Rick Santorum: "We're not the Libertarian Party, we're the Republican Party"

[Jackie Moon]

What about Muslim-nazis, Atheist-nazis, Hindu-nazis?

Not to mention Nazi-nazis.

The worst kind.

Commie Nazis are the worst. [video]http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/ccManager/clips/simpsonss09e23_mcbaincommienazis.mp4/view[/video]

What about lesbian nazi hooker pandas?

Don't forget Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois Nazis.

 

[compromise]

There were many Muslim Nazis, among them Himmler's favorite troops and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem-Al Quds, may his name forever be blotted out.

True. Many Muslim Bosnians served in Nazi Germany's military. Also, Zaki al-Arsuzi (a secular Muslim), founder of Ba'athism, was inspired by Italian fascism and in 1941, Iraqi Ba'athists (including Saddam Hussein's uncle) received support from Nazi Germany against the British. "Young Egypt", the group which brought Sadat and Nasser to prominence in Egypt, was modelled upon the Nazi Party and used the same salute and slogans. Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (which at the time was not as fundamentalist as it is today), was also an admirer of Hitler and Mussolini, frequently writing to Hitler and expressing his desire for a Muslim Third Reich. Mein Kampf's Arabic translation continues to be popular among nationalists in the Arab world, particularly in the Palestinian territory.

There were not many atheist Nazis, but there are a few prominent atheist Neo-Nazis, such as April Gaede (mother of Prussian Blue, a white nationalist pop music group) and Tom Metzger (former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan in California, now a leader of California's skinhead gang movement through his organization White Aryan Resistance).

Indian independence activists, many of them Hindu, aligned themselves with Nazi Germany. Subhas Chandra Bose met Hitler and agreed to give Nazi Germany the Indische Legion in exchange for Nazi support for Indian independence and protection for Indians living in Germany. As with Arab nationalism, the origins of Hindutva (and therefore the Indian right wing which has no classical liberal streak) are in Italian fascism. Particularly in Maharashtra, fascism became increasingly popular and was promoted by revolutionary anti-British media. Vinayak Sarvarkar (a Hindu atheist), founder of Hindutva, often expressed admiration for Mussolini and Hitler, praising Hitler's policy of sending Jews to labor camps (although he later changed his mind on Jews and supported Israel) and favored a similar policy towards the Indian Muslim population. Leaders of the RSS (a militant group still influential in India today) travelled to Italy to meet Mussolini. The former leader of Shiv Sena, an extreme nationalist Indian political party, compared himself to Hitler as recently as the 2000s and described himself as a "great admirer" of Hitler.

 

[abacabb]

Don't forget Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois Nazis.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I make it from a property rights argument. Your body is private property. Even if you believe the fetus is a life, if the woman doesn't want it and it the fetus doesn't leave (which it obv. can't) then she has the right to forcibly remove it. The fetus' rights stop where her rights begin and it is violating her property rights in the same way an intruder would be violating your rights if they broke into your home.

Although I flip back and forth on this issue.

I only have a minute so I'm not even going to get into rape here but my argument for 90+% of these cases is that she invites the fetus in when she has sex. You wouldn't allow a mother to leave her newborn son on the front porch in the middle of a snowstorm, yet that's literally the logical extreme eviction theory leads to.

 

[osan]

“If we do change, we’ll be the Whig Party.”

And the problem there is... what, exactly? Some of our better presidents were Whigs.

 

[WM_in_MO]

And the problem there is... what, exactly? Some of our better presidents were Whigs.

He's implying they will die off if they become more libertarian. The insanity of these people is great comedic material. They should honestly be forced to give speeches every day so I have something to point and laugh at.

 

[sailingaway]

He's implying they will die off if they become more libertarian. The insanity of these people is great comedic material. They should honestly be forced to give speeches every day so I have something to point and laugh at.
/QUOTE]

We aren't the Taliban, we are the Republican party. Bye, Santorum.

 

[osan]

You can't legislate morality ass clown.

Said the blind man to his deaf daughter...

