Latest Santorum sound bite

[billvon 3,131]

Although I'm definitely a liberal, I am registered as an independent, and vote republican, libertarian or for non-party candidates about as often I vote democratic. But a Santorum speech today made me proud both to be a liberal and to NOT be a member of his party:

"I don't believe people should be empowered to do what pleases them the most. . . That's the difference between the liberal view of the world and the conservative view of the world. The liberal view is, you know, just do what I want to do, what pleases me. Their agenda is 'I should be able to do whatever I want to do as long as no one gets hurt.' . . . Particulary in the area of sexual freedom and personal issues, this is the mantra of the left, which is "I have a right to do whatever I want to do." And that is not the kind of freedom our founding fathers envisioned, it is not the kind of freedom that makes up a society that is devoted, as the subtitle of the book says, to the common good."

My own personal view of the matter goes more along the lines of this immoral liberal:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[Nightingale 0]

Got a link to the rest of the speech?

[billvon 3,131]

>Got a link to the rest of the speech?

here

[Lindsey 0]

BWA HAHA!!! HIM....talking about meeting the common good?! Oh MY! ROTFLMAO. WHEW!

Thought I was gonna lose my composure there for a minute. I wonder who the "common" is in common good. I'm just not seeing it.

The whole thing about regulating my private life is, of course, always offensive, but it's really nothing we haven't hashed out a few times already is it? It's sad when someone speaks so blatantly about it, though, as if taking away our liberties is no big deal...

peace~
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

And that is not the kind of freedom our founding fathers envisioned, it is not the kind of freedom that makes up a society that is devoted, as the subtitle of the book says, to the common good."

LOL. Only if the Senator knew what our founding father were doing in the free time. Especially Jefferson and Franklin. Im sure he would approve of their extracurricular activities.

[Jimbo 0]

Unfortunately for me the movie quit about 1/3 of the way through, however, what was actually said (what played for me) seems to me to be far less sinister than what you transcribed, Bill.

I'd be interested in getting the entire clip if anyone has it.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

BWA HAHA!!! HIM....talking about meeting the common good?! Oh MY! ROTFLMAO. WHEW!

Thought I was gonna lose my composure there for a minute. I wonder who the "common" is in common good. I'm just not seeing it.

The whole thing about regulating my private life is, of course, always offensive, but it's really nothing we haven't hashed out a few times already is it? It's sad when someone speaks so blatantly about it, though, as if taking away our liberties is no big deal...

peace~
linz

While I do not agree with the quotes if taken literaly I do agree with what I think he was trying to say.

I think is has to do more with responcibility for ones actions. To me that explains abortion and many other points of views taken by liberals.

Don't flame me on pro choice or life here OK. I just picked a topic that everyone knows about.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Well, by Santorum's criteria, I guess I'm pretty liberal. I'd guess I share that with Thomas Jefferson, though.

I think the following quote from the speech is actually a very accurate statement of my political views:

Quote

'I should be able to do whatever I want to do as long as no one gets hurt.'

Somehow I doubt that Senator Santorum has ever read The Declaration of the Rights of Man.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[peregrinerose 0]

As a resident of PA, Santorum makes me sick. In his new book, a part of his opinion is that all families can afford for the woman to stay at home and home school children, since that is the way it is supposed to be. Now, I'd love to see him take a bigass pay cut to match the average income of a PA family and show us just exactly how that is supposed to work?

I'm registered republican and typically tend to vote that way (though definitely not along party lines!), but he's just more than a bit out there.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[ahegeman 0]

That soundbite is hardly representative of all Republicans.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Well, by Santorum's criteria, I guess I'm pretty liberal. I'd guess I share that with Thomas Jefferson, though.

I think the following quote from the speech is actually a very accurate statement of my political views:

Quote

'I should be able to do whatever I want to do as long as no one gets hurt.'

Somehow I doubt that Senator Santorum has ever read The Declaration of the Rights of Man.

The problem is, as an example, engaging in taking drugs clouds ones judgement. Surely you don't think it's OK for somebody married with 4 children to get addicted to heroin, which most likely would result in a loss of interest in working and supporting their family do you? I think the arguement comes down to whether a person has the judgement to decide for themselves whats harmful. You certainly wouldn't advocate allowing people to decide whether it's OK to run a stop sign or red light based on their judgement about whether someone would get hurt by their actions, would you? I think it comes down to where the line is drawn between personal freedom and personal responsibility. If life were so simple, everyone would use a condom and the spred of AIDs would stop immediately.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, by Santorum's criteria, I guess I'm pretty liberal. I'd guess I share that with Thomas Jefferson, though.

