Plan B Forum

Santorum: Mandela’s fight for freedom like the fight against Obamacare

Posted on December 7, 2013
(David McCumber, Washington Bureau Chief))

Well, you can’t say the GOP isn’t staying on message.

These days it seems like if a Republican is asked to comment on anything even remotely negative – from crabgrass to toenail fungus – it’s all about Obamacare.

Sometimes, they can even make it work if asked to comment about something incredibly positive – like Nelson Mandela’s fight for freedom.

Former Pennsylvania senator and presidential aspirant Rick Santorum pulled that off, with the help of Bill O’Reilly.

Soon after the announcement of Mandela’s death Thursday night, he told O’Reilly on Fox News, “You’re right, I mean, what he was advocating for was not necessarily the right answer” (ending decades of racial subjugation and oppression? That’s like saying what Lincoln was advocating wasn’t necessarily the right answer, but I digress) “…but he was fighting some great injustice.” (Wait for it…) “And I would make the argument that we have a great injustice going on right now in this country with an ever-increasing size of government that is taking over and controlling people’s lives – and” (drum roll) “…Obamacare is front and center in that.”

So in just one tortured sentence, Santorum accomplished the rhetorical somersault of likening Mandela’s struggle for a democratic and free society with the Republicans’ efforts to block the Affordable Care Act.

That’s a beauty.

See the video here: [there is no link given by the author. I guess he forgot...]

source

Oh brother...

Santorum 1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.

Does the government have the right to force citizens to buy certain things. For the good of society, could the government require individual to subscribe to certain news media? It is scary that some of you here would see nothing wrong with that.

The scary thing is that you seem to think a lot like Rick Santorum.

Joe Guy wrote:The scary thing is that you seem to think a lot like Rick Santorum.

I believe he is a republican and that is about all I know about him. What is the worse thing you can say about him?

liberty wrote:Does the government have the right to force citizens to buy certain things. For the good of society, could the government require individual to subscribe to certain news media? It is scary that some of you here would see nothing wrong with that.

Like buying brakes for your car. Forcing you to pay to use the sewer system instead of shitting in your own backyard. Having car insurance.


yrs,
rubato

liberty wrote:I believe he is a republican and that is about all I know about him. What is the worse thing you can say about him?

I'll let him speak for himself:

Santorum's actual statements are worse than your coarse attempts at humor (stolen from other sources).


yrs,
rubato

rubato wrote:Santorum's actual statements are worse than your coarse attempts at humor (stolen from other sources).

Oh my God!!!

You found out that I didn't create the above coarse attempts at humor!!

I've been busted by Sherlock Rubato...

Sherlock Rubato...

Is it me? Was rubato always this bad? He seems to be be more and more of a caricature of himself.

rubato wrote:Santorum's actual statements are worse than your coarse attempts at humor (stolen from other sources).


yrs,
rubato

"Before turning to those moral and mental aspects of the matter which present the greatest difficulties, let the inquirer begin by mastering more elementary problems. "
A Study in Scarlet.

Crackpot wrote:Is it me? Was rubato always this bad? He seems to be be more and more of a caricature of himself.

Well, yes and no...

Even 14 years ago at the Cafe Darte, he was ignorant enough to say things like, "the federal government is much more efficient than the private sector at creating jobs"

And making ridiculous assertions like, "the expansion of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government began under Ronald Reagan"...

But in recent years, even by his own "standards" he does seem to have degenerated into self-parody...

So yes, even though he started out bad enough, he's definitely become worse...

rubato wrote:

liberty wrote:Does the government have the right to force citizens to buy certain things. For the good of society, could the government require individual to subscribe to certain news media? It is scary that some of you here would see nothing wrong with that.

Like buying brakes for your car. Forcing you to pay to use the sewer system instead of shitting in your own backyard. Having car insurance.


yrs,
rubato

The government does not force you to own/buy a car. If you do buy a car and want to drive it on the roads, only then must you have insurance and pay for a minimum of upkeep on that car. One can buy a car and not register, insure nor pay for upkeep.

And paying for a sewer system is not mandatory. One can buy/rent a house that has it's own septic system. If you buy/rent a house in an area that has a sewer system only then do you have to pay for that sewer system. The gov does not force you to buy that house in that area. I do not pay for a centralized sewer system. I have my own septic system. Also, I can choose not to pay for city/town/county water (but I do) as I have my own well connection.

While I do think everyone should have some kind of healthcare coverage, forcing people somehow seems "heavy handed". And your examples do not compare well.

Crackpot wrote:Is it me? Was rubato always this bad? He seems to be be more and more of a caricature of himself.

The responses are far worse.

As always.

But cowards love company. And honesty isn't in vogue around here.

yrs,
rubato

[quote]The gov does not force you to buy that house in that area. I do not pay for a centralized sewer system. I have my own septic system.[/quote ]

And if the sewer system is extended to your area you will be forced by the government to connect to it whether you like it or not. Possibly for water as well.

oldr_n_wsr wrote:One can buy a car and not register, insure nor pay for upkeep.

That is not true, at least in my state. An automobile must be registered and insured unless it is completely (and provably) inoperable. Taking out the battery isn't enough. If it is capable of being driven on a road, whether or not you plan to do so, it must be registered and insured.

In some places, the government requires you to purchase garbage pick-up services from private haulers.

But more to the point, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the "individual mandate" effectively constitutes a tax, which is within Congress's power to levy. Personally, I think the structure is problematic (I think the whole package is problematic), but the most conservative court in 75 years has said it's okey dokey by them. This is no longer an argument that has any legs except among the screamy outrage set.

Sue U wrote:

oldr_n_wsr wrote:One can buy a car and not register, insure nor pay for upkeep.

That is not true, at least in my state. An automobile must be registered and insured unless it is completely (and provably) inoperable. Taking out the battery isn't enough. If it is capable of being driven on a road, whether or not you plan to do so, it must be registered and insured.

Not here. I had a 72 dodge dart I kept in my yard for a year or two as my son was getting to the age of driving. Only requirement was to keep it covered or out of sight from the street. I did both.

And as I said, I have well water and am not forced to use city water. I do it because it's cheaper than running the pump (electricity here costs a lot) and if the power goes out I still have city water, not so with a well (although I now have a generator so I could still have well water in a blackout).

I am not sure about having the same option for sewers. Probably not. I know my dad had a bungalow back in the 60's early 70's in Ronkonkoma and they levied a sewer tax on the property even though he was not being hooked up to the new district (The Southwest sewer district of fame and corruption). Sold the bungalow, never had to pay.

In most things there is a choice around what the gov mandates. Choose to buy in a certain area/county/state, here is what you are going to have to pay for. Don't want to, purchase/live elsewhere. With the ACA (notice how it's being called ACA more often now than Obamacare? Unless it's teh Republicans talking about it ) there is no choice. You buy or you get penalized. While the penalty is low for now, that does go up in the future.

With the ACA (notice how it's being called ACA more often now than Obamacare? Unless it's teh Republicans talking about it ) there is no choice. You buy or you get penalized. While the penalty is low for now, that does go up in the future.

Just like with state/local mandates, there is still the choice to move and live elsewhere. True, few would want to leave, but then few would want to move to another state or town to avoid a mandate either.