They think they can. They are equally dangerous to those at the other end of the supposed spectrum. Do not fool yourselves into thinking that such people would not have your necks under their boots were they given the opportunity.

Extremists of any flavor, whether religious or otherwise pose essentially equal threats to freedom and if liberty is to survive (and at this point that is in some very grim doubt) the day will almost certainly come where they will have to be "handled", and that can mean anything from simply managing them with some political clarity to open warfare.

Here again we see the perils that beset human freedom at every turn. Some people seem driven to the will to dominate others. A huge proportion of us, most likely a vast majority in fact, are terrified of actual freedom. They want all the benefits with none of the associated costs. In other words, they want something for nothing and in a universe that as yet provides no discernible free lunches this poses a very serious problem for everyone. Some very few of us want actual freedom. The rest want pretty slavery where the Master magically pulls those free lunches out of thin air and beneficently dispenses them to one and all. No worries there at all, right? Nothing could possibly go wrong there, right?

The bottom line for living freely is stark and perhaps unpleasant: in order to become and remain free one must be willing most literally to butcher his fellows who would trespass upon that freedom. There is no way around this. Law in itself is nothing. Principle left fallow is nothing. Talking nicely to empty headed animals avails one nothing. Talking harshly to them gains them practically nothing. It is naught but the sword that keeps the barbarians polite. Make no mistake about the fact that at the end of the day your "nice" neighbors who crave their particular visions of pretty slavery are not your friends. They are potentially as bitter an enemy as any you might imagine, for they would offer your children up for immediate and unceremonious slaughter if they thought it would get them what they want, which is that vision of paradise at no cost to them. They don't give a damn who pays, so long as it is not them. They are thieves every bit as much as the man who dons a mask and sticks a gun in your ribs for the sake of taking your wallet, only far less honest than the mugger, for at least he does his own work.

Bear always in mind the enormous raw psychological power of well crafted visions of pretty slavery. They are so viscerally appealing - so right in their appearances even to otherwise intelligent and careful adults - that it becomes easy to fall for the bait. Just as with the old vampire movies like Salem's Lot where those somehow saved from the ultimate fate say once bitten they no longer wanted to get away, but to remain in the monster's clutches, so it is with the right visions of pretty slavery. People get swept away with the visions of golden "freedom" and strong happy children and social order, never asking "at what cost, this?" That is the mistake - of wanting something so much that habits of good reason fall by the wayside.

The song of the Siren is nearly irresistible.

No matter how appealing a story line may appear to you, always ask yourself what the costs will be. This is most especially true for the vision of actual freedom because how can you want something you do not fully understand? What is the manna? Whence does it come? Who provides it? How shall they be compensated? For whom shall it be provided? Who shall compensate? How much shall be the bill? And so forth. Do not forget that nothing is free, not even our freedom. A paradox for the ages, perhaps.

When one has well in his grasp the principles of proper human relations the answers become easy to find. When difficulties arise in one's mind it is ALWAYS due to the desire for pretty slavery - for getting something for nothing - for avoiding the costs one does not want to pay. There are no exceptions to this. Proper human relations, which is the manifestation of proper human freedom, gives rise to some unpleasant truths. Some people will not "make it". Some children will die. Others will be stricken with disease, or go hungry and without homes. Some will be forced to live without a large flat-panel television; oh the humanity!

These are some of the costs associated with actual, proper human freedom. While there is no "government" to save you from your unfortunate circumstances or poorly considered choices, there is also none to step upon your rights. The pretty slaver wants the former without the possibility of the latter.

The pretty slaver wants that which can never be realized. The pretty slaver expects magical and saint-like perfection to govern his world by hands no more adept and free of sin and vice than his own. It is a wish so violently disconnected from even the the most remote threads of reality as to defy one's credulity. How can anyone accept such barking insanity in the least measure? Yet, the vast majority of people in these United States and indeed the world have been trained to subscribe to this rank dementia with clamoring that flies well past the feverish. A goodly proportion of those people would unhesitatingly see you sacrificed upon the altar of their golden vision in order to have that for which they shamelessly fiend. Your desires, your rights, your very life is as nothing to such people. They are no different from all the fools in Germany who stood tall and raised their arms in the NAZI salute for Hitler. They are no different from those who meekly stood by as Mao and Stalin ran roughshod over their fellows, thankful in their quaking cowardice to have been passed over... this time.