I think the following quote from the speech is actually a very accurate statement of my political views:

Quote

'I should be able to do whatever I want to do as long as no one gets hurt.'

Somehow I doubt that Senator Santorum has ever read The Declaration of the Rights of Man.

The problem is, as an example, engaging in taking drugs clouds ones judgement. Surely you don't think it's OK for somebody married with 4 children to get addicted to heroin, which most likely would result in a loss of interest in working and supporting their family do you? I think the arguement comes down to whether a person has the judgement to decide for themselves whats harmful. You certainly wouldn't advocate allowing people to decide whether it's OK to run a stop sign or red light based on their judgement about whether someone would get hurt by their actions, would you? I think it comes down to where the line is drawn between personal freedom and personal responsibility. If life were so simple, everyone would use a condom and the spred of AIDs would stop immediately.

Of course there is a line between freedom and responsibility. However, this is not the focus of Santorum's message anyway, from what I can see. The bottom line of his message, to me, has not been focused on breaking laws (traffic or otherwise) because you think it is your right, but instead has been on the idea of family (read: a HETERO family). ie. that a gay couple will DESTROY a child's life and their is no way they can be good parents. Which is total bullshit.

Now, I have not seen the rest of this speech nor have I read his book...I am simply going on other interviews I have heard.

edit: I just watched the interview. You would think, according to Santorum, that republicans NEVER to anything moral ambiguous. The last bit there is "look at the rampant divorce rate brought by the left." You hav egot to be kidding me.

For every liberal gay democrat, there is some church going conservative sneaking late at night to look through his stash of porn. For every divorce between two democrats, there is a republican marriage being held together by bitterness and misery. And that works in the opposite direction. Conservative, liberal, these days, every one is morally wrong in some way.

Santorum: just one more guy making certain we stay divided into primary colors. Making bank off our divisions.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,131]

> Surely you don't think it's OK for somebody married with 4
>children to get addicted to heroin, which most likely would result in
>a loss of interest in working and supporting their family do you?

No, it's not OK. The difference between what Santorum believes and what I believe is that I believe that decision is entirely up to the person to make. Can a married man with four children drink a beer after work every day? Should we put a stop to that? How about four beers? How about ten? Who decides? The man does.

>I think the arguement comes down to whether a person has
>the judgement to decide for themselves whats harmful.

The more basic issue is - do you think you have the _right_ to decide for yourself what is harmful and what isn't? I suspect you do believe that. I suspect that you think it should be up to you, and not the government, as to whether you drink, or skydive, or have seven kids, or none.

>You certainly wouldn't advocate allowing people to decide whether
>it's OK to run a stop sign or red light based on their judgement
>about whether someone would get hurt by their actions, would you?

Yes I do. I DO think some people should be able to run stoplights (ambulances, police cars, fire engines, people with dying spouses in the car) if they take adequate measures to make sure no one will get hurt. I suspect you believe the same thing, and I suspect you would run that red light under those conditions.

>If life were so simple, everyone would use a condom and the spred
>of AIDs would stop immediately.

The right to make decisions carries with it the chance of screwing up. It's a big responsibility to take on, because it means that you, not the government, is responsible for your destiny. I think most americans take such a responsibility on gladly; I think it's one of the things that makes the US a great place to live.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

> Surely you don't think it's OK for somebody married with 4
>children to get addicted to heroin, which most likely would result in
>a loss of interest in working and supporting their family do you?

Quote

No, it's not OK. The difference between what Santorum believes and what I believe is that I believe that decision is entirely up to the person to make. Can a married man with four children drink a beer after work every day? Should we put a stop to that? How about four beers? How about ten? Who decides? The man does.

Don't be ridiculous. There is a big difference between shooting heroin and drinking beer. Many people drink beers their whole life and don't become addicted. I don't know of anyone who shoots heroin and doesn't become addicted. What happens to the heroin addicts family when he can no longer support them? Right..... I have to support them. So are they engaging in an activity that doesn't "harm" anyone? How about their family who has to suffer the indignity of welfare?


>I think the arguement comes down to whether a person has
>the judgement to decide for themselves whats harmful.

Quote

The more basic issue is - do you think you have the _right_ to decide for yourself what is harmful and what isn't? I suspect you do believe that. I suspect that you think it should be up to you, and not the government, as to whether you drink, or skydive, or have seven kids, or none.

