The Origins of the Nick Name "Frothy"

[jsingh1022]

I love how everyone refers to Santorum as Frothy but I was wondering what the origins and meaning are of this nick name

[pauladin]

Just google "santorum"

[freeforall]

There is a popluar sex/relationship columnist named Dan Savage that put out a challenge to his followers to create a new definition for the word santorum to get back at him for something he said regarding the homosexual community.

[schiffheadbaby]

yes dan savage is a vindictive statist.

in this instance his anger might be justified.

i think savage's hatred toward santorum gives rick s "street cred" though among some groups so it might be a boon to his campaign

[The Goat]

nm

[schiffheadbaby]

he hated them before, thus a famous gay guy did this to get partial revenge

[GunnyFreedom]

Just google "santorum"

Don't do it. What has been seen cannot be unseen.

[The Goat]

Santorum has a bad ring to it in the first place.

[The Goat]

Don't do it. What has been seen cannot be unseen.

I concur!

[matt0611]

Santorum has a bad ring to it in the first place.

Yeah, could you imagine having "President Santorum" ? eww

[gmc1988]

It's classless and disgusting to ever make light of it. Grow up and show some class!

[Agorism]

Yeah, could you imagine having "President Santorum" ? eww

Or rather President "Santorum"

[Dr.3D]

Just google "santorum"
Better to just Google, "Frothy mix".

[kylejack]

It's classless and disgusting to ever make light of it. Grow up and show some class!
What Santorum says about homosexuals is classless and disgusting. If he gives it, he's going to get it. Free speech reigns.

[Agorism]

Blowback

[Cap]

BlowbackI dare you to think about that one for a bit.

[LawnWake]

It's classless and disgusting to ever make light of it. Grow up and show some ass!

Edited the quote to make the post more in line with the rest of the thread.

[bolil]

I dare you to think about that one for a bit.
why would you say that? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh

[heavenlyboy34]

Don't do it. What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Too late! I'll never forget it! :eek: :D

[gmc1988]

What Santorum says about homosexuals is classless and disgusting. If he gives it, he's going to get it. Free speech reigns.

Yes, it is your freedom of speech. However, why anyone would ever support a disgusting degenerate like Dan Savage in ANYTHING he does is beyond me.

[Sola_Fide]

This is crass and beneath the dignity of the Ron Paul movement.

There is national media watching everything we post on these boards. Perpetuating this nasty image is not becoming of a Ron Paul supporter in the national spotlight, imo.

[niklarin]

http://www.truthwinsout.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/santorum.jpg

Santorum: a frothy mix of poll momentum and protest votes that is sometimes the byproduct of angry sects.

[kylejack]

Yes, it is your freedom of speech. However, why anyone would ever support a disgusting degenerate like Dan Savage in ANYTHING he does is beyond me.
He's funny and I like his relationship/sex podcast. I don't have a problem with homosexuals.

[freeforall]

Yes, it is your freedom of speech. However, why anyone would ever support a disgusting degenerate like Dan Savage in ANYTHING he does is beyond me.

Advocating responsible and consensual sex between adults that make their own choices seems like a very libertarian approach to physical relationships, imho.

[gmc1988]

Many of you consider Santorum to be hateful towards gays/lesbians. Do you condemn Savage's attacks, which are because of Santorum's opposition to his lifestyle? Do you consider Savage to be hateful? My take on Savage is that Santorum disagreeing with his lifestyle justifies him starting the nastiest and most immature rumors possible about him. It's really not that much different than the media people who we give such a hard time to who go out of their way to slander Dr Paul.

[gmc1988]

Advocating responsible and consensual sex between adults that make their own choices seems like a very libertarian approach to physical relationships, imho.

Not everyone here is a Libertarian. :)

[gmc1988]

This is why I love being a Ron Paul supporter. ALL different types of people support the message, even when we disagree!!!

[kylejack]

Many of you consider Santorum to be hateful towards gays/lesbians. Do you condemn Savage's attacks, which are because of Santorum's opposition to his lifestyle? Do you consider Savage to be hateful? My take on Savage is that Santorum disagreeing with his lifestyle justifies him starting the nastiest and most immature rumors possible about him. It's really not that much different than the media people who we give such a hard time to who go out of their way to slander Dr Paul.
Savage didn't start any rumors about Rick Santorum. He merely created a definition for santorum.

Santorum is being condemned for the way he's treating people who have no control over their sexuality.

[1stAmendguy]

There is an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to the origins of his nickname. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism

[gmc1988]

Savage didn't start any rumors about Rick Santorum. He merely created a definition for santorum.

Santorum is being condemned for the way he's treating people who have no control over their sexuality.