These people, your neighbors, those wantonly ignorant and mindlessly greedy poltroons who are willing to accept any political idiocy so long as it affects someone else, would turn on you in an instant if they sensed profit in it or if you threatened their status as free lunchers. So long as they are not inconvenienced they are content to tolerate no-knock raids upon the man next door, always rationalizing that it is none of their business. With few exceptions this has been the increasingly overarching human proclivity since ancient times, having grown exponentially over the past century. Back when, at least, there were apparently far more willing to come to the defense of the rights of their neighbors as written history appears to indicate. Today, however, that characteristic of the race of men is all but extinct, Joe Average now drawing the shades when a ruckus breaks out as he draws a sigh of relief that is it not his house to which armed men in black have arrived and caved in the door, shot the dog, wrecked the house and stomped wordlessly away after realizing they came to the wrong address. Relief that it is not him being dragged away in handcuffs, having been beaten senseless and bloody for having had the temerity to question their actions, the children on their way to "the system", and the wife left to live under a bridge with the house under an order of civil forfeiture.

This is the reality of our nation today, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole truth is so ugly, so frightening, and so impossibly nauseating that most people simply cannot - WILL NOT - consider it. It is simpler to shut it out - drown it out with the next big game on TV, remote in one hand, beer or pecker in the other and the will to tell oneself that all is well.

It is this reality against which we enter the breech. Never let this truth escape your thoughts, no matter how oppressive it may seem. This truth is an essential element of that bare thread by which we hope for salvation from abject material slavery at the hands of our fellows. Facing this truth requires courage. Real deal, no bullshit courage the same as that required of men who go into open warfare is paramount to our hope. Without it, we are lost. Do not forget this.

So, how do y'all feel now?

 

[anaconda]

Bye, Santorum.

I recall Santorum being a joke on the debate stage, purely for the sake of tossing out war mongering and fundamentalist slogans. He was polling 4% nationally through mid December. It was surreal to me that he was even up there (although I thought it was surreal that McCain was up there in 2007-08).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

He was the last gasp try by the media to pump up an "anti-Romney" and the fact that it registered on the charts is a testament to the influence of the media.

The one thing I can say for Frothy is that he does claim ownership of the religious fundamentalists, and the media seems to help make this so. So, the question is how might the establishment use this as some sort of trump card in their primary strategy for 2016?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

+rep for osan. That is truly an epic post. It will definitely be in the running for post of the year 2013.

 

[abacabb]

I recall Santorum being a joke on the debate stage, purely for the sake of tossing out war mongering and fundamentalist slogans. He was polling 4% nationally through mid December. It was surreal to me that he was even up there (although I thought it was surreal that McCain was up there in 2007-08).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

He was the last gasp try by the media to pump up an "anti-Romney" and the fact that it registered on the charts is a testament to the influence of the media.

The one thing I can say for Frothy is that he does claim ownership of the religious fundamentalists, and the media seems to help make this so. So, the question is how might the establishment use this as some sort of trump card in their primary strategy for 2016?

Interesting, being that Catholics are not even Christians. Same with "Christians" worshiping Jews.*

No offense to Catholics, but a religion that teaches Papal Supremacy is simply not Christian. And it's fine not to be a Christian, be any religion you want. /end disclaimer

 

[supermario21]

Interesting, being that Catholics are not even Christians. Same with "Christians" worshiping Jews.*

No offense to Catholics, but a religion that teaches Papal Supremacy is simply not Christian. And it's fine not to be a Christian, be any religion you want. /end disclaimer

Really???? You do realize all the other Christian religions split off from Catholicism, right? And don't tie Santorum to the Catholic majority, he didn't even win among that group in the primaries.

