views since birth, therefore he is evil. Practical considerations and logic have nothing to do with the Mitt hate.

[wareagle]

Romney changed his view on abortion; that makes him evil? In Mass, he cut taxes, helped turn a deficit into a surplus, and that was in a highly blue state. It's not like he was governor of Nebraska or SC; he had to work with a Dem legislative majority. He's not perfect; neither is anyone else in the field. On the other hand, four more years of Obama makes your version of evil Romney look more like Dr Evil.

[Old Mexican]

Re: wareagle,

Romney changed his view on abortion; that makes him evil? In Mass, he cut taxes, helped turn a deficit into a surplus, and that was in a highly blue state.

Was this before he gave away "free" healthcare to Massachusettians, or after?

[wareagle]

OM,
just saying the comparison to Obama is silly. Romneycare is his cross, to an extent; such a bill was going to happen in MA whether he participated or not. I don't hear him saying the other states should sign on to it.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tulpa,

Romney hasn't held the same political views since birth, therefore he is evil no different than anyone else except Paul.

More accurate.

[mediageek]

Romney supported and helped to institute a state-level ban on so-called "assault weapons" during his time in Mass.

I have yet to see or hear anything that leads me to believe he's repudiated those actions or his belief in ridiculous gun control schemes.

[Fatty Bolger]

Yeah because Romney is sooooo much better than Obama

When it comes to picking judges for SCOTUS, I sure hope so, and that was rac's entire point. The court is one swing vote away from invalidating the second amendment, doing serious harm to the first, and who knows what else.

[Tulpa]

Indeed. And keep in mind BO's nominees won't be the Breyer/Ginsburg 1970s-style ACLU loving liberals. They'll be the authoritarian leftists of today.

I'm really scared of BO choosing Scalia and Kennedy's replacements, but tbh I'm even terrified of him replacing Ginsburg too!

[A. Scalia]

I'm not going anywhere until that damn exclusionary rule is invalidated.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Santorum, being Catholic, knows you should only cross yourself.

Doherty, while obviously an America-hater, is correct about not getting maneuvered into answering questions about other candidates. Everyone thought the debaters should attack the frontrunner. I think you better serve yourself in a debate by telling voters why you're the best candidate, not why the others are the worst.

[invisible furry hand]

I'm looking forward to further tough-talkin' lines from Santorum, eg:

"If it bleeds, we can kill it"
"I have come for the woman - and your head"

[Fluffy]

For me the highlight of the night was that guy's tweet about how Rand Paul's age means that the GOP faces "decades" of Paulbot vengeance.

Why, yes, they do. Are they only thinking of that now?

[invisible furry hand]

Even better, some of those fresh-faced Paul supporters will grow up and run for office. Hell, we could be talking generations of vengeance. Dare we dream of actual change?

[P B]

I really, really, really hope so!

[wareagle]

some of those fresh-faced Paul supporters will grow up and run for office.
---------------------------------
and that may be the real point of Paul's run, first paving the way for his son to make a go of it and, second, planting libertarian ideas among younger voters who may well mature into future candidates. I see Paul's success this time around as having implications for the future. Whoever wins the nomination can only benefit - and, in fact, may need - Paul's support in the general.

[Libertarian2]

I've been a libertarian for a long time, but it's only been a few years since I came to the conclusion that if this country (any country, actually) is going to evolve into the direction of more freedom, it will have to be the voters who do the evolving, not our "leaders." If I could snap my fingers and have RP elected president, I'd do it. But we are not going to be "lead" to increased freedom, if at all, but will have to be educated toward it.

[Juvenile Lurker]

Q: Why did Rick Santorum cross the road?

A: He wanted to lay it on the line.

[Res Publica Americana]

This is the same fucktard that believes the Presidency of the United States entails being a directional leader -- who fucking needs a constitutional republic when we can have an absolute monarchy?

[Spoonman.]

The USA can't be the world's Makmende.

Makmende

[Cowboy]

Haven't seen this mentioned yet

Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being "hostile" against the United States.

[Cowboy]

Goddamn android phone. Link

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2.....onviction/

[Cowboy]

Argh spam filter

http://tinyurl.com/7thcxad

Let me through dammit!

[Maxxx]

How long before rich people are trying to get prosecuted under this act to get out of the 10years of taxes for renouncing citizenship.

[Tulpa]

Late. As in the late Dentcharlesdent.

[Mr. FIFY]

Arthur Dent.

[Tulpa]

Uh, SCOTUS struck down much narrower citizenship revocation legislation, which only revoked when one joined the military of a country at war against the US or accepted political office or military command for a foreign country, back in the 1960s.

[Cowboy]

I don't trust our current scouts to knock this down if it were to pass. And seeing as ndaa passed and they're trying like hell to get sopa passed, I've got a feeling this will fly right through.

