On January 30 2012 08:46 Roe wrote: According to Santorum, colleges are indoctrination camps for the liberal agenda:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is suspicious about President Barack Obama’s goal for more Americans to go to college, The Hill reports. What Obama really seeks is to turn youngsters into liberals, the former Pennsylvania senator says.
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to go college," Santorum said Wednesday in Florida, according to CBS News. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America.”
The proof that it’s liberal indoctrination? “If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, the president said college and universities must find ways to cut the prices they charge or risk government funding cuts. "Higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford," Obama said.
Santorum said that if colleges and universities taught Judeo-Christian principles, "they would be stripped of every dollar."
"If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. You know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Always funny how republicans try to make Secularism into something radical and indoctrinating, yet Judeo-Christian dogma isn't. Not really surprising that he wants to keep people in the dark without any chance of a real education.
I honestly think Santorum is worse than Gingrich. I just do not have words to express how horrible I think this man is as a politician. It seriously terrifies me that he could gain enough votes to stay in this race.
Dude he belives in God. What more justificans do you need? ^^
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is suspicious about President Barack Obama’s goal for more Americans to go to college, The Hill reports. What Obama really seeks is to turn youngsters into liberals, the former Pennsylvania senator says.
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to go college," Santorum said Wednesday in Florida, according to CBS News. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America.”
The proof that it’s liberal indoctrination? “If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, the president said college and universities must find ways to cut the prices they charge or risk government funding cuts. "Higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford," Obama said.
Santorum said that if colleges and universities taught Judeo-Christian principles, "they would be stripped of every dollar."
"If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. You know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Always funny how republicans try to make Secularism into something radical and indoctrinating, yet Judeo-Christian dogma isn't. Not really surprising that he wants to keep people in the dark without any chance of a real education.
This is quite possibly the funniest statement so far in this campaign. The fact that these guys are the current mainstream republican candidates is absolutely hilarious.
On January 30 2012 08:46 Roe wrote: According to Santorum, colleges are indoctrination camps for the liberal agenda:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is suspicious about President Barack Obama’s goal for more Americans to go to college, The Hill reports. What Obama really seeks is to turn youngsters into liberals, the former Pennsylvania senator says.
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to go college," Santorum said Wednesday in Florida, according to CBS News. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America.”
The proof that it’s liberal indoctrination? “If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, the president said college and universities must find ways to cut the prices they charge or risk government funding cuts. "Higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford," Obama said.
Santorum said that if colleges and universities taught Judeo-Christian principles, "they would be stripped of every dollar."
"If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. You know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Always funny how republicans try to make Secularism into something radical and indoctrinating, yet Judeo-Christian dogma isn't. Not really surprising that he wants to keep people in the dark without any chance of a real education.
This is quite possibly the funniest statement so far in this campaign. The fact that these guys are the current mainstream republican candidates is absolutely hilarious.
It's embarrassing and disturbing if you live here.
On January 30 2012 08:46 Roe wrote: According to Santorum, colleges are indoctrination camps for the liberal agenda:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is suspicious about President Barack Obama’s goal for more Americans to go to college, The Hill reports. What Obama really seeks is to turn youngsters into liberals, the former Pennsylvania senator says.
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to go college," Santorum said Wednesday in Florida, according to CBS News. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America.”
The proof that it’s liberal indoctrination? “If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, the president said college and universities must find ways to cut the prices they charge or risk government funding cuts. "Higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford," Obama said.
Santorum said that if colleges and universities taught Judeo-Christian principles, "they would be stripped of every dollar."
"If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. You know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Always funny how republicans try to make Secularism into something radical and indoctrinating, yet Judeo-Christian dogma isn't. Not really surprising that he wants to keep people in the dark without any chance of a real education.
This is quite possibly the funniest statement so far in this campaign. The fact that these guys are the current mainstream republican candidates is absolutely hilarious.
It's embarrassing and disturbing if you live here.
Indeed. I just wish we had a competent and likeable guy on the right running this time, but so much of the right is being dictated by poorly thought ideals.
Republican, Democrat.. whats the difference? Obama neutered the anti-war movement.. Both support invasive policies and big government spending..
The serious issues are debt, wars.. two things the (R)'s and (D)'s unite in driving out of control. I wish bush was back in office because at least there was an anti-war movement.
On January 30 2012 09:27 ticklishmusic wrote: I prefer Santorum to Gingrich. At least he's a good family man.
Goshdarn, Huntsman was the best of the lot.
is the US one big family now? why do conservatives always think "family values" = good person? most candidates pushing heavily for family values have always had some kind of ethical/moral issue in their closet. besides which the values they try to push on others aren't even moral/ethical themselves, even if they were to be achieved by the people espousing the views it wouldn't result in better morals.
