Author Topic: Rick Santorum  (Read 1958 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #58 on: January 11, 2012, 01:31:57 AM »
While Dr. Paul does have some valid points and indeed a few decent ideas, the problem with him is that where he's wrong, he's just so off the radar as to be slightly insane.

Whatever version of past America that he pines for doesn't exist any longer.  It can't.
Any person that promises to bring the past back by getting rid of programs we have today, that have been in place for decades is flatly deluded.

-------------------


A lot of people are upset about President Obama signing the NDAA, but lets face it, we've already had indefinite detention, secret prisons, and 'extraordinary rendition' for years.  YEARS.

Remember when all that flap about secret prisons came out during the Iraq war?  Those prisons and systems didn't spring up magically overnight.  In fact, I'd speculate that we could probably trace that sort of shady business all the way back to McCarthy.  We've had an NDAA for decades, and there are all sorts of shady crappy things in each of them.  Feel free to go back and read a few.

People are upset about Obama allowing the Patriot act to be extended, but why the fuck weren't they upset about it in the first place?  I sure as hell was.

But I'll be honest here, if it's a choice between President Obama or any of these theocrats?  I'll take President Obama.  I'd *prefer* that we had qualified and decent candidates from multiple parties, but that just isn't going to happen.

The only real solutions are:
1) MUCH more voter participation and education.  Not just filter bubble education either.
2) ... that's it really.  People just need to be informed and participatory.

For too long our electorate has demanded bumper sticker solutions for textbook sized problems. 

People like the current crop of GOP contenders are perfect examples of this.  Even the so called educated Dr. Paul is suggesting very simplistic solutions.  "get rid of the FED"  Firstly, the president doesn't have that power, secondly, the FED actually does a fair number of important things.  What would he replace them with?  Nothing.  How is that a recipe for anything but an unmitigated disaster?

"seal the border" like it's an easy 1 + 1 solution.  I haven't heard anybody addressing the real reason why we have a lot of influx at the border int he first place.  It's nave to think it's just seal-able like that.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2357
  • Darwins +128/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #59 on: January 11, 2012, 07:48:04 AM »
While Dr. Paul does have some valid points and indeed a few decent ideas, the problem with him is that where he's wrong, he's just so off the radar as to be slightly insane.

Whatever version of past America that he pines for doesn't exist any longer.  It can't.
Any person that promises to bring the past back by getting rid of programs we have today, that have been in place for decades is flatly deluded.

I don't know why people are forgiving him so easily for the prejudicial and/or racist commentary made in the newsletters that bear his name. Either he has no oversight ability as his name means nothing to him because he allows people to publish whatever they want, or he agrees that blacks are, on the whole, thieving, gun-toting, AIDS-injecting thugs that run quicker than whites would expect. Obama doesn't express the same viewpoints as Rev Wright, but Obama is grilled for Wright's comments merely because he attended the same church over which Rev Wright presides. However, Ron Paul issues newsletters in his name that speak against anyone who isn't lily-white and the issue barely gets much play on TV or in newspapers. Did anyone hound Paul about this issue as much as they hounded Obama over Rev Wright? No. A few questions here and there, that's all. Is the mass media a little racist, too? Maybe, maybe not. The mass media is largely ignoring Ron Paul. He's like the guy at the accident scene who is behind the reporter, waves to the camera and yells "Hi, Mom!" They try to ignore him but since they can't video the accident scene without including him, he is not out of the picture.

I like that Ron Paul is bringing issues, real issues, front and center into the debates and into the campaign to get the public's attention, but his solutions are otherwise those of a mental patient who carves his rants into the wall of his locked room with a plastic knife he secreted from the cafeteria at lunch time.

This is the best the Republicans can offer? Well, at least it is a couple of steps away from the cliff of insanity than Santorum, Bachmann, or Perry offered.


A lot of people are upset about President Obama signing the NDAA, but lets face it, we've already had indefinite detention, secret prisons, and 'extraordinary rendition' for years.  YEARS.

Yes, but now natural-born US citizens can be included in that mess. Just one more nail in the coffin for liberty, democracy and due process. And from a Democrat!


People are upset about Obama allowing the Patriot act to be extended, but why the fuck weren't they upset about it in the first place?  I sure as hell was.

So was I, but nobody listened. Nobody cared. They just don't want to see planes crashed into buildings any longer. They were and are deaf to the real problem.


People like the current crop of GOP contenders are perfect examples of this.  Even the so called educated Dr. Paul is suggesting very simplistic solutions.  "get rid of the FED"  Firstly, the president doesn't have that power, secondly, the FED actually does a fair number of important things.  What would he replace them with?  Nothing.  How is that a recipe for anything but an unmitigated disaster?

Paul is a congenially packaged nut-job. I like him and I would like for him to stick around, but I would never vote for him. I think his son, Rand Paul, is worse than Ron.

"seal the border" like it's an easy 1 + 1 solution.  I haven't heard anybody addressing the real reason why we have a lot of influx at the border int he first place.  It's nave to think it's just seal-able like that.

Like building a wall will help this problem when all the Mexicans do in response is dig under the wall, not by a few feet but for nearly a mile. Meanwhile, you can cross from Canada into the USA undetected if you wish. If Mexicans can walk through the desert for miles to get across the US border, think about how pleasant a walk you can have from Canada into the USA. No fence, nobody watching ... nothing.

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #60 on: January 11, 2012, 10:01:56 AM »
For too long our electorate has demanded bumper sticker solutions for textbook sized problems. 

People like the current crop of GOP contenders are perfect examples of this.  Even the so called educated Dr. Paul is suggesting very simplistic solutions.  "get rid of the FED"  Firstly, the president doesn't have that power, secondly, the FED actually does a fair number of important things.  What would he replace them with?  Nothing.  How is that a recipe for anything but an unmitigated disaster?

"seal the border" like it's an easy 1 + 1 solution.  I haven't heard anybody addressing the real reason why we have a lot of influx at the border int he first place.  It's naive to think it's just seal-able like that.
exactly.  I dearly wish we still had required civics courses in school.   And Ron Paul is just one more who wants plenty of gov't to control anything *he*" doesn't like whilst claiming that he wants less intrusion into his life.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #61 on: January 11, 2012, 10:36:52 AM »
One would think that to be the case but history has shown us that that may not be true. In this election cycle we see that it's Romney and Gingrich ahead in the polls and they are anything but extreme right zealots. In 2008, John McCain won the nomination and he was very moderate by comparison to your Bachmanns, Pawlentys, and Santorums of the world.

