Rick-Man-On-Dog-Santorum just won three primaries last night, What does it all mean?

I'll tell you what it means that the post below.....Study links low intelligence with right-wing beliefs is right on the money!

I think we are seeing a bizarre revolutionary moment.

The wealthy have gone too far.  They first let loose so many billionaires that a small select few have gone crazy with vanity, competing amongst each other like a bunch of alpha apes. And the media that they have created has taken on a cloak of such idiocy and insanity, that it simply amplifies the circus. Thus, by freakish appearance of competition, the rich are caught in a ritual of cannibalistic frenzy. Who could have predicted the wealthy to be this juvenile and egotistical?

Now, more than ever, we should rally the troops - for the enemy is weak!

If you are a 'social conservative,' Santorum's idiocy about contraception and promiscuity rings your bells.  If you want a guy who says some decent things about working people compared to the Ken Doll of Wall St. or the Grinch, and with Michelle DeLoon and Rick Parody out of the picture, he is what is left.  Santorum is not going to win a majority of Catholic votes with his radical Right to Life rejection of everything other than procreative sex.  But, he is not a fake.  His voting record might not add up, but he is akin to Ron Paul as the protest vote for the Right.

While there were not actually delegates at stake this reflects really, really badly on Mitt Romney. The Romney campaign would have us believe that he has the momentum going forward but this vote has proven that Romney did not "gain" momentum but only bought and paid for some along the way. The "anyone but Mitt" sentiment is still the driving force in the primary. While moderates and party insiders seem to think that Romney is acceptable the base is hopelessly fractured into frenzied subsets and, among those who do bother to go out and vote or caucus, the momentary consensus keeps swinging wildly from one possibility to the next.  These subsets include moderates, Southern conservatives, evangelicals, libertarians, wishy-washy undecideds and idiots. The primary concern among moderates, apparently, is defeating Obama. They seem to view Romney as the only viable candidate since he is not, noticeably, batshit crazy but they're not exactly enthralled with his prior record and his stilted manner.  To the extent that Romney has been successful it has been by creating a coalition of half-hearted moderates and the undecideds who have been successfully bought with an unpreceedented level of spending on advertising. Southern conservatives and the  idiot faction have, so far, fallen for the schizophrenic blatherings of Newt Gingrich;  Santorum is homophic and misogynistic enough for evangelicals in the "heartland" as the Iowa caucuses and  yesterday's results showed and, of course, there is the small but consistent and rabidly fervent contingent of deluded libertarians who worship Ron Paul.    

When the proto-Whigs go over the edge, the Democrats will have no greater evil to work against and will have to face reality where the Progressives and the Left will form a majority against the shadow cultists.  I don't know if Libertarians will be able to grow up and get a political frame instead of just bemoaning everything while bringing nothing.  But there is going to be a big shakeout if we still have a world to live in.

at least santorum is a conservative unlike newt and mitt who are both watered down versions of obama,  big government no freedoms except sexual freedoms.  that is the one thing I have never understood about liberals, progressives or what ever they want to be called these days.  they do not believe in freedom.  they either need or want the government and labor unions to control every aspect of their lives except when it comes to humping another man in the ass than they do not want the government any where near them. 

where are they progressing too?  communism? socialism? social justice where everyone and everything is equal?

liberalism Ideas so good they have to be forced on you. 

remember your right to be free includes my right to be free from supporting you.

Not if you have surplus wealth.  Not if you buy into our collective moral responsibility for each other.  Your idea of freedom is license.  Freedom is not washing one's hand of moral responsibility and going it alone.  Freedom must be for all, or none.  It is not about the freedom of masters to run slaves.  It is not about being blind to the needs of others.  Biblically, St. Paul warns us that freedom without love will lead us to devour one another.  I think your idea of 'freedom' is a dangerous delusion for you and others.  The truth will set you free, it will not make you comfortable.  Love will liberate you from fear and alienation, and that freedom is worth the price.

that is true freedom is not free you have to earn it.  and yes we should take care of the less fortunite however that should never be a function of government.  it should be done by individuals because it is the right thing to do. I do not try and push my morals onto anyone and I expect people to not try and push their morals onto me. 

yes freedom is for all, free for all to do with what they wish, if they want to hord all of their money that is their right, if they want to give all of their money away that too is their choice. 

there should not be collective morals, there should not be collective salvation, there should be some collective things like roads, police, and fire beyond that nope.

liberalism ideas so good they have to be forced on you

I can't help it if you guys want to want to control humping a man in the ass.

You define freedom as one man not being able to attack another man.

We define freedom to include being able to have opportunity in society.

Your defintion is simplistic, idealistic and impossible - there has never and will never be a Libertarian state. 

Not only that, but you praise a man like Santorum who advovates that states ban contraception. Who knows what other hideous crimes he would engage in in the name of religon. Like Bush invading Iraq because 'god told him to'.

Because why, you use them? There has never been and never will be a Libertarian State.

