Conservatives traditionally are anti-big government, but are for government interference in "moral" issues. You cannot say "Less government", and turn around in the same sentence and say "More government regulation".

According to Santorum, " I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts." He also says "We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose." Are you honestly ok with a President who wants to control the type of sex you have?

In fact, Santorum wants do away with privacy altogether. " this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution."

BUT WAIT: "I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that."

So Santorum not only thinks that citizens don't have a right to privacy, but disagrees with himself. Can someone explain this?

I just read this article and I feel disgusted..Good news is that it was back in 2005 so I am hoping he has changed his views....

Sadly, he has gotten worse:
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/rick_santorum_is_coming_for_your_birth_control/

Human nature is just the same in the 21st century as it was in the 18th century. So the same principles on limited federal powers hold now as they did when they were drafted.

That does not even attempt to answer my argument, skrum. If there was a politician who has a more consistent approach, I would respect that. Either say less government, and less government involvement in moral issues, or more government and more control of social issues. Otherwise, you have an inconsistent platform. I am not arguing either for or against more/less government, I am merely pointing out the flawed approach of an inconsistent message.

>States exercise power over such things as dueling, alcohol consumption, abortion, concealed carry of weapons, and marriage. So why not sex?

Remove STDs, and the dueling analogy is invalid. There's no major chance of injury in consensual sex and therefore no argument about violence.

Remove STDs, and the alcohol analogy is invalid. There's no major chance of injury in consensual sex and therefore no argument around health care costs.

Remove sex with minors and those who lack mental capacity, and the aboriton analogy is invalid. There's no debate on if one of the parties is a human and their rights to exist (or have sex) in consensual sex.

so on an so on

Your analogies are flawed big time. And besides your citing things are just as much in debate as homosexual acts.

These are not analogies. These are facts. These are applications of powers of the states.

I don't agree with Santorums views on abortion (well partially on that one) and I def think he's a bit loony on the homosexual thing but the man said that he would accept a states right to decide what it figured as legal and not have the Supreme Court intervene and force every state to accept something they didn't want. That is spot on conservatism if you ask me.

I actually admire the guy a bit for speaking so openly about his personal views while maintaining states rights. Go him.

He's gonna be absolutely crucified for this (pardon the pun :P) but it would be more refreshing to see all politicians talk so openly about their views.

Oh wait isn't what Ron Paul does? Someone remind me...I'm not good at these politics things.


Truth be told I think Romney is the only one who is DIRTY enough to win the election from Obama. Obama is the scum of the earth and McCain fought the most pussy campaign ever against him because he was afraid of Obama. Romney wouldn't be afraid and would take all the dirt that Obama has accumulated and Air it.


I am disenhearted by Ron Paul's behavior regarding the newsletter released under his name. It's not very presidential to walk out of interview rooms when asked one question about it.

I an see RP getting us in more wars than ending them with that kinda behavior.

"That attitude is so strange since the most likely candidate will be the same or worse as Obama in terms of direction they would take this country and likely advocate even worse legislation that would be against your own interests."

Sam, I greatly appreciate you looking out for MY interests. That's very noble of you.

What are my interests if you don't mind me asking?