Mind if I ask where you found out Gingrinch is ahead in the polls? I didn't even know he existed pretty much till just now.

The primaries show that in Iowa:

Mitt Romney 30,015 24.55%
Rick Santorum 30,007 24.54%
Ron Paul 26,219 21.45%
Newt Gingrich 16,251 13.29%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Republican_caucuses,_2012

And for the overall primaries till New Hampshire’s Primary ends in a couple:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012

I do know these stats will change once New Hampshire is officially done. Then we can look to South Carolina.

For the temporary New Hampshire caucus stats, here is a chart I got from a google search:

Mitt Romney 7 36.8%
Ron Paul 5 26.3%
Jon Huntsman 4 21.1%
Newt Gingrich 2 10.5%
Rick Perry 1 5.3%

everybody else got a straight up 0 and 0%.

So, Newt Gingrinch is 4th from every primary so far. Despite Huntsman bombing in Iowa, He’s doing pretty good in New Hampshire. I like how the Media is constantly portraying it Romney vs. Santorum, but if Santorum really got nothing like the chart is recommending, it is really Romney vs. Paul since he’s the only other candidate who’s being consistently high scoring 3rd or better every time. I am aware this will change come South Carolina, but still.

So, I would like to know where you are coming from Truth OT that Gingrinch is ahead in any kind of polls.

Boy was I late and out of touch with recent events. The last time I paid attention prior to the holidays Ronmey and Newt were the presummed frontrunners at 2 and 1 respectively and Dr. Paul a distant 3rd.  http://www.cnbc.com/id/45660982/Gingrich_Surges_to_Wide_Lead_Over_Romney_NBC_Poll


Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12076
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #62 on: January 11, 2012, 10:39:27 AM »
After reading all three pages, I come back to the same thought I always do: It's surprising that per state, Democrats outnumber Republicans yet Republicans always seem to be elected based on their inane idiocy. 

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #63 on: January 11, 2012, 11:59:08 AM »
exactly.  I dearly wish we still had required civics courses in school.   And Ron Paul is just one more who wants plenty of gov't to control anything *he*" doesn't like whilst claiming that he wants less intrusion into his life.

In that same vein of thought, I want to slap the hell out of people who say "Sure, Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude, what why won't he release his grades?"
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #64 on: January 11, 2012, 12:14:53 PM »
I love the fact he wants to return from the Federal Reserve to the Gold Standard. Since Gold is constantly going up in value and price, that move should immediately make our money worth a little bit more to the rest of the world.

I'm no economist, but my understanding is it isn't that simple. In fact, in many ways it is returning to a more primitive system that has less flexibility and makes recessions and depressions more likely and more difficult to deal with.  On top of that, it is not as if gold has inherent value any more than say, wool or lumber or ivory or potable water.   

Here are some links for you to peruse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Theory
http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/goldbug.html  this one points out that the gold standard is akin to saying it is an objective measure of wealth
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/15/gold-standard-forty-years-gone-and-good-riddance/ relates it to ron paul.  Note in his first quote where he talks about gold having "real value".  That is like talking about objective morals.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2007/12/why-is-the-gold-standard-crazy/2407/  a ron paul criticism from 2007.  Still true today.


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #65 on: January 11, 2012, 12:40:51 PM »
This is the best the Republicans can offer? Well, at least it is a couple of steps away from the cliff of insanity than Santorum, Bachmann, or Perry offered.


It isn't.  None of them are.
My speculation is that thanks to the heavy agitprop over the last few years *and* the idea that to counter an ideology what you need is not moderation but an opposite extreme this is where we've landed.  Essentially the hard push of 'us vs them' ideology.  It is very destructive.  The advent of information bubbles only serves to enhance the effect.

People, in my experience tend to think of things in teeter totter fashion.  To balance what they see as a heavy load on one side they put a heavy load on the other side.  Intuitively this makes sense, but unfortunately elections don't work that way.  the two sides don't balance each other out, because at the end of the day one of the weights goes away.  People are wary of it, which is why whenever we see one particular political side dominate all three houses we almost always see a reverse of it two years later.



To fix our unbalanced politics, we need more in the middle and less on the ends, most people understand this intellectually, including non-fringe Conservatives.  Heck, while I'm politically pretty Liberal in that I think safety nets are important, I also understand that a lot of those nets have a lot of abuse in them and should be fixed radically. [1]  The problem, as I've said is that people feel the (irrational) need to counter something which leads to further shifting outwards.  I don't remember who it was that posted the Overton window, which would seem to apply here, but doesn't.  If it did we would have moderate candidates showing up and appealing to both political sides, but we don't.

/rant.  Sorry, it's been bugging me.


Quote
Ron Paul

He's the only one not in an echo chamber, though honestly his ideas are actually worse, he appeals because he sounds different, despite the blatant racism, and unabashed desire for a Plutocratic system.
 1. Example: I have a student, when asked what he was going to do for a living when he graduates.. his answer was "collect SSI and disability" It should *not* be that easy for a healthy, high school educated student to get.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Death over Life

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 675
  • Darwins +25/-4
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #66 on: January 11, 2012, 01:02:06 PM »
I apologize for the very long post btw.

While Dr. Paul does have some valid points and indeed a few decent ideas, the problem with him is that where he's wrong, he's just so off the radar as to be slightly insane.

I wouldn’t say slightly insane and off the radar. As much as I want him as president, He does have a few policies that I do disagree with, but the good far outweighs the bad. However, sometimes Paul’s bad is let’s say Romney’s good. I need to go back and see everybody else’s views on things like energy.

Any person that promises to bring the past back by getting rid of programs we have today, that have been in place for decades is flatly deluded.

I do know there are a couple things Paul wants to get rid of. However saying “getting rid of programs” is a broad generalization. Mind sharing a few of these programs?

A lot of people are upset about President Obama signing the NDAA, but lets face it, we've already had indefinite detention, secret prisons, and 'extraordinary rendition' for years.  YEARS.

NDAA within itself isn’t the problem. It is what the Repubs added into it that Obama passed that has everybody’s pants in a bunch.  Section 1021 and 1032 to be exact.

What these Article allow that wasn’t in the past NDAA is the fact that the President can declare US Citizens as potential terrorists, and demand they be locked up indefinitely through the Military and it can be such. These are not POWs like it was in the past, these are US Citizens who voted for Him into office. The ONLY requirement for such is Obama simply saying, “Hey, I think he’s a terrorist”, and the Armed Forces are now swarming you. That’s it. Obama, realistically wouldn’t do this, but what makes you think future Presidents won’t do this? As mentioned before, no Trials, no due process, no habeus corpus.

