(note this is going to do some psychoanalysis on my part, if you look at what Santorum has said throughout the years, this is kinda obvious.)
Santorum is similar to some "muslims" who see "their world" in a state of decline. Santorum sees the world as something better and purer in the past (right about the 1950s). During the 1950s the great evil (which to Santorum is liberalism), corrupted this great paradise.
Liberalism in Santorum mind caused the end of manufacturing, the end of manufacturing causes the decline of the US and the West.
Liberalism destroys good families for liberalism redistributes wealth. Taking away wealth from a family destroys the family.
Liberalism because it destroys wealth (in Santorum) mind causes family problems, causes divorce (I am not joking Santorum has said this in the past, part of the reason we are having more divorce is that Liberalism destroys wealth and without wealth women leave men).
Without strong families we are prone to all these pervisions in society. Such as homosexuality and bestiality.
These perversions and most especially liberalism, cause a snowballing effect and causes society to become more and more corrupt and ungodly.
--------------------------------
Now in my mind this is similar to how some "muslims" believe the that their "muslim faith" has been corrupted over the centuries, and that by returning to a more pure version of what the prophet Mohammed preached their society would become much stronger. According to these "muslims" it wasn't just imperalism that screwed up the middle east, but more importantly the corruption inside of some versions of islam that distorted the truth. If they instead practiced what Mohammed really wanted to be practiced, then they would have been strong in the first place and thus they could never have been imperalised in the first place.
Santorum has a similar philosophy with America but to him the corruption in the first place was "liberalism."
To Santorum it isn't a question on whether something is good or bad is based on the harm principle (remember the harm principle is a modern thought from John Stuart Mill of the 19th century) but whether something is "godly or not godly." He doesn't see much difference between loving homosexuality and rape/abuse for both are men/men and thus are ungodly the abuse is second problem but still the ungodly is the first problem
Santorum is similar to some "muslims" who see "their world" in a state of decline. Santorum sees the world as something better and purer in the past (right about the 1950s). During the 1950s the great evil (which to Santorum is liberalism), corrupted this great paradise.
Liberalism in Santorum mind caused the end of manufacturing, the end of manufacturing causes the decline of the US and the West.
Liberalism destroys good families for liberalism redistributes wealth. Taking away wealth from a family destroys the family.
Liberalism because it destroys wealth (in Santorum) mind causes family problems, causes divorce (I am not joking Santorum has said this in the past, part of the reason we are having more divorce is that Liberalism destroys wealth and without wealth women leave men).
Without strong families we are prone to all these pervisions in society. Such as homosexuality and bestiality.
These perversions and most especially liberalism, cause a snowballing effect and causes society to become more and more corrupt and ungodly.
--------------------------------
Now in my mind this is similar to how some "muslims" believe the that their "muslim faith" has been corrupted over the centuries, and that by returning to a more pure version of what the prophet Mohammed preached their society would become much stronger. According to these "muslims" it wasn't just imperalism that screwed up the middle east, but more importantly the corruption inside of some versions of islam that distorted the truth. If they instead practiced what Mohammed really wanted to be practiced, then they would have been strong in the first place and thus they could never have been imperalised in the first place.
Santorum has a similar philosophy with America but to him the corruption in the first place was "liberalism."
To Santorum it isn't a question on whether something is good or bad is based on the harm principle (remember the harm principle is a modern thought from John Stuart Mill of the 19th century) but whether something is "godly or not godly." He doesn't see much difference between loving homosexuality and rape/abuse for both are men/men and thus are ungodly the abuse is second problem but still the ungodly is the first problem
This message last edited by Roland00 on 07/01/2012 at 04:30:37 AM
Santorum is #2 in Iowa
04/01/2012 01:24:13 PM
- 1746 Views
would you stop using that word? It is gross. *NM*
04/01/2012 01:48:45 PM
- 572 Views
What's your word for it? *NM*
04/01/2012 03:43:44 PM
- 523 Views
Well, there's nothing wrong with Santoruming in the privacy of one's home.
04/01/2012 02:35:56 PM
- 1064 Views
yeah that it so funny
04/01/2012 03:05:59 PM
- 932 Views
he kind of brought it on himself by being so decidedly anti-gay that it pissed lots of people off
04/01/2012 04:36:39 PM
- 974 Views
maybe the gays brought all the gay bashing on themselves
05/01/2012 03:18:15 PM
- 1173 Views
Civility is a social contract
05/01/2012 04:39:46 PM
- 941 Views
so now that the gays have broken that contract they are fair game?
05/01/2012 06:37:52 PM
- 690 Views
Re: so now that the gays have broken that contract they are fair game?
06/01/2012 05:29:49 PM
- 948 Views
So is it OK if just insult the gays who are politically active and push their agenda?
06/01/2012 06:16:30 PM
- 975 Views
If you call them out by name for hypocrisy, then sure.
