Rick Santorum

13468914

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 274
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    However the libertarian side of me wonders why the right to privacy would only triumph with social agenda items and not with income.... I would say the 5th amendment here applies even more so for private property and income than for medical and sex acts.



    Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:



    Quote:

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



    I'd say an explicitly stated power of taxation might explain the difference here.



    I suppose for everyone there would come a point where taxation would be viewed as confiscatory and beyond reasonable public interest. For some libertarians and conservatives, that feeling might even starting kicking in at about 0.5%.



    Given that there is a clearly stated constitutional power of taxation, however, you'd be hard pressed to extract an argument that any specific tax rate was too high in a constitutional sense, or that the only "fair" tax system was a flat rate system, etc.



    In addition, it is stated that, among other reasons, these taxes may be collected to "provide for the...general Welfare of the United States". There's no reason to suppose that this notion of "general Welfare" can't include the kinds of social programs and other public spending that drive many conservatives and libertarians crazy.



    Going by this, I'd say that levels of taxation, and how those taxes are spent, are properly in the realm of democratic forces and not a matter in conflict with enshrined, protected liberties.



    By the way, I say this as a person who pays enough in taxes every year that I should be able to have my own personal government employee for the money.
  • Reply 102 of 274
    Not that it matters, but I'm quite potently, if not dangerously, heterosexual.
  • Reply 103 of 274
    Although I met the footballer Graham le Saux and thought him boyish and rather attractive.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    *peeks in on catfight---carefully closes door*



    This is very annoying.
  • Reply 104 of 274
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    To answer a valid question:





    Step back for a second and tell me, why, if two men can have sex, why can't they be brothers?




    I can't get past the first few bunch of super idiotic posts in this thread to catch up





    can you believe this kind of idiotic logic: read this question and put it simply:

    if you can see a man and a woman having sex why can't they be brother and sister?





    It is idiotic to assume that two men having sex is similar to or in any way equated with incest, bigamy or polygamy.

    Its hetero-sexual hysteria that panics at the fear of teh loss of their safe zone



    Two people who are not related should be allowed to share pleasure with each other through sex if they so choose it is no place for GOVERNMENT



    can't you conservatives see that the Government should have no ability to tell me who I can or cannot share my body with . . .
  • Reply 105 of 274
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Just for the record (before any meatheads further muck stuff up), this "conservative" doesn't give two flying damns what anyone - especially anyone here - does with their bodies. That's not my call to make. So there.







    Knock yourselves out, people. I don't make the rules.
  • Reply 106 of 274
    So freedom for the money but not the body?
  • Reply 107 of 274
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,457member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    I can't get past the first few bunch of super idiotic posts in this thread to catch up





    can you believe this kind of idiotic logic: read this question and put it simply:

    if you can see a man and a woman having sex why can't they be brother and sister?





    It is idiotic to assume that two men having sex is similar to or in any way equated with incest, bigamy or polygamy.

    Its hetero-sexual hysteria that panics at the fear of teh loss of their safe zone



    Two people who are not related should be allowed to share pleasure with each other through sex if they so choose it is no place for GOVERNMENT



    can't you conservatives see that the Government should have no ability to tell me who I can or cannot share my body with . . .




    Pfflam, if you read the whole thread you would see that most of us have been discussing the right to privacy and what that entails.



    You seem to express displeasure with folks with relations getting it on. Perhaps that is your "safe zone" that you fear the loss of. If privacy rights extend to whatever you care to do in you bedroom with another consenting (or multiple) adult(s) then that moves on well beyond homosexual sex via sodomy. It is not a slippery slope to say that if they don't have the right to legislate it then it applies to more than just that one act that you wish to show tolerance for. It would also apply to make more acts which you might not show toleance for.



    The laws that stop incest, bigomy, adultery and polygomy likely have their foundations in the same Christian type thinking. Don't bash her for the homosexual thinking and not expect that the others could be wiped away as well. These acts are well tolerated in other cultures and there is nothing to say that they couldn't be tolerated here if the Supreme Court rules that you cannot legislate sexual mores of any sort because of privacy concerns.



    Nick
  • Reply 108 of 274
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders the White

    So freedom for the money but not the body?



    Is that directed at me and my post? If not, cool. My bad. If so, do you want to make it make sense so I know what you're talking about?



    Money?







    Like I said, if it's not to me, never mind. It was just right below mine, so...



  • Reply 109 of 274
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    Is that directed at me and my post? If not, cool. My bad. If so, do you want to make it make sense so I know what you're talking about?



    Money?







    Like I said, if it's not to me, never mind. It was just right below mine, so...







    No. Not a comment to your post. More the Ena types
  • Reply 110 of 274
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    I don't make the rules.



    In a democracy, you do.
  • Reply 111 of 274
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Hassan's gay?



    I KNEW it!
  • Reply 112 of 274
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman



    You seem to express displeasure with folks with relations getting it on. Perhaps that is your "safe zone" that you fear the loss of.




    this indicates that you completely misread my reversal of ena's post. I was revealing his flawed logic
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    If privacy rights extend to whatever you care to do in you bedroom with another consenting (or multiple) adult(s) then that moves on well beyond homosexual sex via sodomy. It is not a slippery slope to say that if they don't have the right to legislate it then it applies to more than just that one act that you wish to show tolerance for. It would also apply to make more acts which you might not show toleance for.