TAMPA, FLORIDA — According to some final spending numbers shared with TPM by a Democratic media observer, Mitt Romney’s lucky number in the final push to the Jan. 31 primary here is five.
As in five-to-one: that’s the ratio — just about — by which Romney and his allies have outspent Newt Gingrich and his allies on TV in the Sunshine State. The narrative that Team Romney is pushing is that of a new-and-improved candidate, battle-hardened after his South Carolina woes, and sharpened as a candidate by having had to outsmart Newt Gingrich.
The Dems think these figures suggest something else: that it’s not Romney who’s winning votes in Florida, but the size of his wallet.
According to my Democratic source, the total ad spending through Tuesday in Florida by the Romney campaign and its allied super PAC, Restore Our Future, is $15,340,000. The total spending for Gingrich’s campaign and his super PAC, Winning Our Future, is $3,390,000.
TAMPA, FLORIDA — According to some final spending numbers shared with TPM by a Democratic media observer, Mitt Romney’s lucky number in the final push to the Jan. 31 primary here is five.
As in five-to-one: that’s the ratio — just about — by which Romney and his allies have outspent Newt Gingrich and his allies on TV in the Sunshine State. The narrative that Team Romney is pushing is that of a new-and-improved candidate, battle-hardened after his South Carolina woes, and sharpened as a candidate by having had to outsmart Newt Gingrich.
The Dems think these figures suggest something else: that it’s not Romney who’s winning votes in Florida, but the size of his wallet.
According to my Democratic source, the total ad spending through Tuesday in Florida by the Romney campaign and its allied super PAC, Restore Our Future, is $15,340,000. The total spending for Gingrich’s campaign and his super PAC, Winning Our Future, is $3,390,000.
Yep. Romney's problem resolution strategy seems to boil down to throwing a fuckton of other people's money at everything. Just want we need returning to Washington.
On January 30 2012 08:46 Roe wrote: According to Santorum, colleges are indoctrination camps for the liberal agenda:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is suspicious about President Barack Obama’s goal for more Americans to go to college, The Hill reports. What Obama really seeks is to turn youngsters into liberals, the former Pennsylvania senator says.
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to go college," Santorum said Wednesday in Florida, according to CBS News. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America.”
The proof that it’s liberal indoctrination? “If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, the president said college and universities must find ways to cut the prices they charge or risk government funding cuts. "Higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford," Obama said.
Santorum said that if colleges and universities taught Judeo-Christian principles, "they would be stripped of every dollar."
"If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. You know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Always funny how republicans try to make Secularism into something radical and indoctrinating, yet Judeo-Christian dogma isn't. Not really surprising that he wants to keep people in the dark without any chance of a real education.
This is quite possibly the funniest statement so far in this campaign. The fact that these guys are the current mainstream republican candidates is absolutely hilarious.
It's embarrassing and disturbing if you live here.
Indeed. I just wish we had a competent and likeable guy on the right running this time, but so much of the right is being dictated by poorly thought ideals.
So are the potential republican nominees not taken seriously by people where you live, cause here in Canada whenever they're in the news theyre a laughing stock
On January 30 2012 08:46 Roe wrote: According to Santorum, colleges are indoctrination camps for the liberal agenda:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is suspicious about President Barack Obama’s goal for more Americans to go to college, The Hill reports. What Obama really seeks is to turn youngsters into liberals, the former Pennsylvania senator says.
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to go college," Santorum said Wednesday in Florida, according to CBS News. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America.”
The proof that it’s liberal indoctrination? “If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, the president said college and universities must find ways to cut the prices they charge or risk government funding cuts. "Higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford," Obama said.
Santorum said that if colleges and universities taught Judeo-Christian principles, "they would be stripped of every dollar."
"If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. You know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Always funny how republicans try to make Secularism into something radical and indoctrinating, yet Judeo-Christian dogma isn't. Not really surprising that he wants to keep people in the dark without any chance of a real education.
This is quite possibly the funniest statement so far in this campaign. The fact that these guys are the current mainstream republican candidates is absolutely hilarious.
It's embarrassing and disturbing if you live here.
Indeed. I just wish we had a competent and likeable guy on the right running this time, but so much of the right is being dictated by poorly thought ideals.
So are the potential republican nominees not taken seriously by people where you live, cause here in Canada whenever they're in the news theyre a laughing stock
On January 30 2012 08:17 Risen wrote: Fuck it. Was a hardline Ron Paul guy, Gingrich wants a base on the moon. Sorry buddy, Gingrich has my vote.
True Ron Paul supporters would understand that this would not be possible with the amount of debt that we have right now. So, your either lying or your really blinded by bullshit coming from politicians that have a history of being a liar.
Here's a video of him saying we need another 9/11:
Also, he wanted the death penalty for pot heads even though he has smoked it before....
