Rick Santorum on the issues

[UncleMike]

No, I'm just making fun of you.

Well......
I guess I can make allowances for children when they pretend to be grownups.
Carry on Junior...

 

[88GT]

Well played, madam.

+1 to you for not getting your panties in a wad over it and recognizing for the good-natured play on words that it was...unlike some other people .

Unfortunately, I'm outta rep. So this will have to do:

 

[Que]

Sure it is. But only when I do it.

Okay, just for clarity, are you saying you are allowed to troll or should you have said, "...when I [actually] do it?" I inferred from your post that you were saying that you were not trolling, but some may have read it differently.

EDIT: Never mind, I see it was worked out. Crisis avoided.

 

[UncleMike]

Okay, just for clarity, are you saying you are allowed to troll or should you have said, "...when I [actually] do it?" I inferred from your post that you were saying that you were not trolling, but some may have read it differently.

Hmmmm...
I read it to mean that he said it was OK for him to call others trolls....

 

[steveh_131]

+1 to you for not getting your panties in a wad over it and recognizing for the good-natured play on words that it was...unlike some other people .

Panties? I find this statement to be sexist.

Okay, just for clarity, are you saying you are allowed to troll or should you have said, "...when I [actually] do it?" I inferred from your post that you were saying that you were not trolling, but some may have read it differently.

EDIT: Never mind, I see it was worked out. Crisis avoided.

since you're here, you should go ahead and ban that troll up there ^

 

[88GT]

I know Ron Paul is insanely popular here, but sheesh.

Insane is accurate.

Doesn't anybody have a single coherent thought to offer about Rick Santorum's record or leadership ability?

Well, I can't say that I agree with all of his votes. But he's not my representative. If his votes reflect the will of his constituents at the time he was Senator, there's not much you have to complain about, I'm afraid. That is the democratic process in action.

 

[hornadylnl]

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution ... or have failed their purpose ... or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

Barry Goldwater

 

[KG1]

I know Ron Paul is insanely popular here, but sheesh. Doesn't anybody have a single coherent thought to offer about Rick Santorum's record or leadership ability?

I think rambone is trying to drop some hints here. He started a hit piece on Santorum and it ended up being about Ron Paul and Kelo

 

[UncleMike]

Panties? I find this statement to be sexist.



since you're here, you should go ahead and ban that troll up there ^

I'm certainly glad it's been cleared up that it's perfectly OK for "some" members here to call others trolls.
Apparently the infraction that I got for doing that was a mistake.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm certainly glad it's been cleared up that it's perfectly OK for "some" members here to call others trolls.
Apparently the infraction that I got for doing that was a mistake.

are you sure you're as old as you claim you are?

Sometimes I wonder.

 

[88GT]

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution ... or have failed their purpose ... or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

Barry Goldwater

The entire premise of self-government is negated if you disallow the power of the people to strip themselves of the liberty they themselves hold.

 

[88GT]

I'm certainly glad it's been cleared up that it's perfectly OK for "some" members here to call others trolls.
Apparently the infraction that I got for doing that was a mistake.

are you sure you're as old as you claim you are?

Sometimes I wonder.

Girls, girls. You're both pretty. 'kay?

 

[steveh_131]

The entire premise of self-government is negated if you disallow the power of the people to strip themselves of the liberty they themselves hold.

Perhaps, except that there will never be a unanimous decision by a populace to give up these liberties. So you will realistically be taking liberties from people who would choose to keep them.

I see no ethical issue with the refusal to do so, nor any practical issues with self-government.

 

[UncleMike]

are you sure you're as old as you claim you are?

Sometimes I wonder.

I've asked myself the same thing about you ever since you crawled in here.

 

[rambone]

Well, I can't say that I agree with all of his votes. But he's not my representative. If his votes reflect the will of his constituents at the time he was Senator, there's not much you have to complain about, I'm afraid. That is the democratic process in action.

I think his votes reflect the will of the lobbyists more than his constituents, being that he was the most lobbied member of the entire legislature in 2006. I have read quite a few Pennsylvanians decrying his candidacy.

I find his record very relevant since he intends to become the President of the United States. People like him are what give "Conservatism" a bad name.

 

[88GT]

Perhaps, except that there will never be a unanimous decision by a populace to give up these liberties. So you will realistically be taking liberties from people who would choose to keep them.

I see no ethical issue with the refusal to do so, nor any practical issues with self-government.

And therein lies the conundrum of modern society and human behavior. Welcome to reality.

If you refuse the right of the people to decide, you have violated your foremost liberty of self-government. There is no other way around it. The alternative is no government and an "Every man for himself" reality. Which while it might sound good on the surface is less tenable than it seems. It is impossible to create true self-government without giving people the means to enslave themselves. The best we can hope for is a system that makes this incredibly hard to do and the morality and intelligence of the people not to do it.

The catch is walking the fine line that preserves the maximum amount of self-government while limiting the exercise thereof in a manner that prevents them from throwing it all away for those who want to keep it.

Which do you sacrifice? Liberty or liberty?

 

[88GT]

I think his votes reflect the will of the lobbyists more than his constituents, being that he was the most lobbied member of the legislature in 2006.

You forgot your source.

I have read quite a few Pennsylvanians decrying his candidacy.

Without a doubt. Despite His Holiness's perfection, there are still people who oppose Paul as president. Imagine that. If we were all the same, we wouldn't need this thing we call government. Your point proves nothing except to highlight what we already knew: not everybody thinks alike.

I find his record very relevant since he intends to become the President of the United States.

I didn't say it wasn't. And if the people who would become his constituents decide that they agree or disagree with that record, they can vote accordingly. That's how the process works.

 

[steveh_131]

And therein lies the conundrum of modern society and human behavior. Welcome to reality.

If you refuse the right of the people to decide, you have violated your foremost liberty of self-government. There is no other way around it. The alternative is no government and an "Every man for himself" reality. Which while it might sound good on the surface is less tenable than it seems. It is impossible to create true self-government without giving people the means to enslave themselves. The best we can hope for is a system that makes this incredibly hard to do and the morality and intelligence of the people not to do it.

The catch is walking the fine line that preserves the maximum amount of self-government while limiting the exercise thereof in a manner that prevents them from throwing it all away for those who want to keep it.

Which do you sacrifice? Liberty or liberty?

There is one key place where your logic fails.

Your personal liberty does not include the actions of others. Refusing to oppress someone does not violate their liberty. The principles of liberty do not entitle them to force someone to oppress them.

Anyways, this is not reality. This is a philosophical game.

 

[steveh_131]

You forgot your source.

No he didn't.

2006 - He was the #1 most lobbied member of Congress.

 

[ATM]

Which do you sacrifice? Liberty or liberty?

If I had to choose, I'd sacrifice the one with the lower case l.

Capitalization makes things seem more important.