Do you think It's hateful of Savage to behave like this? Do you support it anytime gay rights activists behave like this toward anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle? People have criticized Dr Paul because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman? Do you support those people? Do you support the people who go around "glitter bombing" other candidates? They would probably do it to Dr Paul if they had the chance to.

[ItztehBean]

NSFW.

[kylejack]

Do you think It's hateful of Savage to behave like this? Do you support it anytime gay rights activists behave like this toward anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle? People have criticized Dr Paul because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman? Do you support those people? Do you support the people who go around "glitter bombing" other candidates? They would probably do it to Dr Paul if they had the chance to.
Understand that Santorum's hatefulness is not the problem. I don't care if Santorum is hateful, but he wishes to use the fist of the state to discriminate against homosexuals, both in the military and in marriage rights.


There is no comparing Paul and Santorum, said Savage, because Paul is a leave-us-alone libertarian. “Ron is older than my father, far less toxic than Santorum, and, as he isn't beloved of religious conservatives, he isn't out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies,” he explained. “And Ron may not like gay people, and may not want to hang out with us or use our toilets, but he's content to leave us the fuck alone and recognizes that gay citizens are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens. Santorum, on the other hand, believes that his bigotry must be given the force of law. That's an important difference.”

[Echoes]

Advocating responsible and consensual sex between adults that make their own choices seems like a very libertarian approach to physical relationships, imho.

You have no clue what libertarianism is. It has absolutely nothing to do with advocating for any one of the myriad of sexual lifestyles someone might choose. Libertarianism is not forcing your views with violence on someone else.

[eduardo89]

Don't do it. What has been seen cannot be unseen.

He just said google it. Not google image it!

[Dr.3D]

There is an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to the origins of his nickname. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism

From that page, a quote from Santorum: "It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution..."

Huh?

[Dr.3D]

He just said google it. Not google image it!

Wow, I never thought of doing that.


Edit: No... don't do it... trust me. Don't do it.

[kylejack]

You have no clue what libertarianism is. It has absolutely nothing to do with advocating for any one of the myriad of sexual lifestyles someone might choose. Libertarianism is not forcing your views with violence on someone else.
Good. Under this metric, Santorum is terrible and Savage ain't.

[eduardo89]

Wow, I never thought of doing that.


Edit: No... don't do it... trust me. Don't do it.

Don't do it.

This little girl did it:

http://reason.com/assets/mc/_ATTIC/Image/santorum.jpg

[freedoms-light]

Related??


Santorum To Give Out Free Jelly At Ames


Eric Kleefeld August 3, 2011, 3:34 PM 11528

Rick Santorum may not have raised a lot of money or attracted much support in the polls, but his campaign for the presidency will be trying a new tack for votes at the Ames Iowa Straw Poll: Some delicious homemade peach jam.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/santorum-to-give-out-free-jelly-at-ames.php

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/Rick-Santorum-Smiling-Glowing.jpg

[Echoes]

Good. Under this metric, Santorum is terrible and Savage ain't.

Santorum is a monster, indeed.

I dont know much about Savage, except that he's a big Lefty. I severely doubt he's an angel. He probably wants to use Govt violence for HIS programs that he approves of like most hyprocrite statists.

[Jtorsella]

Related??


Santorum To Give Out Free Jelly At Ames


Eric Kleefeld August 3, 2011, 3:34 PM 11528

Rick Santorum may not have raised a lot of money or attracted much support in the polls, but his campaign for the presidency will be trying a new tack for votes at the Ames Iowa Straw Poll: Some delicious homemade peach jam.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/santorum-to-give-out-free-jelly-at-ames.php

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/Rick-Santorum-Smiling-Glowing.jpg
That is perfect.

[Jtorsella]

He supports sodomy laws? I didn't think anyone did anymore. Such a horrific violation of rights.

[gmc1988]

Santorum is a monster, indeed.

I dont know much about Savage, except that he's a big Lefty. I severely doubt he's an angel. He probably wants to use Govt violence for HIS programs that he approves of like most hyprocrite statists.

Indeed. Savage is, like many other liberals, someone who may agree with Dr Paul on a few issues (Bill Maher qualifies in this category), but disagrees with the vast majority of what we stand for.

[kylejack]

Savage is no angel. He tried to give a bigot the flu, illegally voted in the 2000 Iowa caucuses, lots of other stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Savage#Political_advocacy

But what can I say, I still like him.

[gmc1988]

Santorum is by no means a saint, and I don't agree with his marriage stance, as the government should not play any role in marriage at all, but I will never sing the praises of a person like Savage who thinks that he can force people via the government to not only accept, but embrace, his lifestyle choice, and who wants to outlaw any criticism of homosexuality as a 'hate crime.' Savage and Santorum are from the opposite end of the spectrum, but both are very wrong, and I don't see the point in taking sides or in laughing at one's immature insults towards the other.