    The laws that stop incest, bigomy, adultery and polygomy likely have their foundations in the same Christian type thinking. Don't bash her for the homosexual thinking and not expect that the others could be wiped away as well. These acts are well tolerated in other cultures and there is nothing to say that they couldn't be tolerated here if the Supreme Court rules that you cannot legislate sexual mores of any sort because of privacy concerns.



    Nick




    Incest is not merely about sexual acts or love it is about genetics, psychology and the social contract in general . . . Bigamy and polygamy also are not merely about sexual relations.



    Adultery, as far as I know is not illegal, we don't cast stones in the US

    and some people like to swing, hence they are consenting adulterers: they have that right



    That's the danger of living with Liberty: other people might do things with it that you don't like and wouldn't do because of your Christian god . . . but we don't have to live ruled by SHARIAH or some Christian variant of it . . . Yes what I do with my whips and chains and multiple and complexely genedered, transexual etc, partners in the privacy of my own domain is fine and should be legal





    and it does not slippery slope into the realms of abuse or sex with animals as Santorum seems to think:
    Quote:

    Santorum: In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality --



  • Reply 113 of 274
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Not only are the gays (like Hassan) angry that Santorum compared them to polygamists, but now the polygamists are angry that Santorum compared them to gays. The guy just can't win.
  • Reply 114 of 274
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Hassan's gay?



    I KNEW it!




    Stop it or I'll post your e-mail address.
  • Reply 115 of 274
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    the part that disgusts me most about what Santorum epresents sis the notion that somehow if we just legislate some kind of MOral code then the profoundly complex psychology of human sexuality will just dissapear

    when in actualfact it is the kind of moral repressivenes that is simply another expression of human desires

    its just returning after being repressed in negative, violent (though vieled as such) form dressed up as morality and ethics



    its screwed up and repressive and is just a pale version of the same set of psychological complexes that drive the extreme anti-woman, anti-sex, anti-life psyche of fundamentalist Islam



    Santorum's notion of healthy natural sexuality is of course "heterosexual" . . . that is "normal", that is paternal and traditional . . . but sexuality is not that simple . . .not even in straight males is sexuality that simple . . Santorum's a projection of a sexless life of 'Normalcy and wholesomeness" onto the reality of human Libido . . which is not so clear cut: his vision is the product of repression run rampant, a denial of life and of the body and, ultimately, of Death . . . its antiseptic and unatural and we shuld not have to force our complex human psycho-sexual beings into such a model of existence . . .

    it is the perspective that Santorum thinks is real that is truly perverse . . not sexual "perversions"
  • Reply 116 of 274
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    In a democracy, you do.



    I do my part, but if the other side wins or has more support or whatever, I don't "make the rules". I pack up and go "well, next time then...". I don't stand in the streets and scream about it.
  • Reply 117 of 274
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Not only are the gays (like Hassan) angry that Santorum compared them to polygamists, but now the polygamists are angry that Santorum compared them to gays. The guy just can't win.



    Stop it or I'll come round and snog you.
  • Reply 118 of 274
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    the part that disgusts me most about what Santorum represents is the notion that somehow if we just legislate some kind of MOral code then the profoundly complex psychology of human sexuality will just dissapear

    when in actual fact it is the kind of moral repressivenes that is simply another expression of human desires

    its just returning after being repressed in negative, violent (though vieled as such) form, dressed up as morality and ethics



    it is screwed up and repressive and is just a pale version of the same set of psychological complexes that drive the extreme anti-woman, anti-sex, anti-life psyche of fundamentalist Islam



    Santorum's notion of healthy natural sexuality is of course "heterosexual" . . . that is "normal", that is paternal and traditional . . . but sexuality is not that simple . . .not even in straight males is sexuality that simple . . Santorum's a projection of a sexless life of 'Normalcy and wholesomeness" onto the reality of human Libido . . which is not so clear cut: his vision is the product of repression run rampant, a denial of life and of the body and, ultimately, of Death . . . its antiseptic and unatural and we shuld not have to force our complex human psycho-sexual beings into such a model of existence . . .

    it is the perspective that Santorum thinks is real that is truly perverse . . not sexual "perversions"
  • Reply 119 of 274
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce

    *sigh*



    Finals Week. I'm all burned out. That's all I have.




    HA! I KNEW it!!!



    I mentioned, just a few days ago (after a particularly nutty post of yours) that you seemed to be out of it or off your game. I then said "finals week, Shawn?", not really knowing (just being a smartypants).



    Guess I was right.







    In any case, good luck. Study hard. The boards will be here when you're done with your exams.
  • Reply 120 of 274
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    Just for the record (before any meatheads further muck stuff up), this "conservative" doesn't give two flying damns what anyone - especially anyone here - does with their bodies. That's not my call to make. So there.







    Knock yourselves out, people. I don't make the rules.




    But you lend your support to people who do. You try to defend Rick Santourum by saying "he didn't equate anything."



    I'd love to see some of you just admit when you're wrong.
Sign In or Register to comment.