Section 1021 and 1032 were not in the past NDAA passed bills. That is why now is different as opposed to the rest of the 49 years of NDAA. It’s the 1st time NDAA officially goes after USA citizens. It even gives our military authority over the Police, where it’s the Police’s job to capture and detain US criminals. However, unlike the Police, due to what is allowed, you don’t even need to commit a crime at all, even have a clean history to be labeled by the President as “a potential terrorist” and be detained.

In all fairness, I haven’t necessarily read the entire thing, though you don’t have to to know what they can and can’t do, but here’s a PDF file of it:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

Remember when all that flap about secret prisons came out during the Iraq war?  Those prisons and systems didn't spring up magically overnight.  In fact, I'd speculate that we could probably trace that sort of shady business all the way back to McCarthy.  We've had an NDAA for decades, and there are all sorts of shady crappy things in each of them.  Feel free to go back and read a few.

I agree and concur here. That being said, it still doesn’t justify the shady business.

People are upset about Obama allowing the Patriot act to be extended, but why the fuck weren't they upset about it in the first place?  I sure as hell was.

I agree, but I don’t think people were that really educated on the Patriot Act at the time Bush signed it. Even then, we were still in a scare with 9/11.
It’s kind of like right now with the SOPA act. Not really anybody really knows what it’s about, and Congress is trying to pass it secretly or without much attention. SOPA literally is threatening the entire existence of not only our freedoms of speech, but the internet itself in the USA (unless you look for a back door and find yourself an internet service that connects you to the internet in the UK or Canada or something).

But I'll be honest here, if it's a choice between President Obama or any of these theocrats?  I'll take President Obama.  I'd *prefer* that we had qualified and decent candidates from multiple parties, but that just isn't going to happen.

Same here.

The only real solutions are:
1) MUCH more voter participation and education.  Not just filter bubble education either.
2) ... that's it really.  People just need to be informed and participatory.

For too long our electorate has demanded bumper sticker solutions for textbook sized problems. 

Agreed.

People like the current crop of GOP contenders are perfect examples of this.  Even the so called educated Dr. Paul is suggesting very simplistic solutions.

Concerning the textbook sized problems, I think they aren’t even textbook problems. They are quite simplistic that has been taken out of hand. We got into debt, what do you do? You set up a budget and get out of debt.

"get rid of the FED"  Firstly, the president doesn't have that power, secondly, the FED actually does a fair number of important things.  What would he replace them with?  Nothing.  How is that a recipe for anything but an unmitigated disaster?

Alright, what I don’t get is, President doesn’t have the power to remove FED, but President Nixon had the power to sign it into law? According to wikipedia, this happened around the Great Depression, and if we are to listen to the media, we are heading to another Great Depression so if Great Depression is a requirement for changing the monetary systems, now would be a pretty good time.

Gold Standard/FED aside, even if you are correct and that this can’t happen (despite Bush getting us into the Iraqi war illegally without an official Declaration of War), Ron Paul until recently was the ONLY candidate who had a plan or even talked about removing 1 trillion off of our National Debt within the 1st year in office. Before then, Ron was the only candidate who even spoke of it, much less made it a priority. You can’t move forward without getting rid of what is dragging us down, and this Debt is what’s dragging us down.

He is also still the only candidate who’s going to start cutting spending by starting with his paycheck from 400,000 to 39,, his benefits by accepting none of them, and a refusal to take any expensive vacations or vacations at all while in office.

So, even if he can’t change from the Federal Reserve to the Gold Standard, he still is the only candidate who actually has a plan to decrease our debt, whereas guys like Santorum (even admitted in the NH debates), Romney, and the rest, are just going to keep on spending and eventually bankrupt us or maybe extend our allowed debt to the sextillions or something.

You will need to go into more details of replacing things with. That is a pretty broad generalization there.

"seal the border" like it's an easy 1 + 1 solution.  I haven't heard anybody addressing the real reason why we have a lot of influx at the border int he first place.  It's nave to think it's just seal-able like that.

The easy answer would be Drug Cartels, bad Mexican economy, pretty much, it’s because of Mexico that Mexicans are coming over. I really don’t blame them neither. My problem is when the illegals get more rights as illegals than my Mexican friends who have to pay taxes, get less rights, less grants and tuitions etc. all because they are US citizens as opposed to illegal immigrants. Before anything else I do want to make clear, yes I know that the Natives are treated as 2nd class citizens despite the fact that this is their land, and I honestly believe the Natives deserve much better than what the US gives them.

I honestly like Paul’s plan on the border, where we will be using our troops to secure the border instead of all over the planet like we do now.

I don't know why people are forgiving him so easily for the prejudicial and/or racist commentary made in the newsletters that bear his name. Either he has no oversight ability as his name means nothing to him because he allows people to publish whatever they want, or he agrees that blacks are, on the whole, thieving, gun-toting, AIDS-injecting thugs that run quicker than whites would expect. Obama doesn't express the same viewpoints as Rev Wright, but Obama is grilled for Wright's comments merely because he attended the same church over which Rev Wright presides. However, Ron Paul issues newsletters in his name that speak against anyone who isn't lily-white and the issue barely gets much play on TV or in newspapers. Did anyone hound Paul about this issue as much as they hounded Obama over Rev Wright? No. A few questions here and there, that's all. Is the mass media a little racist, too? Maybe, maybe not. The mass media is largely ignoring Ron Paul. He's like the guy at the accident scene who is behind the reporter, waves to the camera and yells "Hi, Mom!" They try to ignore him but since they can't video the accident scene without including him, he is not out of the picture.





Over and over again, yet people still need to bring this up.

exactly.  I dearly wish we still had required civics courses in school.   And Ron Paul is just one more who wants plenty of gov't to control anything *he*" doesn't like whilst claiming that he wants less intrusion into his life.

Velkyn, with all due respect, I have heard this from you many times. Would it be alright to provide evidence for the accusations against Ron Paul? If RP is doing anything, he is creating more rights than anything.

He is pro-life, not pro-choice, and he is giving the states the power to allow or disallow abortions. Has nothing to do with his own personal views.

He is not removing Social Security. He is going to give the young people the option to bail out of SS or to keep it.

As you see in the videos, he want’s to legalize drugs instead of having many people put in prison.

Sounds nothing like government control to me. You may be confusing Paul with Santorum.

