Santorum: ‘Our Freedom’ Is Less ‘Whole Than It Was At The Time Of Our Founders’
26 replies, posted
[url=http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/16/296536/santorum-slaves/]Think Progress[/url]
[release]At a campaign stop in Iowa this weekend, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) doled out a frothy mixture of revisionist history about what it was like to be alive in the late 1700s:
Our founders said [our] rights were given to us to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does anyone here believe that first inalienable right is as whole as it was at the time of our founding? It isn’t. Does anyone believe that our freedom is as whole as it was at the time of our founders? It is not.
Watch it:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8BcPxM4uQE&[/media]
Santorum’s understanding of the word “freedom” leaves a whole lot of Americans out of the picture. There’s a reason, for example, why the authors of our Constitution are sometimes referred to as the “Founding Fathers” — none of them were women. Indeed, women did not actually gain the guaranteed right to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, more than a century after Santorum’s utopia era of “freedom.”
Another person who probably disagrees with Santorum’s definition of the word “freedom” — this guy:
[url=http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/slave-back-192x300.jpg]Icky image I'm not gonna image tag[/url]
So maybe before Santorum pretends to know what “freedom” looks like, he should take a moment to actually read about the amendments to the Constitution and then spend just a few minutes learning about what so many of them were put into our founding document.[/release]
freedom for white straight middle class Christian males
rip america
This modern era is pretty free except for the liberals who try banning everything good that might hurt someone and Republicans passing legislation that will allow them to spy on Americans, so that they can fight terrorism.
ARE FREEDOM
[QUOTE=cqbcat;31778167]This modern era is pretty free except for the liberals who try banning everything good that might hurt someone[/QUOTE]
This is not a common characteristic of Liberals and in fact goes against the very core of Liberalism.
Fuck Santorum. I know who my vote is going towards.
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Bachmann.png[/img]
my penis literally just fell off
Ah the 18th century. A simpler time. A time when every wealthy, land-owning white Christian man packed a sword and a flintlock pistol freely and dueled his adversaries in parks and in the streets. A time when he could buy people who had a different skin color and religion than he did. A time when cholera and smallpox were still very deadly diseases affecting even him (long before antibiotics). A time when opium dens he could visit were abundant and whores with venereal diseases that often proved fatal were readily available for purchase by him. A time when his social lessers had nothing more than a second-grade education and freely moved out further into the West beyond the Appalachians and fought with the red man over his land and ruthlessly murdered him and his kin by the hundreds- then torched his crops, poisoned his water supply, and ransacked his home-- before building his own home on these lands with nothing more than what trees he could find and his bare hands...
Good times... good times...
[img]http://i.imgur.com/pmYNt.gif[/img]
[quote]A time when opium dens he could visit were abundant[/quote]
this is a bad thing how?
This is an interesting development.
Never was freer than the time I could whip black men when they didn't pick cotton fast enough
I don't think I've ever seen a conservative display any sort of knowledge about what America was like before World War II in my entire life. It's always vague statements like "it was better" and "this one famous president lived back then", but beyond that, nothing.
I guess it's to be expected, though, since our educational system barely even mentions the gilded age, a time when there was almost no economic regulation at all and the average American's quality of life was abysmal, or the widespread fear of federal government that existed in America's early years which would come back to bite everyone in the ass multiple times throughout the nation's history, or the fact that we basically haven't attempted to improve our electoral system in any way since the idea of presidential candidates having running mates was accepted.
I'm guessing Darth Froth wants to go back to the days when genocide and slavery were A-OK?
you will never be free
I would rather be associated with a frothy mix of semen and faeces than with this guy.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;31781418]I would rather be associated with a frothy mix of semen and faeces than with this guy.[/QUOTE]
Too bad, because that guy IS a frothy mix of semen and feces!
So, freedom = slavery?
Or, no, he's pining for the days when only rich white people had freedom.
Jesus Christ this man is potentially the next president of the USA and I know about his fucking country's history than he does.
i like how he just says this crap but doesn't give any examples on how there is less freedom or anything
[QUOTE=cqbcat;31778167]This modern era is pretty free except for the liberals who try banning everything good that might hurt someone and Republicans passing legislation that will allow them to spy on Americans, so that they can fight terrorism.[/QUOTE]
You're funny.
You should try Comedy. :v:
[editline]17th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;31778300][img]http://i.imgur.com/pmYNt.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
whatthefuck.jpg
Hey Rick. [B]LIFE[/B], liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Last I checked, being left to die because you can't afford your surgery is more or less denying your right to live, not fulfilling it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;31788229]Hey Rick. [B]LIFE[/B], liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Last I checked, being left to die because you can't afford your surgery is more or less denying your right to live, not fulfilling it.[/QUOTE]
if poor people die because they can't afford healthcare, it is not the fault of the government. it is readily apparent that poor people are poor because they are inherently lazy and stupid. opportunity exists in our great nation, god bless America, available to all and any willing to work their way to the top.
in fact, the government has a duty to [I]not[/I] provide healthcare to the poor - the only consequence of their death is that society is improved by the effective suicide of malingerers.
contag 2012 republican candidate
[QUOTE=Contag;31790435]if poor people die because they can't afford healthcare, it is not the fault of the government. it is readily apparent that poor people are poor because they are inherently lazy and stupid. opportunity exists in our great nation, god bless America, available to all and any willing to work their way to the top.
in fact, the government has a duty to [I]not[/I] provide healthcare to the poor - the only consequence of their death is that society is improved by the effective suicide of malingerers.
contag 2012 republican candidate[/QUOTE]
I think this guy stands a chance!
Y'know, honestly speaking, considering how half the founding fathers were kinda douchey slave owners whose entire purpose for doing what they did was just as much to promote their own wealth and well-being, and often looked down on the lower class, women, and blacks, and only added things like the bill of rights due to heavy pressure from anti-federalists looking to secure [i]their[/i] rights to improve themselves and their wealth, or to prevent popular revolt. We tend to glorify their ideas and sayings and slogans, but tend not to speak about the reasoning for having these ideas, or their actual application. These were all primarily economic rights, intended for economic purposes, to keep the merchants and the wealthy able to do so in the eyes of the law, and get away with practices that were previously banned or illegal.
The rights and liberties of the 1700s hardly ever dripped down to the lower class, and entirely missed women, slaves, indentured servants, non-land-owners, the non-religious, natives, and the poor (and very small middle/lower-merchant class). Even in the 1800s we didn't have many of the liberties we have today, and barely any of the rights, until the 1930s or later, when every individual received basic economic rights and protections, and with them the full protections and a new interpretation of the liberties and rights presented in the constitution.
We didn't really even get equality in rights until the 1960s, a mere 50 years ago. For a nation that's been around for 224 years, only roughly 65 of those have had any sort of full equality in economics and liberties, and only 50 or so have had any sort of rights protecting those liberties, if you count the period between the declaration of independence and the adoption of the constitution.
If you want to go back to that period, Rick Anal-froth, feel free, but I'll take the modern day. You and your radical rightists seem to think that back then was the perfect little libertarian society where everyone was equal and we had full freedom, but honestly that was not the case, and reading first hand accounts, or even picking up any book citing them or looking into the time from the perspective of the average person, you'll clearly see that this was not a free society, a libertarian society, or an equal society, by any means. In that society, you would be lucky to get to the fortune you're at, let alone gain enough clout and wealth to be able to run for candidacy for political office.
I think we were just the beta for the whole freedom of speech and free will ideals.
When everybody started doing it, we lost most of our power.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.