[Echoes]

Savage is no angel. He tried to give a bigot the flu, illegally voted in the 2000 Iowa caucuses, lots of other stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Savage#Political_advocacy

But what can I say, I still like him.

Yet, if somebody said the same thing about Santorum.....

"he does A, B, and C and other rotten things. But, what can i say. I still like him"

.....You'd probably think he's a demented idiot.

Why dont you hold yourself to the same standards !!

[kylejack]

Oh, come on. Legalizing gay marriage no more forces you to accept it than you have to accept a man who beats his wife. You don't have to agree with a marriage, you just have to allow it.

Either legalize gay marriage, or abolish government recognition of marriage. Either is fine with me, but the former is more politically tenable, I think.

[kylejack]

Yet, if somebody said the same thing about Santorum.....

"he does A, B, and C and other rotten things. But, what can i say. I still like him"

.....You'd probably think he's a demented idiot.

Why dont you hold yourself to the same standards !!
Well, Santorum holds the reins of government, and wants to use those reins to harm homosexuals, among others.

[gmc1988]

Oh, come on. Legalizing gay marriage no more forces you to accept it than you have to accept a man who beats his wife. You don't have to agree with a marriage, you just have to allow it.

Either legalize gay marriage, or abolish government recognition of marriage. Either is fine with me, but the former is more politically tenable, I think.

Latter for me. Whether we like it or not, there will always be people who disapprove of the gay lifestyle, just as there will always be racists, etc. We can't just put a gun to their head and force them to accept it. That's why government shouldn't be involved in marriage. People like Savage, however, want just that, not only for the government to legalize gay marriage, but also to use government to force people to embrace the lifestyle.

[Echoes]

Well, Santorum holds the reins of government, and wants to use those reins to harm homosexuals, among others.

Cop-out.

I expected that ;)

[gmc1988]

Well, Santorum holds the reins of government, and wants to use those reins to harm homosexuals, among others.
If Savage was a politician, would you agree with him if he acted this way?

[gmc1988]

Tell Dan Savage about Dr Paul's stance on the Civil Rights Act, and watch how quickly he turns on us. Savage is the kind of person who would be sickened by a business that refused to accommodate anyone for any reason.

[kylejack]

If Savage was a politician, would you agree with him if he acted this way?
Certainly wouldn't agree with his pro-Iraq war stance. But wouldn't care too much if he encouraged people to make a definition for someone's name.

[gmc1988]

Certainly wouldn't agree with his pro-Iraq war stance. But wouldn't care too much if he encouraged people to make a definition for someone's name.

Would you agree with him if he started rumors and badmouthed his constituents who disagree with him? People like this guy, Representative Pete Stark of California?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUpW6lM958M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qVpMwqv7QM

[kylejack]

What rumors? A definition for santorum is not a rumor about Senator Rick Santorum.

[gmc1988]

What rumors? A definition for santorum is not a rumor about Senator Rick Santorum.

Attempting to make Gary Bauer sick with the flu was not a rumor. How is Savage ANY DIFFERENT from the media commentators who continuously make fun of and criticize Dr Paul?

[amy31416]

Tell Dan Savage about Dr Paul's stance on the Civil Rights Act, and watch how quickly he turns on us. Savage is the kind of person who would be sickened by a business that refused to accommodate anyone for any reason.

I doubt he'd protest against a black business refusing to serve a white nationalist, or a female business refusing to serve a racist or pedophile. <---- And this is the reason why we should ALL agree with Ron on his philosophical stance on the CRA, no matter if you're right wing/left wing/white/black/gay/straight.

Another thing that's disgusting about the CRA is that it assumes that all minorities are innocent, good people and whitey is bad. What about a white person who was abused/harmed by a black person (it does happen!), now that black/minority person has MORE recourse against the white person? That's asinine. And yet, it was also asinine when the gov't instituted TONS of laws on gun control, marriage, etc. that are racist in origin--and now minorities are fighting for them.

World's all effed up.

[gmc1988]

I doubt he'd protest against a black business refusing to serve a white nationalist, or a female business refusing to serve a racist or pedophile. <---- And this is the reason why we should ALL agree with Ron on his philosophical stance on the CRA, no matter if you're right wing/left wing/white/black/gay/straight.

Another thing that's disgusting about the CRA is that it assumes that all minorities are innocent, good people and whitey is bad. What about a white person who was abused/harmed by a black person (it does happen!), now that black/minority person has MORE recourse against the white person? That's asinine. And yet, it was also asinine when the gov't instituted TONS of laws on gun control, marriage, etc. that are racist in origin--and now minorities are fighting for them.

