Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Montague]

Yeah, really the whole Republican primary has been a goat-rope. I think it might have been publicized a bit too much and it's had this herp-derp media-circus vibe the entire time with it's parade of unelectable joke candidates. I'm not sure if it's intended or not, to generate enthusiasm for ousting the president or what but the whole thing has really just made me queasy.

I think somebody mentioned it seems like the Republican party has imploded, perhaps with the most recent Bush presidency, but it seems to me like the GOP has become highly dysfunctional since the Tea Party crowd started gaining traction.

Speaking of which, is it just me or did the Tea Party faction seem to have completely degenerated into a reactionary social conservative movement? I remember it was fairly broad-based, with a sorta libertarian slant to it when it started off, now it seems to focus on solely on attacking the president as a "Muslim Socialist Kenyan" and such shit. It seems to have all the credibility and mass appeal of a band of racist internet conspiracy theorists anymore. Too much AM radio for these people, I think.

[NinjaBoot]

For Santorum, it's not about stopping the government from imposing on your life.  It's about the government imposing on your life in the right way; namely a way that fell out of favor in the Western world around 1880.

So, what?  He's essentially saying what leftists are saying. 

I don't expect there to be, no.  I can just see some plausible scenarios where it could happen, a hotly contested majority-less convention being one of them.  And yeah, anti-Obama will carry any nominee a long way, it's just a question of how far.

Far enough that Mitt Romney has lasted this far!

[Aqizzar]

For Santorum, it's not about stopping the government from imposing on your life.  It's about the government imposing on your life in the right way; namely a way that fell out of favor in the Western world around 1880.

So, what?  He's essentially saying what leftists are saying. 

I hear this response from time to time.  What the heck is that argument even supposed to be?  I'm not even sure it counts as an argument.  "I believe the political alignment I despise does this, therefor it's okay that my political alignment wants to do this."  This is supposed to make him electable somehow?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So? 

Ok, I'll game.  So he bans birth control.

He first has to defy over 30 years of judicial precedent allowing for the free sale of birth control, but for the sake of argument, fine.

Is this going to lead to an increase to an already increasing number of underaged mothers and single mothers?

This is more because we've stopped being a society where pregnancy means automatic marriage which can never be dissolved without becoming a pariah, but yes, banning birth control would also make it skyrocket.

Is it going to increase the already 40% of children not having a father/mother?

I'd like a source for that figure, but probably, yes.

For Santorum, it's not about stopping the government from imposing on your life.  It's about the government imposing on your life in the right way; namely a way that fell out of favor in the Western world around 1880.

So, what?  He's essentially saying what leftists are saying. 

The left, in general, wishes to expand the scope of government through social programs. Rick Santorum wants to expand the scope of government by making us a closed, reactionary society where rich white men have all the power and everyone else plays out a predetermined role. I.e. 1880's society.

[GlyphGryph]

Ok, I'll game.  So he bans birth control.  Is this going to lead to an increase to an already increasing number of underaged mothers and single mothers?  Is it going to increase the already 40% of children not having a father/mother? 

Considering the statistics here - yes and yes. Incredibly so. Though I'm pretty sure you're pulling that 40% number out of your ass.

There's been a great many studies done that show widely available birth control vastly deflates the number of unwanted pregnancies in general and teenage pregnancies in particular.

Santorum, though - he hates science. He is completely unreasonable. He is completely incapable of compromise as well, judging by what his associates in congress have to say. Even his Republican associates. The man is actively hostile to anything approaching good governance.

Perhaps the Republicans will line up to support him - but that just tells me that they don't give a damn about what happens to this country. They look to Iran and see some sort of rolemodel, near I can tell from my conversations with them. These are the sort of people Santorum represents - the people who want to make our country like Iran (but bigger, and better able to throw its weight around, obviously)

The man is actively hostile to reason, science, and the opinion of others, especially experts. He has no respect for the military, or the men who lead it, which is definitely a point against him on the Republican front. He has basically no respect for anybody who isn't exactly like him, and damn the consequences.

Lets get this straight - I am no Democrat. But Santorum has demonstrated a marked inability to do any of the things an executive requires. If I was extremely socially conservative and religious, I might support him for senate - but I could never bring myself to support him for the Presidency.

On top of that, he's demonstrated no grasp whatsoever of foreign policy or economics.

Seriously - Gingrich would be better as president than Santorum - at least Gingrich wouldn't repeatedly shove the star shaped block into the round hole, yelling for it to work, until the whole thing broke.