 

[DamianTV]

And all groups can be subdivided into further subgroups. For example, white people can be subdivided into "Normal" white folks, and "Fucking Douchebag" white folks. Same division can be applied to every group in existece. Now, with the Republican Party, what we have left of it is the "Fucking Douchebag" Republicans that abuse, exploit, and hide behind their Religions to validate their personal self interests. It is no different than a KKK member exploiting what ever religion they happen to be (not all are christian, but other religions are not all douchebags either) they want as an excuse to be a racist fuck. The ones in high positions of political office are just better at hiding behind their excuses, especially from themselves.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Interesting, being that Catholics are not even Christians. Same with "Christians" worshiping Jews.*

No offense to Catholics, but a religion that teaches Papal Supremacy is simply not Christian. And it's fine not to be a Christian, be any religion you want. /end disclaimer

Technically they are still Christians in that they worship Christ. Although if you're using Christian in the Evangelical sense, which is the definition I usually use, than some Catholics are Christians while others are not.

 

[dusman]

I make it from a property rights argument. Your body is private property. Even if you believe the fetus is a life, if the woman doesn't want it and it the fetus doesn't leave (which it obv. can't) then she has the right to forcibly remove it. The fetus' rights stop where her rights begin and it is violating her property rights in the same way an intruder would be violating your rights if they broke into your home.

Although I flip back and forth on this issue.

Although this is one of the more reasoned arguments I've seen for abortion, I think there is more to be said on this. I think the missing part of your argument is intent. Obviously intent plays a huge role here. An example might be you let someone live on your property via your own consent, but change your mind. That "tenant" is mostly entitled to time-to-vacate of 30 days or so. This in contrast to someone coming on your property and threatening your life. In those cases, you could be justified in self defense to kill that person due to their intent to bring you bodily harm.

Because two adults consented to sex, I suppose it might be similar to a contract/lease. Though you might want them to leave.. excessive force such as taking their life is not justified if it can't be proven that there is intent to harm. Since abortion may be too excessive for the circumstance, we might argue that the "tenant" (baby) has a right to proper time to vacate... or in this circumstance the remedy would ideally be adoption?

Just a thought.

 

[abacabb]

Really???? You do realize all the other Christian religions split off from Catholicism, right? And don't tie Santorum to the Catholic majority, he didn't even win among that group in the primaries.

They "reformed," because of the decadent theological state of catholicism. It is interesting that present day catholics worship Mary and follow all these man made traditions, such as honoring Saints like Augustine, when you read Augustine there is a scripture-based world view without all of that stuff.

I think Catholicism evolved to the point that it became a separate religion. That's why reformers split off from the church to reform Christianity.


I'm not trying to bash catholics. My point is that a lot of the fundies that vote Santorum are the types that are against gay marriage, aborton and etc. because "the bible says so" and that would ultimately not have fellowship with catholics because of such differences. Yet, they'll worship Israel and stuff. They're no more Christian, imho.

 

[shane77m]

DHS-Nazis

 

[osan]

Originally Posted by misean
I make it from a property rights argument. Your body is private property. Even if you believe the fetus is a life, if the woman doesn't want it and it the fetus doesn't leave (which it obv. can't) then she has the right to forcibly remove it. The fetus' rights stop where her rights begin and it is violating her property rights in the same way an intruder would be violating your rights if they broke into your home.


Although I flip back and forth on this issue.

Although this is one of the more reasoned arguments I've seen for abortion, I think there is more to be said on this. I think the missing part of your argument is intent. Obviously intent plays a huge role here. An example might be you let someone live on your property via your own consent, but change your mind. That "tenant" is mostly entitled to time-to-vacate of 30 days or so. This in contrast to someone coming on your property and threatening your life. In those cases, you could be justified in self defense to kill that person due to their intent to bring you bodily harm.

Because two adults consented to sex, I suppose it might be similar to a contract/lease. Though you might want them to leave.. excessive force such as taking their life is not justified if it can't be proven that there is intent to harm. Since abortion may be too excessive for the circumstance, we might argue that the "tenant" (baby) has a right to proper time to vacate... or in this circumstance the remedy would ideally be adoption?