World's all effed up.

You're absolutely right.

[eduardo89]

Www.facebook.com/NoSantorum

[Echoes]

I doubt he'd protest against a black business refusing to serve a white nationalist, or a female business refusing to serve a racist or pedophile. <---- And this is the reason why we should ALL agree with Ron on his philosophical stance on the CRA, no matter if you're right wing/left wing/white/black/gay/straight.

Another thing that's disgusting about the CRA is that it assumes that all minorities are innocent, good people and whitey is bad. What about a white person who was abused/harmed by a black person (it does happen!), now that black/minority person has MORE recourse against the white person? That's asinine. And yet, it was also asinine when the gov't instituted TONS of laws on gun control, marriage, etc. that are racist in origin--and now minorities are fighting for them.

World's all effed up.

Or that blacks are the only group that have been ever discriminated against. That's how it seems when you hear 'civil rights' activists like Sharpton and Jackson.

As late as the 40's, you'd still see signs up on busness fronts "no dogs, no irish, no catholics allowed", or the hundreds of thousands of japanese thrown in internment camps during the WW2. Yet, you dont hear a peep from these groups today.

Historically, the treatment of blacks was relatively mild compared to say the Nazi, Communist and Ottoman genocides. What ill never get is how is anyone liable today for crap that happened a hundred yrs ago, some folks actually want restitution LoL

[kylejack]

Or that blacks are the only group that have been ever discriminated against. That's how it seems when you hear 'civil rights' activists like Sharpton and Jackson.

As late as the 40's, you'd still see signs up on busness fronts "no dogs, no irish, no catholics allowed", or the hundreds of thousands of japanese thrown in internment camps during the WW2. Yet, you dont hear a peep from these groups today.

Historically, the treatment of blacks was relatively mild compared to say the Nazi, Communist and Ottoman genocides. What ill never get is how is anyone liable today for crap that happened a hundred yrs ago, some folks actually want restitution LoL
CRA 1964 banned religious discrimination by businesses (and race, color, national origin). And of course you still hear from Christians about how they're being oppressed. War on Christmas!

[Sola_Fide]

Kylejack,

We get it dude. You like the foul-mouthed, foul-minded sex advice from a homosexual activist. I get that you like that...but what this has to do with libertarianism, I have no idea. It's obvious that you are a flaming liberal. You hate Rand Paul. You are the first to give negative comments to anything Rand does.


What is it about men having anal sex with each other that you find enhances Ron Paul's message of liberty?

What is it about the politically active homosexual movement that supports the Constitutionalism of Ron Paul?

What is it about feeding in to this nasty meme about anal sex do you think is going to help the Ron Paul movement in a Republican primary?

[LawnWake]

Liberals; libertarians who not only think that morality can't be legislated, but who also believe that there's nothing inherently wrong with two consenting adults having the sex-lives of their choice and don't think they're worse people for it.


You hate Rand Paul. You are the first to give negative comments to anything Rand does.

Yeah, this is pretty much the neo-con defense of Mark Levin and Hannity. "You don't like these beacons of conservative light shining into the abyssal depths of liberalism? Then you must be a liberal'. That's mindless collectivism and 'my dad can beat up your dad' bickering.

Plenty of libertarians don't like Rand Paul. Largely due to his willingness to compromise non-interventionism with neo-con hawkishness.

And uhh, you can't really.. ..get on a high horse about how classless Savage's attacks on Santorum are, if you're trying to insinuate that kylejack's support for Savage's free-speech is due to his love for gay anal sex. Or distorting his whole argument for that matter.

Seriously try to separate your religious faith from libertarianism. They may be personally linked, but it's not a universal truth. To people such as myself, for example, religion and statism are symptoms of the same disease that affects society; collectively placing faith and undeserved authority in something higher than the individual. Now, clearly you disagree with that and that is fine but.. you don't see me arguing for liberty from that personal link I've made between these two views I have, because I recognize that it's a personal connection I've made and therefore not something I should project to the rest of the world as an objective truth.

[Sola_Fide]

This guy has gone off on Rand for more than just sanctions on Iran. I myself have criticised Rand for sanctions.

But I have no problem whatsoever pointing out the moral difference between Christianity and secularism. If this guy is going to praise the virtues of anal sex, I will praise the virtues of Jesus, and it is my freedom to do so.

It is also my freedom to point out to you in the most glaring fashion that all of those European societies that have succumbed to secularism have become bastions of totalitarianism. Christianity is the last bulwark of freedom in this world.