Who said right? I said judgement. Big difference. Judgement comes with experience. I have to show I have the proper judgement to skydive or the DZO isn't going to let me. If the DZO shows poor judgement by allowing someone to skydive who isn't safe, the Govt. will step in and do it for him.


>You certainly wouldn't advocate allowing people to decide whether
>it's OK to run a stop sign or red light based on their judgement
>about whether someone would get hurt by their actions, would you?

Quote

Yes I do. I DO think some people should be able to run stoplights (ambulances, police cars, fire engines, people with dying spouses in the car) if they take adequate measures to make sure no one will get hurt. I suspect you believe the same thing, and I suspect you would run that red light under those conditions.

Here we go again! I would appreciate it if you would get out of the habit of choosing an extreme example and using it to win an arguement. I ride a motorcycle and I can assure you that people use poor judgement and endanger my life even with a stop sign. God help me if they didn't exist.


>If life were so simple, everyone would use a condom and the spred
>of AIDs would stop immediately.

Quote

The right to make decisions carries with it the chance of screwing up. It's a big responsibility to take on, because it means that you, not the government, is responsible for your destiny. I think most americans take such a responsibility on gladly; I think it's one of the things that makes the US a great place to live.

And the poor judgement people use that results in spreding AIDs and other diseases has cost $$$billions. This has taken away from research into curing other diseases that are not related to poor judgement.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[wmw999 2,600]

Quote

Don't be ridiculous. There is a big difference between shooting heroin and drinking beer. Many people drink beers their whole life and don't become addicted.

And who decides where the line is? "Everyone knows" doesn't really refer to everyone. And Dr. William Halstead (one of the founders of Johns Hopkins) was a long-term morphine addict. With access to clean, safe drugs, and control of his habit, he functioned effectively for many years.

Some people are really big on letting folks have guns, and punishing them appropriately if they abuse that right/privilege. What makes that so different from drugs, sex, and the other "social sins?"

If it's just the money, damn -- I'd bet the country spends a whole lot more on incarcerating drug felons than it spends on addressing drug problems. Except for acohol, but that's OK because it's legal.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,131]

>There is a big difference between shooting heroin and drinking beer.

For some people, there really isn't. I know a few people who have damaged their health, lost their jobs, and lost their families due to alcohol abuse. It's a much bigger problem than heroin in the US; there are ~15 million alcoholics in the US.

>I have to show I have the proper judgement to skydive or the DZO
> isn't going to let me. If the DZO shows poor judgement by
>allowing someone to skydive who isn't safe, the Govt. will step in and
> do it for him.

So an individual (the DZO) rather than the government, should make the call as to whether someone can do something dangerous for their own enjoyment, without worrying about the effects on the jumper's family?

You're starting to sound like a liberal!

> I ride a motorcycle and I can assure you that people use poor
>judgement and endanger my life even with a stop sign. God help me
> if they didn't exist.

Why should you be allowed to ride a motorcycle, a method of transportation that's _clearly_ more dangerous than a car? What about thinking about your family, or your employer, or the other people who use your insurance company? Are you one of those 'I should be able to do whatever I want to do as long as no one gets hurt' people?

>And the poor judgement people use that results in spreding AIDs
> and other diseases has cost $$$billions. This has taken away from
>research into curing other diseases that are not related to poor
> judgement.

I agree. Safe sex education programs are a good investment; these educate people and allow them to make better decisions.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Don't be ridiculous. There is a big difference between shooting heroin and drinking beer. Many people drink beers their whole life and don't become addicted.

Quote

And who decides where the line is? "Everyone knows" doesn't really refer to everyone. And Dr. William Halstead (one of the founders of Johns Hopkins) was a long-term morphine addict. With access to clean, safe drugs, and control of his habit, he functioned effectively for many years.

There is a big difference between a Doctor, who has access to morphine, and a heroin addict whos steals and robs to get his next fix. Here we go again with the extreme examples to try and justify a point. Must be something in the water.

Quote

Some people are really big on letting folks have guns, and punishing them appropriately if they abuse that right/privilege. What makes that so different from drugs, sex, and the other "social sins?"

Because the vast majority of legal gun owners have shown they have the judgement to own a gun. Don't you think the Govt. would outlaw guns if they hadn't? I don't really care who a person has sex with, but when they start spreding diseases because of their poor judgement, then I think it's appropriate for people to speak up and talk about it and say it's wrong. Don't you, or do you think it's better to be hush, hush about it for fear of offending those who act irresponsible?

