Christian Forums and Message Board

Though I wasn't a fan of Rick Santorum, I didn't expect him to say this. He wants big government and slams the idea of smaller government, lower taxes, even says he wants government in the bedroom. So bizarre and even stupid for him to say.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU[/youtube]

For those of you who don't watch this video, I'll quote him: "One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in the cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world."

And this guy is supposed to be a conservative?! No way, Rick, you'd better keep your sorry butt out of my bedroom. And then there's what he said about the Tea Party (until they became popular)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3TVoVqvt74[/youtube]

 

I thought Federalist no. 10 slammed the insufficiency of small government 200 years ago give or take? Madison and several Framers were opposed to small government weren't they? Something about the states having too much power which lead to chaos in every aspect of our infrastructure.

LOL. And I've seen both of you slam big government Obama and talk about how taxes are too high, too many regulations, etc. But now Santorum wants big government and you're on board? Talk about sheep. Just save yourself the trouble and let Obama get elected again if that's what you want.

I guess Reagan was a libertarian then too what with his lower taxes, less regulations, more freedom...all that "libertarian" stuff. And here I was thinking that was conservative. But go ahead, toe the "new" party line.

I made this thread to help define traditional conservatism.
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/politics/classical-liberal-libertarian-conservative/

There is now a lot of confusion over what is a "conservative" now. The main source of confusion stems with the infusion of neocon ideology into the Republican party. http://conservapedia.com/Neocon
"A neoconservative (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. The word means "newly conservative," and thus formerly liberal. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 2010 the highest priority of the neoconservatives was to increase military action by the United States in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and to expand it to an American confrontation against Iran; in 2011 their goals include supporting a military attack on Libya, continuing the Afghanistan War indefinitely, and even suggesting military action against Syria.

Neoconservatives tend to oppose the appointment of social conservatives to high governmental positions, such as nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neoconservatives support candidates who are liberal on social issues instead.

Neoconservatives favor expensive foreign interventionalism with massive federal spending, often to replace a dictator with a new system of government that may be worse. Sometimes this is expressed as a desire to install a democracy in a culture that may be incompatible with it. The neoconservative position was discredited in the failure of democracy in the Iranian elections of 2009.

The neoconservative movement emerged in the mid 1970s, played a limited role in the Ronald Reagan Administration, and then had a voice in the Defense Department under the George W. Bush Administration after 9/11. Candidates favored by neoconservatives for president in 2012 include Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence and, to a lesser extent because she pulls support away from those candidates, Sarah Palin.

Some prominent spokesmen include Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Schwartz, Elliott Abrams, Ben Wattenberg and Carl Gershman.

In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious issues and differences, are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality. Neocons disagree with conservatives on issues such as classroom prayer, the separation of powers, cultural unity, and immigration. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs. Neocons oppose affirmative action with greater emphasis and priority than other conservatives do.

On foreign policy, neoconservatives believe that democracy can and should be installed by the United States around the world, even in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Neoconservatives were prominent in the George W. Bush administration by supporting a strong foreign policy, and especially favored the Iraq War and its efforts to spread democracy worldwide."

Santorum is a semi-neocon & thus not a conservative. Which is why I made this post. http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/politics/is-santorum-really-a-conservative/ Which discusses his vote for the World Trade Organization which is ultimate big government - world government. So Santorum's progressive authoritarian view is no suprise.

The only suprise is how many actually think they are "conservative" when they are really neocon liberals & do not even realize that neocon roots start with the Trotskyist in the 1930's.

Talk about sheep. Just save yourself the trouble and let Obama get elected again if that's what you want.

This is so hilarious coming from a Paulinista...

LOL. And I've seen both of you slam big government Obama and talk about how taxes are too high, too many regulations, etc. But now Santorum wants big government and you're on board? Talk about sheep. Just save yourself the trouble and let Obama get elected again if that's what you want.

I guess Reagan was a libertarian then too what with his lower taxes, less regulations, more freedom...all that "libertarian" stuff. And here I was thinking that was conservative. But go ahead, toe the "new" party line.

Was that inclusive to me?

I don't think it should have been. I want making a claim. I was asking a serious question. I don't know enough about politics to have a big boy discussion about it but I have been doing a little reading of the Framers.

I thought a lot of them were opposed to smaller government due to the chaos it created during the sovereignty of the Articles of Confederation? The way I read it. The states had pretty much all the power with the national government being basically insignificant. This lead to major failures in economy and other areas.

I can understand the desire for less taxes  If this is the case why are you all trying to resurrect smaller national government? History proves that leads to chaos.