[kylejack]

Kylejack,

We get it dude. You like the foul-mouthed, foul-minded sex advice from a homosexual activist. I get that you like that...but what this has to do with libertarianism, I have no idea. It's obvious that you are a flaming liberal. You hate Rand Paul. You are the first to give negative comments to anything Rand does.
I'm not a liberal. Rand's the type of dude to impose harsh sanctions on another nation, something which is starkly opposite of libertarian. Rand's sanction vote shows I was right all along to be skeptical of him.

[LawnWake]

This guy has gone off on Rand for more than just sanctions on Iran. I myself have criticised Rand for sanctions.

So what? You're doing the same thing again. 'But he's Rand Paul! If you don't like him, it MUST mean you're a liberal!' I don't give a crap who he likes or doesn't like. If he doesn't believe in government involvement overseas, in people's private lives or in the market, he's not a 'liberal'. No matter how much crap he talks about Rand Paul.


But I have no problem whatsoever pointing out the moral difference between Christianity and secularism. If this guy is going to praise the virtues of anal sex, I will praise the virtues of Jesus, and it is my freedom to do so.

It is also my freedom to point out to you in the most glaring fashion that all of those European societies that have succumbed to secularism have become bastions of totalitarianism. Christianity is the last bulwark of freedom in this world.

Yes, secular Europe has less violent crimes and less drug abuse, while christian America and jewish Israel are wreaking the most havoc in the Middle East. Then you have the most religious place in the EU, Greece, which also happens to be most totalitarian. Right. So no, Europe isn't any more totalitarian than America. Europe and America are pretty much on the same level of liberty and totalitarianism, also depending on which country you look at (so good job on collectivizing all 'these European societies'). Even a country like Sweden, that is taxed into oblivion has some free market solutions that someone like Ron Paul is arguing for. Different western societies are totalitarian and libertarian in different areas.

Have fun with NDAA, by the way.

And there you go distorting his argument again. He's not championing anal sex and you know this. He's just not demonizing the people who practice it and views the exercise of any behavior that doesn't hurt other people and standing up for it as an exercise of liberty. Whether that is having gay sex, doing drugs or praying where ever you want.

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, secular Europe has less violent crimes and less drug abuse, while christian America and jewish Israel are wreaking the most havoc in the Middle East. Then you have the most religious place in the EU, Greece, which also happens to be most totalitarian. Right. So no, Europe isn't any more totalitarian than America. Europe and America are pretty much on the same level of liberty and totalitarianism, also depending on which country you look at (so good job on collectivizing all 'these European societies'). Even a country like Sweden, that is taxed into oblivion has some free market solutions that someone like Ron Paul is arguing for. Different western societies are totalitarian in libertarian in different areas.

Have fun with NDAA, by the way.

And there you go distorting his argument again. He's not championing anal sex and you know this. He's just not demonizing the people who practice it and views the exercise of any behavior that doesn't hurt other people and standing up for it as an exercise of liberty. Whether that is having gay sex, doing drugs or praying where ever you want.


In what secular European country is there more respect for the rights of man than America?

I'll wait for your answer.

[kylejack]

In what secular European country is there more respect for the rights of man than America?

I'll wait for your answer.
Estonia's pretty good. Hard to say that it it's better, because they're each better in different ways.

[LawnWake]

In what secular European country is there more respect for the rights of man than America?

I'll wait for your answer.

You can't really see past black and white thinking can you? I've already said that Europe is totalitarian and libertarian in different areas. I mean, here in the Netherlands, we don't have a death penalty while plenty of states and so many Americans believe it's ok for the government to end someone's life if a group of people and a judge with government granted authority believe it is. And only a government official can pardon that person. That's tyranny. And we don't have nearly the level of police brutality that America has. And the government pardons it, obviously.

I mean, out here, a friend of mine hugged a police horse while clearly rollin' hard on MDMA without getting tazered. Drug laws are hardly enforced (which I know from experience). We have legal prostitution (which, by the way, is still too heavily regulated by the government) We don't get sexually assaulted by the government at airports either. Recent studies have also shown that the Netherlands has more press freedom than America has.

And so on and so forth. It's not as black and white as you think it is. I'm not saying that the Netherlands are a bastion of liberty, I have as many issues with my country as I do with America, but they're in different areas.

[Sola_Fide]

You can't really see past black and white thinking can you? I've already said that Europe is totalitarian and libertarian in different areas. I mean, here in the Netherlands, we don't have a death penalty while plenty of states and so many Americans believe it's ok for the government to end someone's life if a group of people and a judge with government granted authority believe it is. And only a government official can pardon that person. That's tyranny. And we don't have nearly the level of police brutality that America has. And the government pardons it, obviously.

I mean, out here, a friend of mine hugged a police horse while clearly rollin' hard on MDMA without getting tazered. Drug laws are hardly enforced (which I know from experience). We have legal prostitution (which, by the way, is still too heavily regulated by the government) We don't get sexually assaulted by the government at airports either. Recent studies have also shown that the Netherlands has more press freedom than America has.