On January 30 2012 08:46 Roe wrote: According to Santorum, colleges are indoctrination camps for the liberal agenda:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is suspicious about President Barack Obama’s goal for more Americans to go to college, The Hill reports. What Obama really seeks is to turn youngsters into liberals, the former Pennsylvania senator says.
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to go college," Santorum said Wednesday in Florida, according to CBS News. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America.”
The proof that it’s liberal indoctrination? “If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, the president said college and universities must find ways to cut the prices they charge or risk government funding cuts. "Higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford," Obama said.
Santorum said that if colleges and universities taught Judeo-Christian principles, "they would be stripped of every dollar."
"If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. You know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Always funny how republicans try to make Secularism into something radical and indoctrinating, yet Judeo-Christian dogma isn't. Not really surprising that he wants to keep people in the dark without any chance of a real education.
This is quite possibly the funniest statement so far in this campaign. The fact that these guys are the current mainstream republican candidates is absolutely hilarious.
It's embarrassing and disturbing if you live here.
Indeed. I just wish we had a competent and likeable guy on the right running this time, but so much of the right is being dictated by poorly thought ideals.
So are the potential republican nominees not taken seriously by people where you live, cause here in Canada whenever they're in the news theyre a laughing stock
Then how did they get into power?
I kinda meant apart from their base, cause here in Canada though people may not like the Conservatives they're still perfectably respectable, save some MP's
Paraleluniverse: "Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500.
Your example is completely divorced from reality.
In reality, the government can borrow at negative real interest rates (i.e. inflation is higher than the rate government needs to repay on debt). In reality, there is idle resources, people sitting around doing nothing and wanting to work.
Society needs less teachers? Less investments in infrastructure? Less investments in research? Less manufacturing?
You're argument is that unemployment is good, and that it's good for the economy that resources are not put to use.
Glad for your answer:
1) The rate of interest rates doesn't make the example unrealistic (you can assume that government could borrow money for free to make the fiscal policiy. Wouldn't really change the point I am trying to make with the problem of aggregate numbers.
2) I actually assumed there were idle ressoruces (50 people unemployed in my example. 25 of them got a job becasue of fiscal policy).
3) I only used 2 different industries to make the example less complicated. Adding 10 more industrys wouldn't change the principle. Too many people still work in the haircut industry and need to be fired and then employed to the other industries before the economy gets healthy.
4) As I somehwat understand your logic you agree with me that the ratio needs to be 500/500 (agree?), but your convinced that fiscal policiy makes more people be employed in the machine industry.
But how? Where do these people come from? According to my logic they should come from the haircut industry (where they get fired). Where should they come from according to your logic? (The unemployed?). But if they are to build this bridge, obv. there will be less people for the machine sector ti hire. And because aggregate spendings increases (compared to if there were 0 fiscal policies) the haircut indsutry can afford to slow down the "firing rate" (agree?).
And this means (according to my logic), that it will take more time before we get to the 500/500 ratio, and until then the economy will never be healthy. It will be in a constant recession (or perhaps it will just has indebted it self before we get there).
You are definitely confusing microeconomics with macroeconomics. Fiscal policy is counterproductive on the microeconomic scale. Nobody disputes this. Now when society has too many haircutters not because people don't want haircuts, but because they're too poor to buy haircuts because they don't have jobs that they otherwise would have outside a slump, it makes perfect sense to fiscally stimulate both the haircut industry and the jobs of people who would buy haircuts. The people to go into the industry come out of hte unemployed. There will be fewer people for the machine sector to hire. So? Suppose the machine sector hires 1 person per month and 500 are unemployed. Then if the haircut sector hires 3 per month, you have a net job increase even if the machine sector stops hiring at all. The more likely secnario is that the machine sector still has a pool of 497 to draw from and will still hire if there's an opportunity.
As for whether government can help get out of a slump, the answer is a resounding yes. The US government pumped so much aggregate demand that it turned into a near-command economy in the Second World War, and the Great Depression ended. It is not a matter of debate that government demand can end depressions. The better question is how (and how much).
The concept that the US government ended the Great Depression has been debunked time and again. Actually, if you look into it, you will find that the Depression was extended by the government intercession.
Don't think it really has been debunked that Roosevelt didn't end the Great Depression (according to main stream logic). What most people probably agree on (monetarist view) is that the central bank created the crisis and prolonged it by bad politics. What obv. has been debunked is that the Great Depression was the fail of the free market (as governemnt intererfered a shitton by Hoover, Roosevelt, Central Bank).
What? Extended by the central bank, perhaps. Caused by it? Not the say, massive bank failures and reckless speculation that imploded the entire financial sector? The Great Depression may not have been a textbook example of private markets failing to bring recovery. But the implosion and stockmarket crash of 1929, and the market's role in it, is not a matter of dispute among any historian or monetarist.