10/01/2012 05:22:34 PM
- 998 Views
yes but once you have thrown out all civil decency why start getting nuanced?
11/01/2012 09:09:13 PM
- 919 Views
Actually, your response was expected
04/01/2012 10:08:33 PM
- 1027 Views
do you still pretend that it isn't political?
05/01/2012 03:14:25 PM
- 868 Views
I'm sorry
05/01/2012 03:52:57 PM
- 972 Views
funny how it always woks out that way
05/01/2012 06:44:55 PM
- 773 Views
Believe what you will, but my wok skills are poor
05/01/2012 07:32:17 PM
- 936 Views
You should ask one of the gays to help you. I hear the gays are good at cooking. *NM*
06/01/2012 01:54:21 AM
- 613 Views
Santorum is a man who believes you must compare homosexual love to bestiality and pedophilia
05/01/2012 04:42:26 AM
- 944 Views
and Savage is a Man who believes that vulgar personal attacks
05/01/2012 03:12:42 PM
- 1091 Views
Why should a person tolerate intolerance? (Serious question.) *NM*
05/01/2012 08:46:05 PM
- 645 Views
The question boils down to why should someone tolerate what they think is wrong.
05/01/2012 10:53:40 PM
- 904 Views
and when santorum tells you that your lifestyle is worse than pedophilia and bestiality?
06/01/2012 03:34:52 AM
- 860 Views
To be fair...
06/01/2012 05:32:31 AM
- 1004 Views
You are correct
06/01/2012 01:21:18 PM
- 1057 Views
Then it seems like it's a problem of definitions more than anything else.
06/01/2012 09:48:49 PM
- 964 Views
Following the logic to its bitter end. Why do I do this to myself???
06/01/2012 10:14:01 PM
- 1029 Views
Santourm is
07/01/2012 04:24:45 AM
- 980 Views
Those are really not equivalent.
06/01/2012 04:18:37 PM
- 822 Views
Re: Those are really not equivalent.
06/01/2012 10:27:11 PM
- 951 Views
I don't like your definition of tolerance and you're not consistent with it anyway.
07/01/2012 01:49:05 AM
- 985 Views
In case you were curious, I really disagree with your understanding of tolerance. *NM*
09/01/2012 08:24:45 PM
- 602 Views
So at this point, most of the candidates had a moment at the top. Kind of awesome.
05/01/2012 11:22:50 PM
- 931 Views
that is why Perry is staying in the race
06/01/2012 06:20:54 PM
- 899 Views
He should stay, they should all stay. Trump should get back into it and Palin should jump in too.
06/01/2012 07:00:52 PM
- 842 Views
It would be the joke of the year if Huntsman got a turn.
06/01/2012 10:59:36 PM
- 851 Views
Is he a bigger long shot than Santorum, though? Gingrich? Bachman? CAIN!?
07/01/2012 01:34:47 AM
- 950 Views
Yes, for the reason you state.
07/01/2012 03:04:39 PM
- 909 Views
I really do not agree.
09/01/2012 08:51:46 PM
- 943 Views
Like I said, check Obamas numbers any time in the last year and a half.
10/01/2012 11:41:47 AM
- 820 Views
More like everyone has had a moment running second to Romney.
07/01/2012 01:59:25 PM
- 841 Views
It's not a foregone conclusion yet.
07/01/2012 04:03:51 PM
- 951 Views
It kinda is; Paul cannot even win a majority of Republicans, let alone the country.
07/01/2012 09:09:07 PM
- 925 Views
Ironically, Paul has a better chance of winning the general election than the republican primary.
07/01/2012 10:14:07 PM
- 1015 Views
What's the likelihood of Paul running as an independent/3rd party if he doesn't get the GOP nod? *NM*
07/01/2012 10:21:23 PM
- 347 Views
Not very high, I think. He didn't try it last time either, and it would hand Obama the election. *NM*
08/01/2012 01:29:01 AM
- 466 Views
many states have laws that you cannot run 3rd party after being on the ballot for a party primary
08/01/2012 06:12:36 AM
- 1050 Views
Yes, he and Romney have that in common, but Pauls positions are (mostly) sincere.
10/01/2012 03:46:04 PM
- 1027 Views
give up the hope it is nothing more than a pipe dream
09/01/2012 02:57:03 PM
- 963 Views
All of the republican candidates are pipe dreams.
09/01/2012 08:56:57 PM
- 763 Views
I find Ron Paul absolutely infuriating.
09/01/2012 10:44:09 PM
- 1025 Views
Um...
10/01/2012 03:54:53 PM
- 858 Views
Paul is an equal opportunity infuriator, to borrow Vivien's word.
09/01/2012 10:56:57 PM
- 923 Views
The original santorum 2003 interview for those who want to know
07/01/2012 05:32:00 AM
- 1144 Views
And here is the 2002 op ed where he blamed liberalism causing the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal
07/01/2012 05:36:39 AM
- 951 Views