And so on and so forth. It's not as black and white as you think it is. I'm not saying that the Netherlands are a bastion of liberty, I have as many issues with my country as I do with America, but they're in different areas.

LawnAwake,

Can you carry a gun for self defense in the Netherlands? If not, why do you think having sex with prostitutes and rolling on MDMA qualifies you for a higher level of freedom than what we have America?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?287139-Mall-Shooting-in-Netherlands-Where-Very-Oppressive-Gun-Control-Laws-Exist-Kills-6


Wake up kids.

[LawnWake]

LawnAwake,

Can you carry a gun for self defense in the Netherlands? If not, why do you think having sex with prostitutes and rolling on MDMA qualifies you for a higher level of freedom than what we have America?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?287139-Mall-Shooting-in-Netherlands-Where-Very-Oppressive-Gun-Control-Laws-Exist-Kills-6


Wake up kids.

Perfect example of what I mean by distorting someone's point of view and black and white thinking. If you read carefully, which you did but choose to ignore anyway, you will notice that I never said that we're more libertarian.

Like here:


So no, Europe isn't any more totalitarian than America. Europe and America are pretty much on the same level of liberty and totalitarianism, also depending on which country you look at (so good job on collectivizing all 'these European societies'). Even a country like Sweden, that is taxed into oblivion has some free market solutions that someone like Ron Paul is arguing for. Different western societies are totalitarian and libertarian in different areas.

Secondly, you're proving my point about your black and white thinking. You only bring up my examples of victimless crimes (and you arbitrarily decide that this is less important.. out of curiosity, do you value government protection of gun rights more because you're pro-gun and you're (personally) anti-prostitution and anti-drugs and therefore lighter on protecting those liberties? How's that liberty minded? Liberty doesn't come in fractions), ignoring the fact that we don't have your degree of police (=government endorsed) brutality, don't have a death penalty or your perverse airport security. Also, which I didn't bring up sooner.. we have legal euthanasia and plenty of European countries are lighter on some market regulations than America is.

However, you don't care because of that one issue of gun control. Which you believe is not a problem to me even though...


...I'm not saying that the Netherlands are a bastion of liberty, I have as many issues with my country as I do with America, but they're in different areas.

[Sola_Fide]

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. -Zechariah Johnson


[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded. -Roger Sherman

What other fundamental freedom is there? Having sex with prostitutes? Doing drugs?

Re-evaluate your worldview.

[LawnWake]

What other fundamental freedom is there? Having sex with prostitutes? Doing drugs?

Re-evaluate your worldview.

'Doing drugs' and 'having sex with prostitutes' aren't rights, but they're representations of rights. Doing with your body whatever you damn well please is a right. Gunrights aren't 'rights' either, they're a representation of your right to protect your body from force, government or private.

You're simplifying issues way too much.

So I don't care what some individuals personally feel is more important. To me, the right to protect yourself is pointless if you have nothing to protect. The right to bear arms goes hand in hand with your right to do with your body whatever you please. You can't have one without the other.

But you'll probably decide to misread this as 'oh so you don't think people have the right to bear arms' or 'so you think that the right to bear arms is less important?' even though I'm saying that both rights are co-dependent on each other and of equal importance and that you can't have one without the other.

EDIT:

Also, you once again decided to ignore the death penalty and airport security issues, where government actively uses force against citizens. And none of your laws protect people to use guns against that force either.

[Sola_Fide]

'Doing drugs' and 'having sex with prostitutes' aren't rights, but they're representations of rights. Doing with your body whatever you damn well please is a right. Gunrights aren't 'rights' either, they're a representation of your right to protect your body from force, government or private.

You're simplifying issues way too much.

So I don't care what some individuals personally feel is more important. To me, the right to protect yourself is pointless if you have nothing to protect. The right to bear arms goes hand in hand with your right to do with your body whatever you please. You can't have one without the other.

But you'll probably decide to misread this as 'oh so you don't think people have the right to bear arms' or 'so you think that the right to bear arms is less important?' even though I'm saying that both rights are co-dependent on each other and of equal importance and that you can't have one without the other.

EDIT:

Also, you once again decided to ignore the death penalty and airport security issues, where government actively uses force against citizens. And none of your laws protect people to use guns against that force either.



One thing the state can do is to pacify young men with prostitutes and drugs.

What the state can NEVER do is to pacify young men with the right to bear arms.

What is more fundamental to the defense of liberty?

[kylejack]

Since you only seem to care about gun rights, Estonia allows concealed carry with permit throughout the country. Certainly more free than some states here in the USA.

Austria too, I believe.