[NinjaBoot]

Is this going to lead to an increase to an already increasing number of underaged mothers and single mothers?

This is more because we've stopped being a society where pregnancy means automatic marriage which can never be dissolved without becoming a pariah, but yes, banning birth control would also make it skyrocket.

Combine this with the public perception of not viewing abortions in a positive light, then yes.. people who make mistakes are being punished and punished hard.

Is it going to increase the already 40% of children not having a father/mother?

I'd like a source for that figure, but probably, yes. [/quote]

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

The results of the 2010 United States Census showed that 27% of children live with one parent, consistent with the emerging trend noted in 2000.[6]

I seem to have confused the number with Children borne out of wedlock.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html

"Unmarried mothers gave birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United States in 2007"

So yeah, the problem is not about having birth control, it is the effect of having birth control that is creating this illusion of "sexual freedom" for younger women.  Combine this with a lack of morals/parenting on both sides and you get a generation of children being raised without knowing what it takes to make a relationship work.

For Santorum, it's not about stopping the government from imposing on your life.  It's about the government imposing on your life in the right way; namely a way that fell out of favor in the Western world around 1880.

So, what?  He's essentially saying what leftists are saying. 

The left, in general, wishes to expand the scope of government through social programs. Rick Santorum wants to expand the scope of government by making us a closed, reactionary society where rich white men have all the power and everyone else plays out a predetermined role. I.e. 1880's society.

[/quote]

Really? 

Such religious intolerance!  Heh, but seriously.. at least give a guy a fair shake.  If we disqualified candidates on what they have said before that sounds highly strange, then we'd have literally nobody to elect.  Go throughout the history of any candidate and you are likely to find statements that are troubling to some degree, depending on your perspective. 

But then again, what a politician says during his or her campaign really has no bearing on how they will run the country when they are elected.  El Presidente Barack H Obama should be the perfect example of this. 

And, really, lets be honest here.  If Santorum did win the presidency, do we honestly believe he'll turn American thinking back to 1880?  Thats pure malarky and hogwash .  He won't ever have enough power to do what you "believe" he will do because really, not all Republicans (especially his own party) are nowhere near what fanatical when it comes to religion.

But yeah, there seems to be this misconception that Republicans are Republican because they are religious.  And that is verily untrue because alot of Republicans are Republicans because there is no other fiscally conservative party in America, and well.. the Tea Party has not fully become its own party yet.

[GlyphGryph]

Republican politicians, in general, are not fiscally conservative. That was the whole point of the Tea Party thing, originally - trying to drag that Republican's down the fiscal conservatism road, and it failed hard.

Santorum is DEFINITELY not a fiscal conservative.

[NinjaBoot]

On top of that, he's demonstrated no grasp whatsoever of foreign policy or economics.

The rest of your argument was addressed in my previous post (incase your wondering why I am only focusing on this).

Firstly, what does foreign policy have to do with anything?  Do we have any bench mark for foreign policy relations?  Because honestly, the whole history of American Foreign relations has been one fuck-up after the next then trying to play all nice afterwards.  And no, Barak Obama or Bill Clinton were not any better at foreign relations than George W Bush, or whoever else will be elected in the future, because people will hate America regardless of what they do in regards to Foreign Policy.

Secondly, please expand on your idea regarding how terrible Santorum is at economics.  It certainly can't be any worse than the current President.

[scriver]

People hated America a lot less during Clinton's years than after Bush started unjustly invading everything.

[NinjaBoot]

Republican politicians, in general, are not fiscally conservative. That was the whole point of the Tea Party thing, originally - trying to drag that Republican's down the fiscal conservatism road, and it failed hard.

Santorum is DEFINITELY not a fiscal conservative.

You are right on that account, they stopped being fiscally conservative after they jizzed in their pants when Bush first got into office because they had a surplus of the previous administration to work off of. 

I suppose one would argue that the older generation of Republicans who aided in that are now mostly disposed off. 

The Tea Party did not fail, things do not automatically happen after one election.  They have gotten the message out that yes there is a third option to those seeking it.  This should hopefully show other people that yes, other parties with more grassroots do have a chance at making change. 

And also, it is really hard for anything to be done when the current party in power is rather apt at stonewalling any sort of dialogue on fiscal sanity.  Small wonder why, when Democrats had a chance to pass a budget with the majority they held in both houses back when Barak Obama was first elected, they choose not to and instead passed the PPACA (only one "republican" voted for it).  Congress is now 1000 days without a budget. 

[Nadaka]

Conservative politicians have never been fiscally conservative. There was never an idealized past where that was true no matter how many times they lie to people. Reagan was far far from fiscally conservative.