Just a thought.

The abortion issue is so played. I understand both sides of the argument, and much like any other religious quarrel (and it IS religious in many aspects) the parties would be well served to agree to disagree and keep each others' mitts to themselves.

This is an example of pretty slavery, albeit a rather special case - perhaps the ONLY special case... I've not given it that much thought to be honest. A great multiplicity of the so-called "pro-life" folks, and I would consider myself one of them if with a twist for which the rest do not care, do not want actual freedom as I have repeated in these forums to the point of nauseating redundancy. They want a gilt cage. A very large, very expansive one that is beautifully appointed in every way, but a cage in any event. Why is it a cage? Because there is someone, somewhere with the capacity of the Master standing above the women mandating, "Thou shalt not..." as if they were gods in themselves. I call bullshit to that. This is clearly a very emotionally charged deal for many people and the answers appear unclear for some, especially when couched in certain ways, but I contend that the answers are in fact very clear. The woman's right trumps that of the fetus, period. If she is a free being, she is free to remove the condition of her pregnancy. Does that make it a good thing? I would say that in the vast majority of contemporary cases the answer is very clearly "no". I find it a horror, to be honest, and yet I cannot find any truthfully principled argument that would legitimately ban women from making this choice, much less see them imprisoned for it. The horror of abortion is one of those terrible costs of freedom of which I have written.

I believe that my position is bolstered immensely by the fact that most of the pro-life folks with whom I have had this exchange concede that abortion is OK in cases where the mother's life is in danger and even in cases of rape and incest. Let us examine these each in turn.

When conditions threaten the mother's life, why is the fetus' life automatically forfeit when it might otherwise live if we chose to allow the mother to die? Is this not arbitrary? Is this not hypocritical, given all the talk of how equally sacred all human life is? No and yes, respectively. It is not arbitrary because at the bottom of it all, people sense that the ability to fend for oneself does in fact make a difference in such questions. What else would explain it, other than conceding that the fetus' life is somehow less valuable than that of an established and viable human being. Either way the basis for the pro-choice position is made solid.

Once again, if all human life is precisely equally valued, then why the exception for rape? Is it the fetus' fault? If not, then why is it being made to pay with its life? Why is its life of less valence than the mother's mood? In this case we have one victim and one potential victim. Making the fetus pay will not undo the fact that the woman was raped, and yet even most pro-life people agree that abortion is acceptable in that case. I call hypocrisy of the worst sort on this one because it is CLEAR to me that their positions are based not in legitimate and truthful principle, but in pure emotion.

The precise same argument applies to cases of incest. It is the emotional argument that underlies the position. The thought that incest is so horrible that the product of so unholy a union is in fact fit for execution. Just how insane is that? Seriously folks, that is raving, drooling, barking mad - worse than either of the others by a pretty long shot. The real truth is that all the position is doing is allowing the killing off of human life for the sake of saving the poor girl the embarrassment that her brother or uncle or cousin be she baby daddy. The tacit justification is that the child will be born with two heads or what have you and that is simply not the likely case, and in fact almost zero chance where the incestuous pregnancy is not the result of several iterations of the same. I have a flock of 20 goats produced from a brother-sister pair. Not a single malformation. The defect argument is pure bullshit. The issue is one of emotional discomfort disguised in the lie so that said discomfort may be assuaged. If abortion is indeed murder, is this a legitimate basis for an exception? Hardly.

Therefore, unless you are willing to say no abortions ever, for any reason, you are not actually pro-life. You are a hypocrite.

I hold no such positions myself. If a woman wants to kill off her fetus let her. I will have nothing to do with oppressing her. I may utterly hate what she has done - may even hate her for it, but I will not interfere with anything more intrusive than words.

The rest of you may do as you please, of course.

Freedom can be a real bitch and this is something with which the so-called "liberty movement" needs to come to adult grips.

'Nuff said. Too much, in fact. Pardon me please.

 

[KingNothing]

You can't legislate morality ass clown.

Gay marriage isn't even a moral issue.