Or is it when you say "smaller government" you mean government in general state and federal?

Lighthammer,

No, the Framers were adament about states rights and all governments being small enough the people ruled them rather than the other way around. The point of this thread is that people who call themselves conservative here and nationally have said they wanted smaller government, less taxes and less government regulation (and made that a major complaint against Obama). But now that Santorum says he wants those things some of them seem perfectly okay with it. As though they'll take Obama with an "R" beside his name. It's pretty stunning actually. 

I don't have a dog in this fight Big Brother and I don't want my inquiry to derail your thread.

I'm going to fall out and observe.

Jesus would have been a libertarian if He was around today. Wasn't it God Himself who gave us freedom of choice? Just like charity should be a personal choice and has been distorted by socialists to make it seem that charity should be administered by the government, individual liberty is bening subverted by so called conservatives who say that our choices should also be administered by the government. They say that marijuana is evil and should be kept illegal ye thty eignore that it was their God who actually made marijuana and all the other plants in the Garden of Eden. There was only one plant that we were not allowed to touch or eat of it's fruit and I don't think it was marijuana. So to advocate one or more plants that God made and said in Genesis "it is good and for your use" is to say that God made a mistake. That He wasn't wise because He didn't know what we would do might be evil. Yet we also ignore Jesus too when He said "it's not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out". We also ignore Paul when he said "happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he does".

I wonder what some people think "libertarian" really means?

Okay, Olddad, you can bash libertarians if you like, but if you're a conservative as you claim to be, how could you possibly vote for Santorum with such an extreme record of supporting unions (who I know you don't like)? And here's a list that's not even complete:

• Voting to RAISE the debt ceiling five times;
• Voting with Ted Kennedy on multiple occasions to support the Big Labor Unions agenda;
• Supporting raising taxes on oil companies, which directly costs Americans more money out of their pockets at the gas pump;
• Urging more federal involvement in housing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;
• Voting to create a brand new, unfunded entitlement, Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson - creating $16 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities;
• Endorsing liberal Big Government RINOs like Arlen Specter over conservatives. Of course, Specter became a Democrat and worked hand-in-glove with President Obama to pass his radical agenda;
• Voting for Sarbanes-Oxley, which imposed dramatic new job-killing accounting regulations on businesses;
• Voting for gun control;
• Voting to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, while voting against an additional 1,000 border patrol agents;
• Voting to send hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood - the nation's largest provider of abortion – and to hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to enemies of Israel.
• He OPPOSED the right to work act and instead voted to give unions more control and hurt non-unionized workers

Rick Santorum is NOT a conservative. With the exception of talking like a social conservative, he's a bigger liberal than Romney. He might as well be Barack Santorum!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhgkUv0vtSA[/youtube]

LP party

Abortion matter of personal choice

Drugs should be legal personal choice

No control over monopoly because of unfettered capitalism

free trade accross borders no border control

Just to name a few.  No LP is not traditional conservative and advocates anarchy not small government.

Get off your LP party stuff.  No one being discussed is LP party.

Alfred

Jesus would have been a libertarian if He was around today. Wasn't it God Himself who gave us freedom of choice? Just like charity should be a personal choice and has been distorted by socialists to make it seem that charity should be administered by the government, individual liberty is bening subverted by so called conservatives who say that our choices should also be administered by the government. They say that marijuana is evil and should be kept illegal ye thty eignore that it was their God who actually made marijuana and all the other plants in the Garden of Eden. There was only one plant that we were not allowed to touch or eat of it's fruit and I don't think it was marijuana. So to advocate one or more plants that God made and said in Genesis "it is good and for your use" is to say that God made a mistake. That He wasn't wise because He didn't know what we would do might be evil. Yet we also ignore Jesus too when He said "it's not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out". We also ignore Paul when he said "happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he does".

I wonder what some people think "libertarian" really means?

I was answering this post and some things Tman said.  Yes some are talking about the LP on this thread so you get off your high horse.

PS  Many of Ron Paul supporters are LP and he has many of the same views. And yes I know he is pro life.

RP does have some good points and that is one of them.  Problem he is not going to get the nomination and will not be president.  My hope is that he has enough support to be a power broker at the convention and get some of his better ides in the GOP platform.

Ron Paul is the only one who has proposed major cuts. $1 Trillion in the first year alone.

Hows he going to do that? He will have no support in Congress from either party. He's never been anything but an anti-gadfly, and has never shown the ability to build a legislative coalition or persuade other MOC's to his points of view.