Quote

If it's just the money, damn -- I'd bet the country spends a whole lot more on incarcerating drug felons than it spends on addressing drug problems. Except for acohol, but that's OK because it's legal.

Another really poor tactic. Justification because there are other things money is wasted on. Thats akin to excusing red light running because others do it, too. Certainly you don't believe that, do you?

• Quote

[madscape 0]

Who are the fucking morons re-electing this shit-for-brains waste of space?

[Lindsey 0]

There is a big difference between a Doctor, who has access to morphine, and a heroin addict whos steals and robs to get his next fix. Here we go again with the extreme examples to try and justify a point. Must be something in the water

First of all, there's NOT a big difference. Do you think this doctor pays for this morphine out of his pocket??? I don't think so. Who pays for it then? He probably steals it....and lies about it....

Second of all, there's a humongous problem of doctors abusing drugs. It's not an extreme example at all. Do you want the surgeon who is removing your gallbladder (or whatever) to be actively using illegal drugs? Physicians have a responsibility NOT to abuse drugs that far exceeds (imho) that of the general population. There are a lot of addicted doctors. Not an extreme example at all....

The comparison is valid.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 3,131]

>Who are the fucking morons re-electing this shit-for-brains waste of space?

There are people who vote for extremes because they feel that if they can get extremes elected, their side will "win." A lot of republicans (and a lot of democrats too) will give a knee-jerk defense to anything one of "theirs" says, because they feel that they have an allegiance to that party and an obligation to defend it. And the extremists are often the most visible and most discussed members of the party.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Aids is spreading like wildfire due to unsafe sexual practices.

I think this sort of thing should be stopped.

BAN BLACK PEOPLE FROM FUCKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


BLACKS, PUT THOSE DICKS AWAY, NO MORE PUSSY FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Especially those damn Africans!


Now Im just basing my info on the fact that my company's involved in working with 60 health organizations across North America and we regularly provide both consumer and medical professional education and leadership on areas of sexual health and wellness, and that my boss has been a keynote speaker at both the US and World AIDs conferences this year.

I'd be more than happy to discuss sexual health issues domestically and internationally any time you're ready.

I'm quite happy to just mention that Santorum's talking out of his ass and I dont think he's representing much of the human race with his statements.

(I'm still trying to work out where a father of 4 junkie isnt as extreme an example as a cop blowing a red light).

So anyway, I was talking to this chick who's an escort and she makes WAY more money than me per month. She practices safe sex. And votes democrat.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Who are the fucking morons re-electing this shit-for-brains waste of space?

You could ask that question about quite a few members of the Congress.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Surely you don't think it's OK for somebody married with 4 children to get addicted to heroin...

I actually know several regular drug users who function pretty effectively in normal society, holding down jobs, supporting families, etc.

In general, I don't think it's a good idea, but I absolutely believe that the right person to make that decision is the individual involved.

Regardless of perceived benefit to society as a whole, I do not believe that the government ought to be making decisions for individuals--at all. That's one reason I find taxes so abhorrent. They represent the government taking of your hard work, to make decisions about how to spend your money, and potentially overruling the way that you would most like to see that money spent. I'd like to see that money, and the ability to make decisions with it, left in your hands. And, yes, I still feel the same way if your decision is to spend it on heroin.

When the government starts dictating lifestyle choices to individuals in the name of the "greater good", you've walked away from freedom (and capitalism) and started the path toward authoritarianism. It's a slippery slope, and I'd hate to see the idea of "from those with the ability, to those with the need" end up in "you will do this, because it is written thus in the 5 year plan."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I'm quite happy to just mention that Santorum's talking out of his ass and I dont think he's representing much of the human race with his statements.

More interestingly, I'd don't think he's representing the majority of Republicans, or the majority of conservatives, or even the majority of his own constituency.

Ya gotta represent. It's the basic rule of republican (the type, not the party) democracy.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm quite happy to just mention that Santorum's talking out of his ass and I dont think he's representing much of the human race with his statements.

More interestingly, I'd don't think he's representing the majority of Republicans, or the majority of conservatives, or even the majority of his own constituency.

Ya gotta represent. It's the basic rule of republican (the type, not the party) democracy.

Yeah, I should have been clearer, that comment was in response to the poster who said "I dont think he represents republicans"

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.