Santorum's Nephew: VOTE RON PAUL

imbalance

Silver Member
Jun 30, 2011
1,202
166
98
Miami
Well dayum.

If you want another big-government politician who supports the status quo to run our country, you should vote for my uncle, Rick Santorum. America is based on a strong belief in individual liberty. My uncle’s interventionist policies, both domestic and foreign, stem from his irrational fear of freedom not working.

It is not the government’s job to dictate to individuals how they must live. The Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty. My Uncle Rick cannot fathom a society in which people cooperate and work with each other freely. When Republicans were spending so much money under President Bush, my uncle was right there along with them as a senator. The reason we have so much debt is not only because of Democrats, but also because of big-spending Republicans like my Uncle Rick.

It is because of this inability of status quo politicians to recognize the importance of our individual liberties that I have been drawn to Ron Paul. Unlike my uncle, he does not believe that the American people are incapable of forming decisions. He believes that an individual is more powerful than any group (a notion our founding fathers also believed in).

Another important reason I support Ron Paul is his position on foreign policy. He is the only candidate willing to bring our troops home, not only from the Middle East, but from around the world.

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate trying to win the election for a reason other than simply winning the election.

This year, I’ll vote for an honest change in our government. I’ll vote for real hope. I’ll vote for a real leader. This year, I will vote for Ron Paul.
Ron Paul | Rick Santorum | The trouble with my uncle, Rick Santorum | The Daily Caller
 
Santorum

1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
2. Senator Rick Santorum.
 
Gee, maybe the Nephew is pissed at his uncle for some reason??? I'm not for Santorum or Paul, just sayin....... :)
 
Why Rick Santorum's Entirely Predictable Brief Success in Iowa Still Means He'll be Back to Wingnut Welfare Soon

By Joan Walsh

Whether Santorum finishes second, third or even first on Tuesday, he’s already had his best week ever. This campaign can’t go national.

The only real shock in Rick Santorum’s late Iowa surge is that it didn’t happen sooner. He’s the perfect candidate for Iowa Christian conservatives, even if it took them a long time to see it. First they flirted with gaffe-prone religious zealot Michele Bachmann, who confused John Wayne with John Wayne Gacy and insisted the HPV vaccine caused mental retardation. Then came a brief dalliance with the bumbling right-wing panderer Rick Perry, whose terrible campaign, given the high expectations and deep pockets of his wealthy supporters, has been 2012′s biggest surprise. They drifted for a while to womanizing huckster Herman Cain, a candidate so unserious about his right-wing credentials that he claimed to be anti-abortion while insisting the decision had to be a woman’s “choice.” Just before Santorum, Iowa’s Christian conservatives embraced the flip-flopping serial adulterer Newt Gingrich, until they remembered who he was.

Pennsylvania’s former senator has been out of politics for six years, since he was trounced by Bob Casey in 2006. Since then he’s lived off wingnut welfare, the gravy train funded by right wing corporate philanthropists to make sure defeated GOP politicians never go hungry. He’s had a perch as a “senior fellow” at the right-wing Ethics and Public Policy Center, funded by Richard Mellon Scaife and the Koch brothers, among others. Until now, reporters have barely bothered to cover Santorum’s events, since he’s spent most of the year in the single digits in the polls. But now that he’s in Iowa’s top tier, he’s getting more attention, and it’s not going to help him become a national candidate.

Today in Iowa, the man who’s lived on wingnut welfare promised to eradicate our already miserly government welfare programs, with a peculiar racial twist. After a spiel about the growth of Medicaid, he dropped a bizarre non-sequitur: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them other people’s money,” he told a crowd. “I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn their money and provide for themselves and their families,” he added. “The best way to do that is to get the manufacturing sector of the economy rolling.”

Never mind that no one seemed to be talking about black people, or that the vast majority of recipients of all welfare programs are white. Santorum is doing what Republicans have done since the 60s: Trying to turn white people against government programs, and the government itself, by implying they only help black people. How’s that working out for the shrinking white working and middle class? Not so well. Santorum also told an Iowa audience Sunday that “diversity creates conflict. We can’t celebrate diversity it because it creates conflict.” Not the best attitude for a man who wants to lead a rapidly diversifying America.

Then there’s his routine homophobia. Before the campaign, Santorum was best known for comparing homosexuality to bestiality, shocking an AP reporter in 2003 with a rant about “man on dog” sex. On Saturday he told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd that not only would he fight for a federal ban on gay marriage, he’d make sure it invalidated existing marriages between gay couples performed in states where it’s currently legal. In December, he blamed high hetero divorce rates on gay marriage. Seriously. He’s equally extreme on foreign policy, promising to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.

More: Why Rick Santorum's Entirely Predictable Brief Success in Iowa Still Means He'll be Back to Wingnut Welfare Soon | | AlterNet
 
Last edited:

Why shouldn't the states have the power to outlaw birth control? :eusa_shifty: Seriously, that is where the consitution gave the power to do such things to.

Because states receive federal funds which come from all taxpayers. What is birth control hurting?
 
Last edited:

Why shouldn't the states have the power to outlaw birth control? :eusa_shifty: Seriously, that is where the consitution gave the power to do such things to.


Perhaps the states "should" have that power by some interpretations of constitutional law. But people across the nation have the right to fight back against that kind of encroachment on individual liberties.

If someone with Santorum's ideals and priorities were elected, then we might have to deal with it on a state-by-state basis but the first line of defense is simply not to elect someone like Santorum.

I imagine that most of America will want to hold that line.
 
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Forum List

Back
Top