I love the fact he wants to return from the Federal Reserve to the Gold Standard. Since Gold is constantly going up in value and price, that move should immediately make our money worth a little bit more to the rest of the world.

I'm no economist, but my understanding is it isn't that simple. In fact, in many ways it is returning to a more primitive system that has less flexibility and makes recessions and depressions more likely and more difficult to deal with.  On top of that, it is not as if gold has inherent value any more than say, wool or lumber or ivory or potable water.   

Here are some links for you to peruse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Theory
http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/goldbug.html  this one points out that the gold standard is akin to saying it is an objective measure of wealth
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/15/gold-standard-forty-years-gone-and-good-riddance/ relates it to ron paul.  Note in his first quote where he talks about gold having "real value".  That is like talking about objective morals.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2007/12/why-is-the-gold-standard-crazy/2407/  a ron paul criticism from 2007.  Still true today.

Thank you very much for this screwtape. It will give me something to research on. With this being said, I also agree overall that it isn’t that simple. Nothing will change overnight. It will be a gradual change. I do agree that gold, nor anything really, has any inherent value of it’s own. It’s what we give to it that gives it it’s value.

It is just atm, you present a FED note or a lump of gold to somebody, and more than likely, they are going to take the gold clump instead of the FED note. That is what shows you the current worth of our current currency.

With this being said, I don’t doubt MadBunny’s words being true that RP may not be able to go back to the gold standard. Realistically, I know to many in the GOP are going to stop him from doing such. But with the 1 bad idea if it indeed is, as I’ve mentioned, he has a lot of good ideas and is mainly the only candidate who really has a desire to rid of our national debt FED or gold standard.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #67 on: January 11, 2012, 01:03:10 PM »
I love the fact he wants to return from the Federal Reserve to the Gold Standard. Since Gold is constantly going up in value and price, that move should immediately make our money worth a little bit more to the rest of the world.

I'm no economist, but my understanding is it isn't that simple. In fact, in many ways it is returning to a more primitive system that has less flexibility and makes recessions and depressions more likely and more difficult to deal with.  On top of that, it is not as if gold has inherent value any more than say, wool or lumber or ivory or potable water.   

Here are some links for you to peruse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Theory
http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/goldbug.html  this one points out that the gold standard is akin to saying it is an objective measure of wealth
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/15/gold-standard-forty-years-gone-and-good-riddance/ relates it to ron paul.  Note in his first quote where he talks about gold having "real value".  That is like talking about objective morals.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2007/12/why-is-the-gold-standard-crazy/2407/  a ron paul criticism from 2007.  Still true today.

The biggest problem with the gold standard is that it would only back a fraction of the currency in circulation (there ain't enough gold in the world that would allow us to have a true gold standard) which would render going to the gold standard ineffective and virtually unnecessary unless the money supply was drastically reduced. Reducing the money supply so drastically would potentially result is drastic deflation and be a hinderance to economic growth and innovation because of it.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #68 on: January 11, 2012, 01:43:38 PM »
Velkyn, with all due respect, I have heard this from you many times. Would it be alright to provide evidence for the accusations against Ron Paul? If RP is doing anything, he is creating more rights than anything.He is pro-life, not pro-choice, and he is giving the states the power to allow or disallow abortions. Has nothing to do with his own personal views. He is not removing Social Security. He is going to give the young people the option to bail out of SS or to keep it.As you see in the videos, he want’s to legalize drugs instead of having many people put in prison. Sounds nothing like government control to me. You may be confusing Paul with Santorum.
Ah, no. 
Ron Paul is, in my opinion, a shyster and an short-sighted idiot.  He thinks taking an ax to gov’t will magically fix things.  He thinks that the private market is a cure all even when experience shows that it is not. He requests and accepts earmarks but prates about how the free market can do anything.  Funny how he needs gov’t money for marketing shrimp.  I see him as quite a hypocrite.

He wants prayer to be allowed back in the schools and he wants to allow states and local gov’t to make decisions on religion.  In theory, he supposedly also wants to make sure that no one is forced to follow any religion but how this is supposedly going to work with patchwork of states doing all sorts of idiocy is beyond me. All I see is a man who is intentionally deferring to states to get the laws he wants but to avoid looking like he’s for some pretty vile things, like interfering in women’s health care (though he’s tried to get nonsense like the Sanctity of Life act through Congress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act I guess women aren’t included in his desire for “liberty”) He claims to be such a constitutionalist but he only hides behind it when convenient. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #69 on: January 11, 2012, 02:33:05 PM »
Ah, no. 
Ron Paul is, in my opinion, a shyster and an short-sighted idiot.  He thinks taking an ax to gov’t will magically fix things.  He thinks that the private market is a cure all even when experience shows that it is not. He requests and accepts earmarks but prates about how the free market can do anything. Funny how he needs gov’t money for marketing shrimp.  I see him as quite a hypocrite.

To be fair about Paul and earmarks, he often votes against bills with earmarks he has requested because he finds such bills to be unconstitutional in nature but realizing that they will pass nonetheless, asks for earmarks that can allow residents of congressional districts to have a greater role in the allocation of the dollars they have taxed from them. He sees the system as flawed, but realizes that it is the system and that he must work within it until it is changed. He does want to change it and has expressed a desire and various plans to do so for years, so calling him hypocritical does not do the man justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Lower_spending_and_smaller_government
Quote
Paul himself has inserted appropriations for projects such as the renovation of a movie theater and subsidies for the shrimp industry, whereas reportedly, "neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function". The Congressman has responded to criticism about earmarks by providing an explanation in his weekly column. Paul says, "In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats."

He wants prayer to be allowed back in the schools and he wants to allow states and local gov’t to make decisions on religion. In theory, he supposedly also wants to make sure that no one is forced to follow any religion but how this is supposedly going to work with patchwork of states doing all sorts of idiocy is beyond me. All I see is a man who is intentionally deferring to states to get the laws he wants but to avoid looking like he’s for some pretty vile things,

Why do you say "in theory"? And why do you suppose that a "patchwork of states" will be "doing all sorts of idiocy" as if idiocy will rule the day moreso on the state level than on the Federal level? With Paul differing to the states, how can he be sure or foresee that the laws the states will pass will match those he is in favor of?

Quote
Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in. Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools.

Dude ain't perfect, but you seem a bit hard on him in areas most see as his strong points.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #70 on: January 11, 2012, 03:36:50 PM »
True, hence why if you want Obama re-elected, you want those 2 [Santorum and Perry] as the primaries.