[Cowboy]

And here's the link since my phone doesn't like these comment boxes.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2.....onviction/

[MattyP]

I just don't get people who insist that Ron Paul is a libertarian. Sure, he is for a small and limited Federal Government, anyone who believes that states have the right to pass an enforce sodomy laws and restrict gay marriage (aka: voluntary association between adults) can hardly be called a libertarian, at least in my approximation of what that term means. After all, government interference is government interference, no matter the level of government from which it originates...

I mean, how does criminalizing voluntary association or consensual sexual contact follow from the nonagression principle?

[db]

There's a difference between thinking states, under the Constitution, have the power to pass bad laws, and endorsing that those laws be passed. He's running for Federal office, and explicitly saying the Federal government's power should be restricted. Hence, he is not seeking the power to do those things. I would be more concerned if he were running for a Governorship on a platform of states' rights to implement these ideas at the state level.

I'm also a little hazy on whether you're arguing that Paul is endorsing sodomy laws here. Is he?

As to the gay marriage point, I thought Paul's position was that recognition of marriage shouldn't be a state function at all? I guess he hasn't explicitly come out against straight marriage.

The larger point is that to the extent Paul has some social conservative tendencies, they tend to be outweighed by the appealing nature of his views on government power in general. In comparison to all other candidates currently in the Republican race, he is as close to a libertarian as you can get. Imposing a purity test on him is not reasonable, and certainly counterproductive if you want libertarian ideas exposed to the public through the Republican nomination process.

[MattyP]

Here's what Ron Paul said about sodomy laws:

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights ? rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.

-Cite

Ron Paul also wrote the "We the People Act", which, among other things, removes state laws restricting Free Exercise of religion, rights to privacy (including sexual practice and reproduction), and equal access to marriage from Federal Judicial Oversight.

Basically, the states have the right to infringe upon the liberties of their citizens, but the Federal Government doesn't.

To me, I don't care from what level of government restrictions on my rights come. Fascism at the state level is the same, disgusting animal as fascism at the federal level.

[wareagle]

then you should probably never vote again as the candidate whom you seek does not exist. Paul is not talking 'infringement'; state's rights is about states having the ability to shape themselves without federal interference. By definition, some states would be more socially liberal than others if 50 different test tubes are employed.

Whereas Paul points out that the Constitution never mentions a right to privacy, it does not prohibit one, either, and it DOES include a right to pursue happiness. You're taking an answer about a question that no one, with the possible exception of Santorum, would ever try to codify.

Saying that a state has a right to pass certain laws does not imply agreement with those laws. It's like laws forcing businesses to serve all people. We don't need laws for that; businesses that openly discriminate will likely go out of business for morally-repugnant actions.

[Syd Henderson]

The right to the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

[Mr Whipple]

Doesn't the Fourth imply a right to privacy? Not that the Fourth actually means anything anymore.

[Mr. FIFY]

I'm surprised Matty didn't insinuate that states might vote to reinstitute slavery... KosKids trollers love to do shit like that.

[Fatty Bolger]

He's right. The laws may be ridiculous, and as a libertarian Ron Paul would be against those laws, but he correctly recognizes that there is nothing in the constitution to prevent states from passing them.

[Brandybuck]

What is the 14th Amendment, chopped liver?

[juris imprudent]

I'm certainly not endorsing it - but your feared "fascism at the state level" is not the same. At the state level, you can escape it by crossing the state line. I would be more than happy to sacrifice a few states to the worst of TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE then partially lose the whole country to the fucktards.

[califronian]

I'll vote for the guy who has it half right over all the others who are completely wrong.

[BakedPenguin]

I understand that at some point, you have to make a decision that someone isn't a good enough candidate for you to vote for.

For me, that line comes in around 50-60%, and both Paul and Johnson meet that. Romney and Obama are both around 2%.

[Old Mexican]

Re: MattP,

anyone who believes that states have the right to pass an enforce sodomy laws and restrict gay marriage (aka: voluntary association between adults) can hardly be called a libertarian,

I am against sodomy laws and yet I believe state government can attempt to pass them - to their peril.

Just because Paul is consistent in his respect for the Constitution does not mean ipso facto he is for sodomy laws. That's a big, dishonest stretch.

how does criminalizing voluntary association or consensual sexual contact follow from the nonagression principle?

How does having a big federal behemoth follow from the non-aggression principle? The solution to your conundrum is not to have an even more powerful supra-government to impose nice things, but to have more libertarian state governments.

[Make My Monster GROW!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RysZy331YK0

Oh, does anybody remember the entitlement of the Democratic Party in 2004. Sweet jeezus, Nader really should have clocked Maher and Moore for acting like such assholes.

[Democrats (2004-2006)]

WELCOME TO JESUSLAND, TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, PRIVATIZED SOCIAL SECURITY, AND OUTLAWED ABORTION!

[AlmightyJB]

Santorums gay tryst can't come soon enough for me. nttawwt.

[Mr. Chartreuse]

A gay tryst seems a bit too vanilla for him though. I'm leaning towards him running an underground brothel (with cocaine and heroin dispensers) on the side and going by the name Pimp Master Santizzle .

[AlmightyJb]

Shit! And to think I wasn't going to vote for him. Santizzle foshizzle:)