Even if Paul was elected, he cannot unilaterally deliver on any of his big political promises.

Paul is not going to be president.  The choice will be Obama or one of the other 3 GOP candidates.  I will take any of them over Obama.  But I guess it makes some folks feel superior to take their marbles and go home because their favorite did not win.  That is childish and dumb.  There are several folks I would rather see running but they are not.  Ron Paul has shown zero chance of willing.  He has not proven any ability to get enough support to win a single state.  Yet folks keep acting like he is the second coming of Christ.  There is plenty of mud to sling in Ron Paul's direction I just don't see the sense of smearing every GOP candidate.  I will vote for the GOP nominee because that will be the only person that has a chance of beating Obama.  Neither Ron Paul nor his supporters will make that commitment.  
This thread is actually about trying to pump up Ron Paul by slamming the latest winning GOP candidate.  If you had not tied you hopes to a losing candidate you would not need these tactics.  That is the same thing that has really turned me off of Romney.  

John, you are right. "Unnamed Republican" polls better against Obama than Paul does.

According to CNN's poll from just last month, Romney and Paul are the ONLY GOP candidates with a statistical chance of beating Obama. http://CNN.politicalticker.com/cnn-poll-romney-and-paul-tie-with-Obama. Santorum does bad against Obama and Newt does terrible.

It's true what Pat Kerby said, "The way the Republican party treats Ron Paul is like a sinking ship shooting torpedoes at the rescue boat."

I can't help that Santorum said those things. He did. It has nothing to do with Ron Paul. He didn't make Santorum say those things and they weren't invented. Santorum said those things. Words and the truth should matter. Especially when you gain nothing by getting someone in with an "R" beside his name who is simply going to act like Obama.

Can you read? Again I ask, when/where did I say I supported Santorum?

Please watch your tone. I'm not being rude to you but you seem to depend more on rudeness than discussing with facts. The other two candidates, Mitt and Newt are just as bad if not worse than Santorum. Mitt and Newt both supported Government healthcare until they started running for President and Newt supported cap and trade (remember his commercial with his buddy Pelosi?). They are both RINOs like Santorum. Just more of the same.

I haven't begun to be rude. If you're miffed that you overlooked what I said in your Paulinista zeal, tough.

tennman

Olddad is just expressing the frustration of dealing with the unrealistic almost worship support of RP followers.  The constant assertion that he is the only one who can save the country is frustrating and in the end damaging to the conservative movement.  There are no perfect candidates just like there are no perfect men.  I am sure that if my guy had run Paul supporters would have equated him with the mark of the beast.  If these folks would make the commitment that Paul will not to support the GOP nominee it might make for a better discussion.  I have said moire than once if by some great change of fortunes RP was the nominee I would vote for him.  I am not crazy about any of those left but they all are better than Obama.

I hear you saying they are better than Obama and I used to think they were too, but please show me where their record is better than Obama. It's not. The only candidate who has a better record than Obama is Paul. He's never voted for an unbalanced budget. He's never voted for union special treatment, for a law restricting gun ownership, for giving citizenship to illegal aliens, never supported cap and trade, etc.

I was out of town last weekend and it was raining. My dad and I were driving and he said, "Look over there." And in the pouring rain was a man in the median holding a Ron Paul sign. No umbrella or rain coat. My mother, who isn't in to politics, heard the story and said, "They must really believe in him to stand in the rain like that." And then I asked, "Can you see anyone standing in the rain holding a sign up for any of the other candidates?"

You have both attacked me and been rude regardless of what you say. I have only presented facts and when I've given my opinion I haven't been rude. But why not ask yourself what it is about Ron Paul that brings such loyalty and passion from his supporters. Is it that he's a great speaker. Not really. Is it that he's a slick politician who tells people what they want to hear. Clearly not or else he would do as the others and soften or backtrack on one of his positions or votes he's made in the past. It's his consistent integrity and the fact that he hasn't been corrupted by politics. He doesn't take government junkets or money from lobbyists. He stands his ground.

And he is in stark contrast to the other GOP candidates who seem to only want to make little cuts around the edges rather than desperately needed cuts. Another amazing thing about him is that he predicted the burst of the housing bubble in front of Congress and no one listened. They laughed. But he was right. Oh sure, it was crazy then but now, not so much.

So maybe it would be a positive thing to consider why people who start studying Ron Paul and reading what he's done, what he wants to do and who he is become so committed to electing him. Can you see anyone standing in the cold, pouring rain for one of the other candidates? Does anyone think they're candidacy is worth that?