No. If anything goes wrong with the election you have the worst people in office. I always want the best each party has to offer as candidates in case the one I don't want actually gets elected.

What kind of info are we talking about that made you dislike him [Ron Paul]? I hope this isn't that racism garbage from over 20 years ago that He didn't even write himself. This isn't dealing with that CNN reporter scuffle a day or 2 ago is it? I say that because I've heard that type of disdain for Paul in the past, but the man keeps on answering it over and over, and yet the media keeps on hammering it, since the media hates Paul (and Huntsman it seems) and they are trying to discredit Paul as a future President. So hearing something I haven't heard before will make me look into it a bit more.

I didn't like how long it took him to finally disavow those newsletters. It's easier to start with disavowing them then providing proof they are garbage. Only saying that you currently have a view now opposing a position you seem to have endorsed in the past seems to imply you did support those past documents. I would be better able to support someone who owned their past stupidity and labeled it as such pointing out they have gotten a clue  rather than weaseling out of it.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian who realized he'd never get elected as one but could get elected as a Republican. He is attracting the Republicans who claim they want cuts to the government but don't realize he's still Libertarian. He will do what he can to pare federal government to the bone – a lot farther than any Republican ever wants to go.

At times I have agreed with the Libertarians – and the Democrats and the Republicans. Each has good ideas but they all have bad ideas too. We need more parties and more co-operation. Unfortunately we are headed in the opposite direction.

 
My suspicious side makes me wonder if Paul, Gingrich, Bachman, Santorum and Perry are all there for a Overton Window shift so the country is okay with electing a Mormon or two – Romney and Huntsman. Before this neither was much of a contender to my knowledge.
It's a pretty cool theory, but I highly doubt that the Mormonism was part of the agenda. You can tell that the Media puts all the hype on Romney, and back in 2008 he was constantly dragged down for being a Mormon, but now it's okay and even encouraged to be openly Mormon.
AND
The problem, as I've said is that people feel the (irrational) need to counter something which leads to further shifting outwards.  I don't remember who it was that posted the Overton window, which would seem to apply here, but doesn't.  If it did we would have moderate candidates showing up and appealing to both political sides, but we don't.
 

From the Wiki article about the Overton window (which someone else initially brought up) I saw the current situation as a possible attempt to shift the Overton window – which it could be viewed as. The shift being an attempt to defuse the Mormonism – "oh, gee, he's a Mormon but these guys are morons – we want guys with that extra "m".

The Wiki article indicates that shifting the window calls for introducing a new concept/opinion/proposal that is more radical than what you have already proposed to cause people to view the older one as more acceptable. Romney has been around but a large resistance to him was his religion. Now his religion seems reasonable because he's less nutty than the non-Mormons in the GOP field.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Death over Life

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 675
  • Darwins +25/-4
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #71 on: January 11, 2012, 04:18:05 PM »
He wants prayer to be allowed back in the schools and he wants to allow states and local gov’t to make decisions on religion. 


Going by the wikipedia article, it specifically states: Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in.

And for the final comment:

Paul has sponsored a constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools.

With the rest of the article, though he is a Baptist Christian and will favor Christianity, just like we do with atheism, these comments on authority shows he is actually indifferent to either position. Paul may indeed want prayer back in schools, but he wants US to decide that for ourselves, not himself. It is something I see a lot of Paul is he tells us what he is going to do, and then gives us his personal opinion.

I personally think the putting all the power from the federal government to the state government is good.  As I said, I don’t agree with everything He wishes to do.

Either way though, religion like that, unless it’s theocratic like the rest of the candidates, I wouldn’t even bother with that to use as a big reason not to vote for Paul specifically.

In theory, he supposedly also wants to make sure that no one is forced to follow any religion but how this is supposedly going to work with patchwork of states doing all sorts of idiocy is beyond me.

It’s the beauty of getting to voice your opinion. It is as MadBunny said, many people don’t get involved because they feel it is all irrelevant, or they are powerless. Sure it may cause division initially, but once the smoke dies down and people realize what they are and aren’t doing with their rights it can work out. This is coming from a guy in the Bible Belt btw. To make it work, we need our people to get involved and make sure it is what the people want for their own state, not so much the President deciding the entire country.

All I see is a man who is intentionally deferring to states to get the laws he wants but to avoid looking like he’s for some pretty vile things, like interfering in women’s health care (though he’s tried to get nonsense like the Sanctity of Life act through Congress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act I guess women aren’t included in his desire for “liberty”) He claims to be such a constitutionalist but he only hides behind it when convenient. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul   

True, but I really like the idea that I will be the reason abortion is either banned or allowed, and not Ron Paul. I do know with power comes responsibility, but him giving us the choice to say how this part of the US should be ran instead of him telling us how it’s supposed to be ran, I like.

You have shown me that RP isn’t consistent on abortion, so I give you props for that! Despite the fact that he is heavily pro-life, he has stated many times in his campaign that the federal has no right to allow or ban abortion, and that it is a states right. Then he gives us the personal opinion of what he would like. His track record may not bode well on abortion, but we will see him keep to his words on abortion being a state right and not a moral or federal right.

It stated on wikipedia, and this is his campaigning:

Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue."

Despite pro-life, that’s his pledge. So if you want women’s rights to be upheld, voice your opinion when your state decides if abortion should be legal or illegal. Even then, I will also say, abortion alone is not a good topic to decide an entire vote on. To many Christians have done that already. But I do know that most people who don’t like Ron Paul have far more than abortion and religion to discuss. I am just telling it as I see it since I know the media loves to misconstrue his views and make him out to be what he is not.

For fun though, about this issue, Wintery Knight released an article on the 21 of Dec. last year as a realistic possibility that would happen concerning abortion if Paul becomes president and implements the above:

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/if-ron-paul-were-president-16-to-28-states-would-keep-abortion-legal/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #72 on: January 11, 2012, 04:34:47 PM »
Going by the wikipedia article, it specifically states: Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in.
Yep, I know since I mentioned that in my reply to you.  Funny that.  Again, all I see is a man that figures that states will do his dirty work.  And I am rather bemused at your claim that since RP favors Christianity and is trying to work it back into gov’t, all atheists must do the same thing about atheism.  And no, it’s not “us” who is making any decision, it is gov’t, he just wants the states to do it.  And golly, it would suck to be the minority, as atheists do know.   We’ll have Mississippi being a theocracy and a federal gov’t will have no power to do anything about it.  Paul’s nonsense is such a wink and a nod. 