[LawnWake]

One thing the state can do is to pacify young men with prostitutes and drugs.

What the state can NEVER do is to pacify young men with the right to bear arms.

What is more fundamental?

Neither and you're ignoring my entire point again. I said that "gunrights" are no good without having anything to protect and protecting your own body and doing with it whatever you want is fundamental. You're the owner of your body, you can do with it whatever you want. But does having a gun allow you to take heroin without repurcussions from the government? If you were to do drugs, resisted arrest and killed cops who were trying to arrest you for doing with your body whatever you please, they would send more cops and more guns and you would get the death penalty for being a cop killer. So yeah, you have your gunrights, but what good do they do if you can't even use guns to protect your right to do with your body whatever you want?

And if you think that allowing drug use is part of the worldwide statist conspiracy, then you clearly don't know about the fact that Portugal legalized all drugs, but then the globalists of the European Union overruled their national sovereinty? Much like the Fed is doing in California.

Besides. The GOP doesn't care about gunlaws, they care about pacifying Republicans by espousing a pro-gun ideology without believing in it.

[Sola_Fide]

Neither?

Ugghh.. okay. Great.


(hopefully now RPF's sees the insanity of European secularism)

[LawnWake]

Neither?

Ugghh.. okay. Great.


(hopefully now RPF's sees the insanity of European secularism)

You can collectivize my argument as 'European secularism' all you want, but when it comes down to it, I actually debated your points with logical arguments that you repeatedly ignored without refuting them once.

For someone who has claimed to 'know the truth', you're pretty poor at formulating it in a debate.

[Sola_Fide]

I said that "gunrights" are no good without having anything to protect and protecting your own body and doing with it whatever you want is fundamental.

I'm sorry LA, but this makes no sense in regards to the defense of liberty. This is fundamentally different than Ron Paul's defense of liberty.

[LawnWake]

I'm sorry LA, but this makes no sense in regards to the defense of liberty.

Yes, it does. Guns are there to protect youself (your body) from force. You can do with your body whatever you want. If someone is stopping you from doing with your body whatever you want, they're innitiating force against you. If you don't have the right to do with your body whatever, but can still own a gun.. what are you actually protecting? It sure as hell isn't your body, because if the government can tell you what you inject in it, or which consenting adult you have sex with, you don't really own it and you're not allowed to kill government officials who are innitiating force on you for using drugs.

You arbitrarily claim that 'gunrights' (which aren't actual rights, gunrights are a perversion of the actual right to self-defense) are more important than 'the right to do with your body whatever you want'. I'm merely saying that the whole point of owning a gun is to protect your body and rights. If you don't have the right to do with your body whatever you want, there's really no point in owning a gun because there would be nothing to protect. You need both rights.

[Sola_Fide]

"Contrary to the UN propaganda, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and, according to the drafters of the Constitution, the guardian of every other right. Many victims of tyranny were first disarmed by their governments."

-Ron Paul, 2003

I'm sorry man, the right to bear arms IS the guardian of every other right.

The conversation is over in my mind unless you want to try to refute Ron on this point.

[LawnWake]

I'm sorry man, the right to bear arms IS the guardian of every other right.

If that were the case, you would be able to walk into an airport without getting groped, not worry about the government reading your emails or worry about what you're putting in your body.

Walk on the street naked with a loaded gun. You'll have cops arresting you for indecent exposure and if you were to protect yourself from cops arresting you for a victimless crime, using your gun, they'll get more cops with more, bigger guns and you'll be dead.

[Sola_Fide]

Is there some disagreement you have with Ron on this point?

Let me know.

[Sola_Fide]

Ron Paul is the defender of the fundamental right of liberty: self defense...


Ron Paul co-sponsored individual right to self- defense at home and as self-defense

Declares that a person not prohibited under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act from receiving a firearm shall have the right to obtain firearms for security and to use firearms in defense of:

1. imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury; person of a violent felony against the person or a member the person's family;

2. and felony by another person.

[LawnWake]

Is there some disagreement you have with Ron on this point?

Let me know.

I think the right to defend yourself from force is a fundamental right.

However, if you can't use it to defend yourself from government actively infringing upon your right to do with your body whatever you want, it is sort of pointless. Government is the biggest innitiator of force. So it's ok to use a gun against someone who breaks into your home when they're a citizen, but not when cops break into your home and use guns to stop you from having consentual sex with a prostitute?

It's not a black and white issue where 'owning a gun' automatically helps you establish freedom. You mentioned that drugs are meant to pacify the populace, but the more think about it, American gunlaws truly pacify the populace with the illusion that they're protecting themselves. And they are to a degree, from citizens. But as I said, what's the point of owning a gun if you can't use it to protect yourself from the biggest coercive force known to mankind, known as the government?

