Santorum

#101
#101
What happens in Israel is no problem of mine. Government Officials in America are sworn to protect America, not Israel, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, etc.
 
#102
#102
Still stuck on the ban of porn. Will my copy of Who's Nailin' Paylin be illegal to own? What about The DaVinci Load? Whores of the Ring?
 
#104
#104
therealUT said:
What happens in Israel is no problem of mine. Government Officials in America are sworn to protect America, not Israel, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, etc.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity how would you personally define "American foreign interests"?

What, if anything in your mind, would justify military intervention on our part?
 
#105
#105
hndog609 said:
Out of curiosity how would you personally define "American foreign interests"?

What, if anything in your mind, would justify military intervention on our part?
Click to expand...

I will answer the second part first. If a foreign nation/military entity attacks and/or attempts to attack Americans on America soil, I think the government has the right to respond with force to eliminate the immediate threat. There is no further obligation to change regimes and install America friendly regime; there is no humanitarian obligation to make a better life for the denizens of said region/country/area.

As for 'American foreign interests', I see none. If persons are closing shipping lanes, then private firms can and should hire private armies to do their bidding. Let oil firms who want to operate in the Middle East hire out their own security and deal with their own problems.
 
#106
#106
Somewhere in Libertarian philosophy there's a line where idealism and realism meet. I think you just found it in your second paragraph.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#107
#107
funny how video games have predicted the rise of PMCs. Maybe not in my lifetime - but I don't doubt its inevitability.
 
#109
#109
DinkinFlicka said:
Still stuck on the ban of porn. Will my copy of Who's Nailin' Paylin be illegal to own? What about The DaVinci Load? Whores of the Ring?
Click to expand...

There are some seriously solid and entertaining porn parodies out there. There's a Flinstones one that's pretty darn good.
 
#110
#110
Why do some people think they have the right to control other people's lives?

Ban porn, ban gay marriage, ban this, ban that. It's sickening, let people live their own lives for Pete's sake!
 
#111
#111
"‎This whole idea of personal autonomy, while I don't think most conservatives have this idea...some do. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." - Rick Santorum
 
#112
#112
nbakerld said:
"‎This whole idea of personal autonomy, while I don't think most conservatives have this idea...some do. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." - Rick Santorum
Click to expand...

That quote needs to be running in a campaign commercial right now.

That guy wants to police individual liberties and calls that a traditional conservative stance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#116
#116
Rasputin_Vol said:
Did he really say that? Link?
Click to expand...

Here's what I found:

Rick Santorum v. Limited Government | Cato @ Liberty

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. 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 cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#121
#121
The best argument against Santorum:
The outcome in Iowa was both electorally inconclusive and politically clarifying. There is a Republican Party, supporting Mitt Romney, wanting to win an election. And there is a GOP supporting Ron Paul, making a point about limited government.

This division is not entirely ideological. There are rock-ribbed conservatives who believe the political priority Barack Obama’s retirement. There are evangelicals — uncomfortable with libertarianism and the foreign policy of Charles Lindbergh — who have joined Paul’s protest.

Based on recent history, the party of electability will eventually prevail. Activists rooting for the new (more extreme) Barry Goldwater will need to explain how he avoids the political fate of the first.

But perhaps the most surprising result of the Iowa caucuses was the return of compassionate conservatism from the GOP margins. Rick Santorum is not only an outspoken social conservative but the candidate who addresses the struggles of blue-collar workers and the need for greater economic mobility. He talks of the rights of the individual, the health of social institutions, particularly the family and the public consequences of a belief in human dignity — a pro-life view applied to the unborn and to victims of AIDS in Africa.

Electability Republicans can live with Santorum’s populism and moralism. Anti-government activists cannot, and have begun their assault. Santorum is referred to as a “pro-life statist.” David Boaz of the Cato Institute cites evidence implicating him in shocking ideological crimes, such as “promotion of prison ministries” and wanting to “expand colon cancer screenings for Medicare beneficiaries.”