[NinjaBoot]

People hated America a lot less during Clinton's years than after Bush started unjustly invading everything.

Wrong.  That is what the media wants you to believe. 

And no, bush did not unjustly invade anywhere.  He at the very least had the approval of congress to go to war (unlike Obama's war against Libya). 

Quick history lesson:  Getting rid of Saddam Hussein has been American foreign policy ever since the first Iraq-conflict.  This includes the Clinton Administration.  They have tried everything short of invading prior to Bush's presidency. 

[Montague]

Santorum is a fan of earmarks and pet projects. He isn't consistently fiscally conservative, if you look at his voting record and the types of things he's attempted to get done.

Santorum is also hard core on the idea of American Exceptionalism. While it's true everybody is going to hate the USA no matter what it does, Santorum is going to insist on the same sort of ideas that got the country into Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't help or country to act under the idea that the US is literally blessed with a divine mission to lead the world, let alone help America's popularity overseas.

Conservative politicians have never been fiscally conservative. There was never an idealized past where that was true no matter how many times they lie to people. Reagan was far far from fiscally conservative.

Fiscally conservative is a relative term here. The neoconservative faction is definitely not fiscally conservative, but traditionally it is part of the core Republican party platform.

[Nadaka]

Santorum is a fan of earmarks and pet projects. He isn't consistently fiscally conservative, if you look at his voting record and the types of things he's attempted to get done.

Santorum is also hard core on the idea of American Exceptionalism. While it's true everybody is going to hate the USA no matter what it does, Santorum is going to insist on the same sort of ideas that got the country into Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't help or country to act under the idea that the US is literally blessed with a divine mission to lead the world, let alone help America's popularity overseas.

Conservative politicians have never been fiscally conservative. There was never an idealized past where that was true no matter how many times they lie to people. Reagan was far far from fiscally conservative.

Fiscally conservative is a relative term here. The neoconservative faction is definitely not fiscally conservative, but traditionally it is part of the core Republican party platform.

No... Really, republicans for the last 50+ years have been very very big on deficit spending. All you have to do is look at what they actually DO.

[Criptfeind]

If Santorum did win the presidency, do we honestly believe he'll turn American thinking back to 1880?  Thats pure malarky and hogwash .  He won't ever have enough power to do what you "believe" he will do because really, not all Republicans (especially his own party) are nowhere near what fanatical when it comes to religion.

Now, I'm a just wandering past here, but I have to say, this argument and many like it that you seem to be making strike me as odd. I don't know who here said that he could do such things, just that the common thought is that he would want to.

Not to mention the president is a very powerful position. He might not have the power to regress the world three hundred years and throw us into a new dark age, but that does not mean he would not be immensely harmful to the nation and the world.

Some other thoughts that crossed my mind:

So yeah, the problem is not about having birth control, it is the effect of having birth control that is creating this illusion of "sexual freedom" for younger women.  Combine this with a lack of morals/parenting on both sides and you get a generation of children being raised without knowing what it takes to make a relationship work.

Are you stating here that birth control actually increases the amount of unwanted pregnancies, or are you stating that a society that is hostile to unmarried births is preferable to a society that is accepting? Because for both of these statements you will have to excuse me for asking for sources.

Such religious intolerance!

I understand this is your idea of a punchline, but there is no joke. There was no talk of religion in the quoted post, so I can only assume you are having issues reading, it might do you good to look closer at what people say and assume less.

A alternative I guess would that you thinking religion=a closed, reactionary society where rich white men have all the power and everyone else plays out a predetermined role.

But somehow I don't think that is the case.

at least give a guy a fair shake.  If we disqualified candidates on what they have said before that sounds highly strange, then we'd have literally nobody to elect.  Go throughout the history of any candidate and you are likely to find statements that are troubling to some degree, depending on your perspective.

What.

What.

What.

How do you expect anyone to vote for anyone? There is literally no other way to tell what they plan other then by looking at their actions in the past and their words. In both of these Santorum has been in my opinion less then sanitary. Very few leaders have done everyone they have promised, this is true, but it does not mean that you should ignore everything they say. Seriously, what metric do you use? Who do you want to vote for and why?

Wrong.  That is what the media wants you to believe.   

Although we all know the big liberal media is always lying to us, do you... Have... Anything at all to back that up?

Fuck, so long as we discount anything that could count as a actual source, let me tell you. Most people I have talked to that do not live in america and dislike america specifically mention Bush as the point where they started disliking america.