[Sola_Fide]

I think the right to defend yourself from force is a fundamental right.

However, if you can't use it to defend yourself from government actively infringing upon your right to do with your body whatever you want, it is sort of pointless. Government is the biggest innitiator of force. So it's ok to use a gun against someone who breaks into your home when they're a citizen, but not when cops break into your home and use guns to stop you from having consentual sex with a prostitute?

It's not a black and white issue where 'owning a gun' automatically helps you establish freedom. You mentioned that drugs are meant to pacify the populace, but the more think about it, American gunlaws truly pacify the populace with the illusion that they're protecting themselves. And they are to a degree, from citizens. But as I said, what's the point of owning a gun if you can't use it to protect yourself from the biggest coercive force known to mankind, known as the government?



....you are posting this from the Netherlands, where you can't legally defend yourself with a gun from an attacker OR a government. You understand this right?

[Dr.3D]

But as I said, what's the point of owning a gun if you can't use it to protect yourself from the biggest coercive force known to mankind, known as the government?

The U.S. Constitution says we can when necessary, thus we can should the need arise. If we didn't have 'guns', we wouldn't have that option.

[LawnWake]

....you are posting this from the Netherlands, where you can't legally defend yourself with a gun from an attacker OR a government. You understand this right?

Yes? And in this country, the government won't aggress against me for doing with my body whatever I want nearly to the same degree that they would in America?

Hence my argument that the Netherlands are every bit as totalitarian/libertarian as the USA. We have some deregulations in the market they you don't have, we have some civil liberties that you don't have and so forth. Keeping the Dutch from arming themselves is a form of aggression of the government, and I'm against it. But as I said, what's the point of owning a gun if you can't use it to protect the right to do with your body whatever you want?


The U.S. Constitution says we can when necessary, thus we can should the need arise. If we didn't have 'guns', we wouldn't have that option.

What's the point of a consitution if no one upholds it? I know the consitution permits it, but seeing as you live in a country where 90% of the laws are unconsitituonal and even strip you of constitutional rights, it's kinda pointless.

In a perfect world with a consitutional America, the right to bear arms means something. These days it's just handing someone a fly-swapper to fight a lion. And it's good that it's there to some degree. But consitution or not, the guys with the bigger guns don't care about it and, as I said in my previous example, they will kill you for walking around naked on the streets with a loaded gun.

All I'm saying is, for the right to bear arms to truly mean something, you should have the right to do with your body as you please without having the government interfere with bigger guns. Both rights are co-dependent. I think this the most pro-liberty position you can take on the subject.

[rambone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgnT-bTDxdA

[PierzStyx]

This is crass and beneath the dignity of the Ron Paul movement.

There is national media watching everything we post on these boards. Perpetuating this nasty image is not becoming of a Ron Paul supporter in the national spotlight, imo.

Oh blow it out your nose. :P

[PierzStyx]

You can't really see past black and white thinking can you? I've already said that Europe is totalitarian and libertarian in different areas. I mean, here in the Netherlands, we don't have a death penalty while plenty of states and so many Americans believe it's ok for the government to end someone's life if a group of people and a judge with government granted authority believe it is. And only a government official can pardon that person. That's tyranny. And we don't have nearly the level of police brutality that America has. And the government pardons it, obviously.

I mean, out here, a friend of mine hugged a police horse while clearly rollin' hard on MDMA without getting tazered. Drug laws are hardly enforced (which I know from experience). We have legal prostitution (which, by the way, is still too heavily regulated by the government) We don't get sexually assaulted by the government at airports either. Recent studies have also shown that the Netherlands has more press freedom than America has.

And so on and so forth. It's not as black and white as you think it is. I'm not saying that the Netherlands are a bastion of liberty, I have as many issues with my country as I do with America, but they're in different areas.

You have been fooled. Three words "Brave New World." Your government has you thinking you're free using drugs and sex but those are merely distractions, tools to keep you blind.

[LawnWake]

You have been fooled. Three words "Brave New World."

Your government has you thinking you're free ownings guns but those are merely distractions, tools to keep you blind.

At this point I'm not even trying because you're claiming that I think I'm free and all that crap.

Go to the start of the thread, read all my argument and cry about the fact that you can't refute them or something.

[ConsideringRonPaul]

Hahahahahaah netherlands guy claiming he's go liberty. You've been hoodwinked my friend. Good commentary by Aqua Buddha

[LawnWake]

Hahahahahaah netherlands guy claiming he's go liberty. You've been hoodwinked my friend. Good commentary by Aqua Buddha

Yes, this is exactly what I claim and you are a genius.

[Danke]

I dare you to think about that one for a bit.

nvm, see this isn't in HT yet...