One of the conspiracy theories I've heard is that the money in the republican race will be spread around enough to prevent Mitt from clinching before the election so the millionaires and billionaires (Koch, Rove, etc.) can pick their own guy in the "smoke filled room" at a brokered convention. The TV networks would not mind having the race 'drag on' so they can continue selling air time.

"Rick-Man-On-Dog-Santorum just won three primaries last night, What does it all mean?"

It means that more people will google "Santorum" and see Dan Savage's definition of "Santorum" !

The problem with the modern brokered convention is that in the end, say the Koch Bros pick Gov. Christie. While neither Santorum or RMoney have enough delegates to win themselves, Christie doesn't either. And while the Koch Bros can buy a large number of super delegates, some of them are still going to be loyal either Santorum or Rmoney. So, whatever proportion of elected delegates, plus their loyalists, is going to bring RMoney real close to 50% in the end. 

For pure laughs, Tampa ought to be must see TV.  I will want plenty of my drug of choice, but who could write this stuff?  Your entertainment benefits come with your ticket package, so don't miss the fun.

I am calling for those services because they are ligitimate government functions.  I am not calling for a libertarian state, I am calling for the government to roll back some of the tyranical controling laws that apply to the people but not congress.

liberalism idea of freedom is you can have sex with how ever you want,  as long as the government forces other people to pay for feed, cloth, house, educate, and cure you when you get sick, while banning guns, sugar, transfat, cars that run on gas, and none union jobs.

attacking another man is against the law and is not part of freedom.  freedom is the ability to control your own life as long as it does not harm anothers.  freedom of opportunity should apply equally,  the government should not have programs designed to help one group of people while harming another. 

Santorum does not praise of call for a state ban on contraception if fact he has said he would fight against a state ban on birth control. he has said that the federal government has no authority to force companies to pay for your contraception, while he has said that it is the states right to he knows it would never pass the law making process.  just like liberals trying to ban guns it is never going to happen.

I do not know if god told bush to attack iraq or not i do not care,  he followed the constitution and asked congress they said yes so he did.  obama did not even ask congress he just attacked lybia because he thinks he can.

liberalism idea so good they have to be forced on you.

its the liberals that are calling for all freedoms to be taken away except gay sex.  

Only the "freedom" to deny others freedom and the right to make smart collective investments instead of relying on predatory profiteers who have no interest in providing cost/efficient public services.  In addition to the infrastructure of roads, communication, rails, etc., the education, healthcare, food and housing for all is about real freedom and the foundation for prosperity and security for all. 

Equal access and opportunity is hardly an imposition on you or me.  Your insulting and ignorant posts are tiresome and repetitive.  Learn.  Grow up.

My posts seem repetitive because no mater how you phrase the question the truth does not change. 

I continue my education every day.  I read from as many different sources as I can, I listen to as many different sources as I can too that does not mean I am stuck on fox news I dont even watch fox news .  I will listen to conservative talk radio in the morings and liberal leaning in the afternoons.  I ever watch msnbc from time to time but the hosts are so stupid I can only take it for small periods of time.

how is it freedom for all when 47 percent of the country does not contribute to the payment of the services provided.  I have no problem with people having a house, food, clothing, or an education as long as they pay their fair share or pay for it themselves.  the government confiscating what other produce to benefit another is not prosperity for all it is econmic slavery for the producer and prosperity for the receipent.

it is not my responsibility to provide strangers with food, health care, education, or anything else.  it is my responsibility to provide those things for me and my family or whom I choose to support. 

liberalism ideas so good they have to be forced on you. 

It is not freedom when the 1% have almost all the money.  It is certainly your civic duty to contribute to the welfare of all because a good society is a democratic principle.  It also pays off if you do not limit your thinking to yourself and close your eyes to the world around you.  Your definition of economic slavery and your truncated sense of responsibility may make you angry about democracy, but what you get is this huge disparity of wealth for the few and little for the rest of us, and there is no merit or fairness in what leads to the wealth.

Having "no problem" with others getting it for themselves is so generous of you.  We have no problem with wealthy people keeping all the money they can spend to enjoy their wealth.  We just need to have the surplus back into productive economic function and cannot depend upon them taking the time or being wise enough to do it by themselves.  Proof?  Look around.  They don't create the jobs needed and they don't invest in what society requires.  So, we do it democratically.  If you don't like this, move to your Austrian Utopia.  Oh, it does not exist.  Too bad.

first of all life is not fair, you can have equal opportuneties all you want that does not ensure equal outcome.  Yes it is a civic responsibility to make sure the poor are taken care of that however does not make it a function of government.   what makes you think I am angry with democracy?  Governmental theft of property to redistribute to the poor is not democracy it is communism.

who gets to decide what is surplus wealth?  my idea is that there is no such thing as surplus wealth gather as much as you can.  rich people give to charities some rich people even build stuff for the public good.  you keep telling me to move to my libertairian utopia,  maybe you should be the one looking to move china, cuba and venezuela might be more of a perfect fit for you. 

Lets look at your words from another angle jonesy....