Libertarians claim exclusive marketing rights, but there are two healthy, intellectual movements in American conservatism: libertarianism and religious (particularly Catholic) social thought.

Libertarianism is an extreme form of individualism, personal rights trump every other social goal and institution. It is actually classical liberalism, not conservatism — more directly traceable to John Stuart Mill than Edmund Burke. The Catholic approach asserts strong social institutions — families, communities, congregations — prepare us for the exercise of liberty by teaching self-restraint, compassion and concern for the public good. Oppressive, overreaching government undermines these value-shaping institutions. Responsible government can empower them — a child tax credit, a deduction for charitable giving — and defend them against extreme poverty or against “free markets” in drugs or obscenity.

This is not statism but subsidiarity. Needs are best served by institutions closest to individuals. But when those institutions require help or protection, higher order institutions should intervene. So when state governments imposed Jim Crow laws, the federal government had a duty to overturn them. When a community is caught in endless economic depression and drained of social capital, government should find creative ways to empower individuals and charities — maybe even prison ministries that change lives from the inside out.

This is not “big government” conservatism. It’s less radical and simplistic than the libertarian account. A compassionate conservative approach to governing would result in a different and smaller federal role — the free-market strengthens families and communities, rather than constructing centralized bureaucracies. It rejects a utopian belief in unfettered markets that would dramatically increase the sum of suffering.

In a 2005 speech, Santorum argued that men and women should not be treated either as “pathetic dependents” or as “radical individuals.” “Someone always gets hurt when masses of individuals do what is only in their own self-interest. That is the great lie of liberal freedom. … Freedom is liberty coupled with responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self. It is a self-less freedom. It is sacrificial freedom. It is the pursuit of our dreams with an eye towards the common good.”

Santorum is far from a perfect candidate. His nomination is unlikely. But every four years, Republicans eventually realize they need a hopeful domestic policy agenda — some vision of the common good — to appeal beyond their base. If Santorum does not win the nomination, the winner would be wise to listen to him.

GOP needs someone like Santorum in 2012 election - KansasCity.com
Click to expand...

We would not want anyone who espouses the political philosophy of J.S. Mill in the Federal Government; we would much rather have a theocracy.
 
#123
#123
therealUT said:
I will answer the second part first. If a foreign nation/military entity attacks and/or attempts to attack Americans on America soil, I think the government has the right to respond with force to eliminate the immediate threat. There is no further obligation to change regimes and install America friendly regime; there is no humanitarian obligation to make a better life for the denizens of said region/country/area.

As for 'American foreign interests', I see none. If persons are closing shipping lanes, then private firms can and should hire private armies to do their bidding. Let oil firms who want to operate in the Middle East hire out their own security and deal with their own problems.
Click to expand...


I'm not trying to trade blows with you just curious your thoughts on this. With the above mindset at what point, if any, does a peoples convictions/ethics/morality move them to respond to aid another country in war if our interests were not being directly affected, in your opinion.
 
#124
#124
MUR73 said:
I'm not trying to trade blows with you just curious your thoughts on this. With the above mindset at what point, if any, does a peoples convictions/ethics/morality move them to respond to aid another country in war if our interests were not being directly affected, in your opinion.
Click to expand...

At no point. I have a moral obligation to defend myself; a community of persons has a moral obligation to defend themselves. That is it.
 
#125
#125
therealUT said:
At no point. I have a moral obligation to defend myself; a community of persons has a moral obligation to defend themselves. That is it.
Click to expand...

OK, leave morality out of the equation for now then, just from a realistic not ideological only standpoint, since the inception of mutually assured destruction has been implicated and basically most/all of the worlds economies are directly tied together and our exporting/importing of oil/goods, etc.... isn't inaction the same as a form of action because either way our way of life, security, economy, trade, well being is going to be greatly affected/changed in this event and just sitting idly by would certainly lead to events/policies/ trade pricing being dictated to us somewhat against our will by another outside force/countries actions?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top