Quote
Either way though, religion like that, unless it’s theocratic like the rest of the candidates, I wouldn’t even bother with that to use as a big reason not to vote for Paul specifically.
  Yep, that religion like that which has him writing legislation for the gov’t to say what a fetus is.  Hilarious that he insists that gov’t should keep out of medicine, until it’s convenient for him. 

Yep, it is great that people can voice their opinions.  But that’s not what RP is doing, he is saying what he will *do*.  And I find it incredibly naïve that you think it will just ‘work out’.  I seem to recall a war fought when it didn’t, that people wanted different rights. 
Quote
True, but I really like the idea that I will be the reason abortion is either banned or allowed, and not Ron Paul. I do know with power comes responsibility, but him giving us the choice to say how this part of the US should be ran instead of him telling us how it’s supposed to be ran, I like.
Sure you’ll be the reason. &)  Everything will go your way, right?  It’s the only intelligent thing to do.  &)   Yep, RP claims that the constitutin does this and does that, but everyone does the same thing. It’s like the bible, we get all sorts of interpretations of it.  If the fed shouldn’t regulate abortion, then why should *any* gov’t if gov’t should stay out of health care?  Again, I just see him as using this as a backdoor.  Your link shows that yep, there probably would be some states that would keep their laws as they are, but again so many would make things much much worse.  and I can see that as a lovely plan for balkanization.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Death over Life

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 675
  • Darwins +25/-4
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #73 on: January 11, 2012, 04:42:04 PM »
Sorry for the double post.

No. If anything goes wrong with the election you have the worst people in office. I always want the best each party has to offer as candidates in case the one I don't want actually gets elected.

This is my stance as well, but I really find it hard to legitimately have either Santorum or Perry as future president, especially with Obama as President and the momentum he has right now. It’s my way of making fun of the GOP with what I said earlier.

I didn't like how long it took him to finally disavow those newsletters. It's easier to start with disavowing them then providing proof they are garbage. Only saying that you currently have a view now opposing a position you seem to have endorsed in the past seems to imply you did support those past documents. I would be better able to support someone who owned their past stupidity and labeled it as such pointing out they have gotten a clue  rather than weaseling out of it.

As stated in the video earlier with CNN, he didn’t even read nor researched his own newsletter, but balancing being a congressman, and a doctor, and having that come about, you can’t expect him to be perfect in holding up to all 3 at the same time.

Let us say indeed he was racist. Nevermind the fact that he didn’t even write these articles at all. This was 20 years ago. The RP running now is not the same guy 20 years ago. He learned a lot since then, changed quite a bit, and is now better. I think it is funny that we hammer on Paul for something 20 years ago, when it is completely irrelevant to today, and yet we are constantly forgetting the fact that people can change from their past views. RP is ultimately a human, has seen where he was wrong, and changed. I don’t see that as a bad thing necessarily.

The only other option is to call sober people who battled their addictions many years ago druggies despite not doing drugs for so many years. Call an elderly man a thief because as a teenager he stole a candy bar out of a store, or call a US military vets murderers for having to protect the people of the USA back in the days. I say that because people who are calling Ron Paul today racist for what he didn’t even write at all himself 20 years ago are pretty much doing exactly what the above says. It’s like we are back with the Salem Witch Craft trials again. At least with Obama’s criticism, Rev. Wright is still preaching that stuff today.

Then again, I’m not a fan of guilty by association accusations anyway.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian who realized he'd never get elected as one but could get elected as a Republican. He is attracting the Republicans who claim they want cuts to the government but don't realize he's still Libertarian. He will do what he can to pare federal government to the bone – a lot farther than any Republican ever wants to go.

Very True, and I agree.

At times I have agreed with the Libertarians – and the Democrats and the Republicans. Each has good ideas but they all have bad ideas too. We need more parties and more co-operation. Unfortunately we are headed in the opposite direction.

And you have perfectly described why I dislike our government so much. It is a reason why I really liked George Washington as our 1st president, and still the only president to never be affiliated with a political party. We don’t need more parties, we need more co-operation, brainstorming to fix problems instead of mudslinging, and for us to work as a team instead of these little parties. By the end of the night we are all 1 party and that is residents of the United States or even better imo, planet Earth, just like there is only 1 race and that‘s the human race.

My suspicious side makes me wonder if Paul, Gingrich, Bachman, Santorum and Perry are all there for a Overton Window shift so the country is okay with electing a Mormon or two – Romney and Huntsman. Before this neither was much of a contender to my knowledge.
It's a pretty cool theory, but I highly doubt that the Mormonism was part of the agenda. You can tell that the Media puts all the hype on Romney, and back in 2008 he was constantly dragged down for being a Mormon, but now it's okay and even encouraged to be openly Mormon.
AND
The problem, as I've said is that people feel the (irrational) need to counter something which leads to further shifting outwards.  I don't remember who it was that posted the Overton window, which would seem to apply here, but doesn't.  If it did we would have moderate candidates showing up and appealing to both political sides, but we don't.
 

From the Wiki article about the Overton window (which someone else initially brought up) I saw the current situation as a possible attempt to shift the Overton window – which it could be viewed as. The shift being an attempt to defuse the Mormonism – "oh, gee, he's a Mormon but these guys are morons – we want guys with that extra "m".

The Wiki article indicates that shifting the window calls for introducing a new concept/opinion/proposal that is more radical than what you have already proposed to cause people to view the older one as more acceptable. Romney has been around but a large resistance to him was his religion. Now his religion seems reasonable because he's less nutty than the non-Mormons in the GOP field.

It will be something for me to look up in addition to the Gold standard issues screwtape posted. I can not deny this is what happened, but I don’t think it was the intent. It’s just right now people are 1 issue voters and with the GOP they are voting on 1 issue: who can beat President Obama come elections? That is why I haven’t taken the Mormonism into consideration, because Romney is being billed not as the Mormon, but as the guy who can beat Obama in the elections. If he didn’t have that valuable stigma attached to him, I honestly really doubt he’d be doing as great as he is doing now and that would be because of the Mormonism. I forgot where I read it, but I read that even despite this, at least 50% of Evangelicals refuse to vote for a Mormon regardless. Whether True or not, I don’t know.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2357
  • Darwins +128/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #74 on: January 11, 2012, 06:01:04 PM »
... all I see is a man that figures that states will do his dirty work.

I agree.

