Paul describes Santorum in one sentence

Timothy Kincaid

December 19th, 2011

Speaking to Jay Leno, republican presidential candidate Ron Paul tagged Rick Santorum in one accurate sentence. And no it didn’t include the phrase “frothy mix”.

CNN reports that when Paul was asked on Friday about former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, he said Santorum does not like “gay people and Muslims.”

Yep, that pretty much covers it.

Timothy (TRiG)

December 19th, 2011

Some joker subscribed me to Ron Paul’s newsletter. So I’m getting e-mails opening “Dear Fellow Conservative”, followed by a bunch of fairly boring gumph about US politics. And the unsubscribe button doesn’t work.


Al Raymond

December 19th, 2011

I always refer to him as Sick Rantorum. I read once that he said it’s “perfect freedom” to go without health insurance—meaning you should get wiped out by illness, lose your home, and end up on the street!


December 19th, 2011

I’ve never understood people who think it’s some kind of a good thing or a right for someone to die of a preventable or treatable disease…and it’s funny how it’s never the people who say that who are dying.

I bet if Rick got sick he’d be going to the doctor for sure. It’s Okay for HIM to have the US government pay for his health care, as a former senator…


December 22nd, 2011

I think that Paul is sometimes just crazy, but on this one he absolutely correct.

Mark F.

December 22nd, 2011

I don’t worship the ground Ron Paul walks on, but I really like him overall. Funny that many of his positions are considered “crazy” while it is considered “sane” to run 1.5 trillion dollar deficits, have troops stationed around the world, and have wars going on constantly. It’s also consodered “sane” to throw people in jail indefinately without trial and go after people using and selling marijuana and other drugs (all positions of our “sane” President).


December 27th, 2011

A right is something that someone is obligated to abide by. You have a right to your life (which means no one can take it away, without due process) etc. Having healthcare, visiting a doctor, etc. isn’t a right, it’s a service offered between the doctor or hospital and patient. Doctors were far more affordable when governments didn’t “regulate” insurance providers, which is code for allowing insurance providers to have things their way, with the force of law. Which is why there are high premiums, shitty coverage that is always denied when needed, no buying cheaper insurance out of state, etc. The sane position is wanting something different that the same system with an order to buy insurance. That, my friend, is Obama’s healthcare “reform”. But you’d know all of this if you actually researched, and on sites other than “democratrhetoric” dot com.

Priya Lynn

December 27th, 2011

“Non” said “Having healthcare, visiting a doctor, etc. isn’t a right,”.

It is in Canada, and that’s the way it should be. : )


December 27th, 2011

Um no Priya , it isn’t a “right” it is a privilege. No is obligated to provide a service to you. All human transactions are done by choice, with free will from each participant. If doctor care were a “right” it could only be so by obligating doctors to offer their services, even if they chose not to. You never have the “right” to force some one else to do something for you.

Priya Lynn

December 27th, 2011

By your logic Desiree there is no right to a fair trial, police protection or free speech.

In Canada health care isn’t a privilege, its a right – doctors are obligated to provide every Canadian with health care. If you don’t want that, knock yourself out, but we demand it in Canada and that’s the way it should be.


December 28th, 2011

so the way it should be is that is your right to force other to provide you a service even if they don’t want to?

And free speech is a right because it doesn’t involve forcing anyone else to do anything. I accept only the “negative rights” – the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to property. Anything else must come at some one else’s expense. You cannot claim as a right something that must be provided by someone else. The word just doesn’t mean that. You can say it’s your “right” as a Canadian, but to me, that’s like you insisting the blue sky be called yellow and even getting others to agree with you. Doesn’t change the sky from being blue though.

Priya Lynn

December 28th, 2011

Desiree said “You cannot claim as a right something that must be provided by someone else.”.

Got it. So your bill of rights, the 14th amendment that provides the right to equal treatment under the law is not a right, because people shouldn’t be forced to provide you with equal treatment under the law ; )

Desiree said “so the way it should be is that is your right to force other to provide you a service even if they don’t want to?”.

No one is forced to provide me a service if they don’t want to, if they don’t want to serve me as a doctor or a business person they can quit their job or shut down their business. However, just as if I run a business in the states I am obligated to serve christians christian business owners and doctors rightfully should be obligated to serve law abiding LGBT’s or to get out of that service if they don’t want to do so. Everyone is obligated to provide services to someone they may not want to at some point or another. If you want to be employed or run a business at some point you’re going to be obligated to do things you don’t want to – that’s life, get used to it.

Timothy Kincaid

December 28th, 2011

The difference in your understanding of what is a right lies in your understanding of what is “government”.

If one believes that government is a real thing and that one can knock on its door and claim one’s rights, then anything can be a right: health care, food, clean water, clean air, Xbox360, digital cable, or anything else one wishes.

If one believes that government is a notion, an idea that represents the collection of individuals, then it gets a bit trickier. Whose door does one show up at for your Xbox360?

Greece is dealing with the reality of those differing perspectives now.

Timothy Kincaid

December 28th, 2011

Priya Lynn,

Perhaps this best illustrates the differences in these two perspectives:

people shouldn’t be forced to provide you with equal treatment under the law

I think it fair to presume that you think that people should be forced to provide me with equal treatment. I do not.

I believe that the 14th Amendment requires governmental institutions (courts, police, programs, military, etc.) provide me with equal treatment. But if you don’t want to bake my wedding cake, you should not be forced to. In fact, if you want to deny me your lunch counter, you should have that legal right.

I am far more of an individualist than a collectivist.

Priya Lynn

December 28th, 2011

Timothy said “I think it fair to presume that you think that people should be forced to provide me with equal treatment.”.

Earlier I would have agreed with that, but in thinking more deeply I’d say no one is forced to bake you a cake or serve you at a lunch counter, they can close their business or get another job if they don’t want to do that, so they are not being forced as such.

If you agree that the 14th amendment is a right then you agree the government (people) should be forced to provide you with a service. I’d say this doesn’t suddenly become wrong because a person isn’t a government employee which also brings up the issue that in Canada doctors ARE government employees.

Desiree, do you think Americans have a right to a public (1-12) education?

Timothy Kincaid

December 28th, 2011

Priya Lynn,

“I think it fair to presume that you think that people should be forced to provide me with equal treatment.”

If one must bake me a wedding cake in order to be allowed to bake anyone a wedding cake, would not this still hold as your underlying perspective? (i.e. You believe that they aren’t forced to bake me a cake but they are forced to provide me with equal treatment)

You and I differ. I believe that the right to bake cakes and offer them for sale resides in individuals rather than in the collective. I believe that the right to self-determination is an individual right and that the collective harm has to be very great before we even begin to consider encroaching on that right.

And, no I don’t believe that the people should be forced to provide me with a service. Not at all. But if the collective does provide a service it must provide that service to all persons equally.

Timothy Kincaid

December 28th, 2011

Actually, let me take it back one step.

As a human, I really own only one thing: my life. But I need other things: food, clothing, shelter, etc. So I trade a portion of my life (hours doing what someone else wants me to do) for money and use that money to provide for my other needs.

If one argues that the collective (the government, the people, society, etc.) has a claim on my time or my money, then I actually own nothing at all. Not even my life. And that is the definition of slavery.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts


Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.