Now since you think government steals property from the rich to redistribute to the poor and you call that communism......SO....WTF would you call taking taxpayers money and building football, baseball, baskeball stadiums and god knows what else has been built for the rich owners? If that isn't redistribution of property at its finest I don't know what is.....Eh? They already are rich and the taxpayers are giving them more. If these projects were voted on every last one of them would probably fail and the owners know that which is why the rich use the government every frickin time they want something for nothing. OPEN your eyes boy.

Poor baby, you don't understand how democracy works and you want unfairness established by law.  It is because life is not fair that we do what we can to smooth out these problems rather than succumb to them as if it is "the will of God."  In Established religion, where State and Church are partners, taxes are given to the Church to administer the charity and insure that the citizens believe within the lines.  I like our system better, but that means that public money needs to go to the common good and welfare.

The redistribution of wealth is necessary to any functioning economy, and instead of redistributing it upward into the glut of unproductive wealth, economic "law" (Say's) requires that it be returned to the productive economy or you get crashes and huge social damage.  There is no moral offense to those who have actually earned their money in requiring the successful management of the economy, and I hope you can admit that we have a great disparity of merit as well as wealth in our income gaps.  Even were every dollar earned morally gained, the rich would still have to share and it would be good for them to care as well. 

In the secular economy, we cannot afford to have Monopoly players design and run the economy if they just want to win the game and lose the economy.  We need game managers who keep all the players in the game.  I know it is boring, but it is so much better for people than having constant crashes.  That is the only moral principle that applies here.

If, however, you want to introduce spiritual and moral principles to the discussion, I would suggest that our religious and philosophical traditions do not bless and baptize greed and have plenty to say about caring for one another.  Caesar is responsible for the care of citizens, not just for his own lusts.  Giving back to the community is not limited to star athletes. 

Where rich people do invest in the public good, we recognize their charity in the tax codes.  We also applaud them as fine citizens.  What we don't do is make them lords and kings.

Your 'vision' of America looks a lot more like the London described by Charles Dickens than what the Pledge of Allegiance affirms.  We got all patrioitic after 9/11 about how "united we stood."  I don't think I have to move anywhere to believe what I believe, but I sure ain't gonna' let what you would do to America go unchallenged.  Selfish, greedy and callous.  A perfect modern Republican.

yes i would consider building a football stadium a redistribution of wealth however they are voted on in the city councils.  some of them are even voted on a state level.  football stadiums also pay the city state back through sales taxes and employment taxes and other taxes as well as fees generated for major events held in the stadium when the football team is not playing.  typically the football stadiums are only partly funded by the tax payer where the major construction costs are covered by the building owner. 

what kind of return on investment does the city/state/federal government get from your average welfare receipent?

my version of america is america under the guildlines set forth by our founding gathers.  where they understood that when man is left alone he can achive great things.  they understood that a strong central government like a king leads to the coruption of the state, as well as misery for all.  the U.S. is barely 236 years old and yet we past the societies that have been around for thousands of years.  why?  because we are free or at least we where.  the federal government lead by both sides republicans and democrats are slowly eroding our freedoms and calling it fairness, a social contract, or some other flowery word for total government control.  yes united we stand in the protection of freedom, and our way of life.  the sad thing is that our way of life is being killed off from the inside out. 

you never did answer my question who gets to decide what surplus wealth is, is there a dollar amount, or a percentage of your income that could be considered surplus? 

open your eyes and look around the world, socialism has failed every time it has been tried europe is about to collapse it would have a few years ago if not for the U.S. tax payer giving european union trillions of dollars to shure it back up.

Our banksters have done in Europe too.  It is not their social benefits that break them, it is the vampire capitalists of the IMF that has screwed Greece like they have every other country they have been able to get their teeth into.

If you think we are succeeding under the Neocon, Supply Siders, look around you.  It is not socialism that is failing in America, it is not even really capitalism.  It is the corporate crap you support.

Say's Law is an economic fact.   It is not a socialist ideology.  The example of the game of Monopoly is how economic failure is what happens when the game is played on your terms.  As a game, it is fun to win, but then you have to start over and that is no big deal for a board game.  It is a very big deal if you have to deal with the social disaster and take care of human beings.  This is why economies require "game management" and the redistribution of wealth.  It is akin to having good circulation of the blood through the body instead of saying that because the head has all the ideas it should get all the blood, or that the heart pumps the blood so it should store it all near the pump.  It is also an argument against giving the arms, hands or legs all the blood for reasons of effort or work.  It is about having a healthy system, not a dispute about which part should deserve special rights.  Unproductive capital is self-defined by its lack of productivity.  It is not a partisan issue if you want to have a system that works.  If you want to be a vampire, of course, you just want to suck the blood for yourself.

I know that this offends the moralism of your economic theology, but as theology it is the worship of Mammon.  If you think 'socialism' has failed, what about capitalism?  The issue is democracy and the inclusive participation of people in power rather than confining that participation to the chosen few.  You are the one's who seem to think that only a few should participate in power.  Please do not confuse economics with politics and democracy.