Whenever Paul says that he thinks it should be up to the states how X, Y or Z are handled, he is basically saying that he hates the Constitution. He doesn't respect it. It's all talk to say that you are for individual liberties but turn around and claim that states should have the right to decide on issues regarding those same liberties. We do have the Constitution as a binder among all states to provide the same rights and liberties to all citizens. Using abortion as the issue of the moment, if you think that under the Constitution a woman has a right to chose what to do with her body, then it shouldn't be up to each state whether they want to outlaw the procedure or not. (Let's ignore for the moment that many states have passed legislation that has yet been challenged but works to effectively outlaw abortion.) However, claiming that each state should be allowed to set its own laws regarding abortion is effectively overturning Roe v. Wade, while at the same time denying all woman, as a class, the opportunity to choose what to do with their own bodies. Paul wants to neuter the Constitution. If I recall correctly, he used to claim that no amendments after the first 10 were needed, and he didn't particularly care for the first 10. I do think that was a loooong time ago, so he probably wised up about how unpopular that line of thinking is.

Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #75 on: January 11, 2012, 08:57:37 PM »
Any person that promises to bring the past back by getting rid of programs we have today, that have been in place for decades is flatly deluded.

I do know there are a couple things Paul wants to get rid of. However saying “getting rid of programs” is a broad generalization. Mind sharing a few of these programs?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service.

Now, mind you he isn't talking about 'replacing' or 'fixing' any of these agencies, he just wants to get rid of them. 
These are Congress created agencies with some pretty important and specific jobs.
----

His stated position on all of this stuff is that he seems to think that the States will manage it all, despite the fact that obviously they had not, which is what led to these agencies in the first place.

As others have pointed out, this is not the position that a leader should be taking.  He's effectively copping out of the role of leadership and shrugging his shoulders.  Much like he did with the stupid racist memos that recently resurfaced.  Either he's astonishingly incompetent or he just doesn't care what's done in his name, with his signature and office on it.

Quote
A lot of people are upset about President Obama signing the NDAA, but lets face it, we've already had indefinite detention, secret prisons, and 'extraordinary rendition' for years.  YEARS.

NDAA within itself isn’t the problem. It is what the Repubs added into it that Obama passed that has everybody’s pants in a bunch.  Section 1021 and 1032 to be exact.

What these Article allow that wasn’t in the past NDAA is the fact that the President can declare US Citizens as potential terrorists, and demand they be locked up indefinitely through the Military and it can be such. These are not POWs like it was in the past, these are US Citizens who voted for Him into office. The ONLY requirement for such is Obama simply saying, “Hey, I think he’s a terrorist”, and the Armed Forces are now swarming you. That’s it. Obama, realistically wouldn’t do this, but what makes you think future Presidents won’t do this? As mentioned before, no Trials, no due process, no habeus corpus.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/24MEMO-GUIDE.html
http://www.aclu.org/accountability/released.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/obama-releases-secret-bus_n_171171.html


Patriot act already had provisions for this stuff, not to mention the Bybee memo's that were used during the Bush Administration to justify torture in the first place.
This goes hand in hand with the whole 'war on terror' problem.  What did you think warrant-less wiretaps, and permission to torture anybody connected meant?  They were already flatly considering whether or not human rights violations were applicable arguments.  Terror "suspects" already included US citizens.

This portion of this particular NDAA is only one more meter down the slippery slope of us handing away our rights one by one.
We did more damage to ourselves than any amount of planes ever could have. 

You know what the right answer to 911 should have been?  Virtually anything other than what we did.

Quote
Remember when all that flap about secret prisons came out during the Iraq war?  Those prisons and systems didn't spring up magically overnight.  In fact, I'd speculate that we could probably trace that sort of shady business all the way back to McCarthy.  We've had an NDAA for decades, and there are all sorts of shady crappy things in each of them.  Feel free to go back and read a few.

I agree and concur here. That being said, it still doesn’t justify the shady business.

People are upset about Obama allowing the Patriot act to be extended, but why the fuck weren't they upset about it in the first place?  I sure as hell was.

I agree, but I don’t think people were that really educated on the Patriot Act at the time Bush signed it. Even then, we were still in a scare with 9/11.
It’s kind of like right now with the SOPA act. Not really anybody really knows what it’s about, and Congress is trying to pass it secretly or without much attention. SOPA literally is threatening the entire existence of not only our freedoms of speech, but the internet itself in the USA (unless you look for a back door and find yourself an internet service that connects you to the internet in the UK or Canada or something).


Meh.  SOPA is just the logical next step after attacking Net Neutrality, and that comes after the RIAA's various cases as well.
It's "get tough on crime" legislation without actually considering the cost or impact of what it means.  People are remarkably stupid.  If SOPA fails, and it might now that it's gained attention there will be another version of it, possibly hidden away in something else, flood relief or something. 

Which leads us back to the whole Patriot Act(s) and the NDAA.  Essentially the problem is not these laws, but the fact that we're even considering them.
The fundamental shift in lawmaking needs to be refocused on the ideal that national laws are meant to protect and preserve freedom rather than restricting and confining.  In fact, I'd speculate that we *already* have legal avenues that allow a lot of what's in SOPA, though from a 'cyber terrorism' angle.



http://blogs.reuters.com/photographers-blog/2011/09/08/inside-the-nypds-counter-terrorism-unit/
http://www.informationweek.com/news/57702375


Quote
For too long our electorate has demanded bumper sticker solutions for textbook sized problems. 

Agreed.

People like the current crop of GOP contenders are perfect examples of this.  Even the so called educated Dr. Paul is suggesting very simplistic solutions.

Concerning the textbook sized problems, I think they aren’t even textbook problems. They are quite simplistic that has been taken out of hand. We got into debt, what do you do? You set up a budget and get out of debt.

Oh, it is simplistic in the sense that the budget is the budget.
Like when Bush cut taxes and increased spending while at the same exact time increasing the size of government.  (that was entirely bad).

The problem here is that our economy has been doing things entirely wrong for decades.  DECADES.

Recently I had an argument with a friend of mine about how Obama's stimulus was not a test of Keynesian economics precisely because we've been deficit spending for 40 years give or take.  Short version of Keynesian economics: in a recession the government should spend and not raise taxes.  Increasing the debt.  During the bubbles it should practice austerity and raise taxes.)  We've been doing the opposite of that for so long that I don't even know that we fit *anybodies* economic model any more. 

Dr. Paul's idea that we can just get rid of agencies and the budget will magically repair itself is naive and does not speak toward a nuanced or sophisticated approach to the country.  It's more like 'fire baaaad firebad firebadfirebad!





I cannot abide the idea of somebody who thinks Government itself is fundamentally evil running for national office.  Not any more than I'd support the idea of someone who openly advocated secession for President.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/20/ron-paul-defends-secessio_n_188893.html

I guess that includes Dr. Paul.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #76 on: January 11, 2012, 09:02:32 PM »
The problem, as I've said is that people feel the (irrational) need to counter something which leads to further shifting outwards.  I don't remember who it was that posted the Overton window, which would seem to apply here, but doesn't.  If it did we would have moderate candidates showing up and appealing to both political sides, but we don't.
 

From the Wiki article about the Overton window (which someone else initially brought up) I saw the current situation as a possible attempt to shift the Overton window – which it could be viewed as. The shift being an attempt to defuse the Mormonism – "oh, gee, he's a Mormon but these guys are morons – we want guys with that extra "m".

The Wiki article indicates that shifting the window calls for introducing a new concept/opinion/proposal that is more radical than what you have already proposed to cause people to view the older one as more acceptable. Romney has been around but a large resistance to him was his religion. Now his religion seems reasonable because he's less nutty than the non-Mormons in the GOP field.

To an Atheist, Mormonism isn't really all that much more stupid than Christianity, or Scientology.  Or Catholics in general.  Seriously, people who believe the creator of the universe talks to them by sending pictures of his kids mother in pieces of toast and water stains?
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #77 on: January 11, 2012, 10:08:50 PM »
From the Wiki article about the Overton window (which someone else initially brought up) I saw the current situation as a possible attempt to shift the Overton window – which it could be viewed as. The shift being an attempt to defuse the Mormonism – "oh, gee, he's a Mormon but these guys are morons – we want guys with that extra "m".
 
To an Atheist, Mormonism isn't really all that much more stupid than Christianity, or Scientology.  Or Catholics in general.  Seriously, people who believe the creator of the universe talks to them by sending pictures of his kids mother in pieces of toast and water stains?

True. But to some people it matters, thus the comment about the possible shift of an Overton window. All the religious candidates worry (or scare) me.

 
People are upset about Obama allowing the Patriot act to be extended, but why the fuck weren't they upset about it in the first place?  I sure as hell was.
So was I, but nobody listened. Nobody cared. They just don't want to see planes crashed into buildings any longer. They were and are deaf to the real problem.

[1]
I was very upset about the Patriot Act being created back then and still am now. My earlier post about the 'fourth reich' was only slightly hyperbolic – it is a real worry. The Nazis were rounding up the gypsies and gays for years while cranking out the propaganda against jews. In the 1980s I was torn regarding the idea of reporting who was infected with HIV since some (mainly religious) people wanted lists of those 'at risk' too – very Nazi-esque. Things died down in the 90s but now we have the Patriot Act, NDAA and very religious politicians all over the place. It was scary under Bush Jr. and it's depressing that under Obama the danger isn't being eliminated.
 1. I mean to comment earlier about this.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline shnozzola

Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #78 on: January 12, 2012, 07:37:52 PM »
Any person that promises to bring the past back by getting rid of programs we have today, that have been in place for decades is flatly deluded.

Many nice posts MB.

I had jury duty this week.  It is sad these days to go into a county courthouse with marble steps and huge ornate doors , maybe 30 of them, that are all locked up, funneling people into 2 little doors with metal detectors and security and x-ray machines. 
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #79 on: January 15, 2012, 09:46:25 AM »
Last night on the CBS Nightly News, I heard Santorum say that the less moral a society is, the bigger the government.

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline shnozzola

Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #80 on: January 15, 2012, 10:32:25 AM »
Today:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/rick-santorum-pac-charity_n_1202729.html

Quote
The bulk of the charity's money went to pay a revolving cast of Santorum's political operatives, who created a VIP board stacked with campaign donors. These donors controlled which groups received grants from the foundation. As chairman, Santorum played golf with big donors, charged his trips to the charity and posed for photos holding giant checks, filings show. But below the surface, Santorum's charity and his leadership PAC, America's Foundation, were both doing more for Santorum than they were for their intended recipients.

ahhhh.............helping the poor.  Somewhere I read in the original Washington Post article that charity integrity watchers said that Santorum's charity, at 39% (actually gets to the people who need it) would be a charity to steer clear of.
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #81 on: January 15, 2012, 10:52:45 AM »
Today:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/rick-santorum-pac-charity_n_1202729.html

Quote
The bulk of the charity's money went to pay a revolving cast of Santorum's political operatives, who created a VIP board stacked with campaign donors. These donors controlled which groups received grants from the foundation. As chairman, Santorum played golf with big donors, charged his trips to the charity and posed for photos holding giant checks, filings show. But below the surface, Santorum's charity and his leadership PAC, America's Foundation, were both doing more for Santorum than they were for their intended recipients.

ahhhh.............helping the poor.  Somewhere I read in the original Washington Post article that charity integrity watchers said that Santorum's charity, at 39% (actually gets to the people who need it) would be a charity to steer clear of.

Let's not forget that he has that fucktard, what's his name...uhhh..oh yeah, Jesus the Christ on his team.  Lucky Rick.

Offline Death over Life

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 675
  • Darwins +25/-4

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #83 on: January 15, 2012, 11:40:18 PM »

In addition, Jon Hunstman is now officially out of the race:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/15/jon-huntsman-concedes_n_1207994.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing5%7Cdl4%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D127844

Which sucks, because it gives the other candidates more hope, and higher numbers.  Damnit.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #84 on: January 16, 2012, 12:27:43 AM »
Which sucks, because it gives the other candidates more hope, and higher numbers.  Damnit.

There was never much of a question that it would be anybody other than Romney.
As soon as the clown show is over the Conservatives will all line up and vote for the (R) on their ticket regardless of who it is.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline jedweber

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3791
  • Darwins +19/-0
  • Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #85 on: January 16, 2012, 11:39:41 AM »
I wonder if the endorsement by 100+ fundie leaders this weekend will help him? If that doesn't give him a boost in South Carolina, nothing will...

Quote
U.S. Religious Leaders Back Santorum as Alternative to Romney
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-16/u-s-religious-leaders-back-santorum-as-alternative-to-romney.html

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10339
  • Darwins +180/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rick Santorum
« Reply #86 on: January 16, 2012, 12:30:20 PM »
I thought the big dogs picking Rick boy as their great WASP hope would give him a boost.  So far it looks like the flock is getting use to living with Romney.  In 2008 they rejected him.  What is different now?  Let me think...could it be a black man in the White House?  Maybe a mormon would not be so bad compared to a black man.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!