Well Ben Bernanke is of that opinion, and he is mainstream enough for me, to make me conclude that it has been debunked (though of course there will always be some people who disagree with that).
Bernanke is one view, but there's not really a consensus. You should try reading some of the recent literature in various journals on the topic.
On January 30 2012 09:27 ticklishmusic wrote: I prefer Santorum to Gingrich. At least he's a good family man.
Goshdarn, Huntsman was the best of the lot.
is the US one big family now? why do conservatives always think "family values" = good person? most candidates pushing heavily for family values have always had some kind of ethical/moral issue in their closet. besides which the values they try to push on others aren't even moral/ethical themselves, even if they were to be achieved by the people espousing the views it wouldn't result in better morals.
First off, I'm not conservative by any means.
In my opinion, Gingrich is a terrible excuse for a human being, and if he had and bit of shame he would have simply quit politics and found some non self-promoting, ego-stroking cause to spend his life repenting for. He cheated on his wife who was dying of cancer while trying to get Clinton impeached for sexual misconduct. That's just hypocrisy of the highest order.
I just said Santorum is a family man to reference that he skipped out on campaigning today to be with his daughter who has trisomy 18 problems. It's a good image when you compare him to Gingrich.
On January 30 2012 09:27 ticklishmusic wrote: I prefer Santorum to Gingrich. At least he's a good family man.
Goshdarn, Huntsman was the best of the lot.
is the US one big family now? why do conservatives always think "family values" = good person? most candidates pushing heavily for family values have always had some kind of ethical/moral issue in their closet. besides which the values they try to push on others aren't even moral/ethical themselves, even if they were to be achieved by the people espousing the views it wouldn't result in better morals.
First off, I'm not conservative by any means.
In my opinion, Gingrich is a terrible excuse for a human being, and if he had and bit of shame he would have simply quit politics and found some non self-promoting, ego-stroking cause to spend his life repenting for. He cheated on his wife who was dying of cancer while trying to get Clinton impeached for sexual misconduct. That's just hypocrisy of the highest order.
On January 30 2012 09:27 ticklishmusic wrote: I prefer Santorum to Gingrich. At least he's a good family man.
Goshdarn, Huntsman was the best of the lot.
is the US one big family now? why do conservatives always think "family values" = good person? most candidates pushing heavily for family values have always had some kind of ethical/moral issue in their closet. besides which the values they try to push on others aren't even moral/ethical themselves, even if they were to be achieved by the people espousing the views it wouldn't result in better morals.
First off, I'm not conservative by any means.
In my opinion, Gingrich is a terrible excuse for a human being, and if he had and bit of shame he would have simply quit politics and found some non self-promoting, ego-stroking cause to spend his life repenting for. He cheated on his wife who was dying of cancer while trying to get Clinton impeached for sexual misconduct. That's just hypocrisy of the highest order.
On January 30 2012 08:46 Roe wrote: According to Santorum, colleges are indoctrination camps for the liberal agenda:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is suspicious about President Barack Obama’s goal for more Americans to go to college, The Hill reports. What Obama really seeks is to turn youngsters into liberals, the former Pennsylvania senator says.
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to go college," Santorum said Wednesday in Florida, according to CBS News. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America.”
The proof that it’s liberal indoctrination? “If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, the president said college and universities must find ways to cut the prices they charge or risk government funding cuts. "Higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford," Obama said.
Santorum said that if colleges and universities taught Judeo-Christian principles, "they would be stripped of every dollar."
"If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. You know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Always funny how republicans try to make Secularism into something radical and indoctrinating, yet Judeo-Christian dogma isn't. Not really surprising that he wants to keep people in the dark without any chance of a real education.
I honestly think Santorum is worse than Gingrich. I just do not have words to express how horrible I think this man is as a politician. It seriously terrifies me that he could gain enough votes to stay in this race.
Dude he belives in God. What more justificans do you need? ^^
I'm kind of baffled that you got banned for that economics post but this one is considered fine... Unless you are being sarcastic and I'm not catching it.
On January 30 2012 09:30 LaLLsc2 wrote: Republican, Democrat.. whats the difference? Obama neutered the anti-war movement.. Both support invasive policies and big government spending..
The serious issues are debt, wars.. two things the (R)'s and (D)'s unite in driving out of control. I wish bush was back in office because at least there was an anti-war movement.
I was with you completely until you said you wished bush was back in office
Actually, I'm still trying to decide in my mind who is worse, Bush or Obama. Bush was an obvious moron and a warmonger, Obama skyrocketed US debt and pushed the wrong health care reform.
So what's worse, further tarnishing our reputation abroad and selling some civil liberties, or firmly establishing the US on the road to complete bankruptcy. I'm kind of leaning to say Obama was worse, but then again, I feel like EVERY president was worse than the previous, regardless of their political affiliation. We keep getting farther and farther off track, while the people are brainwashed into their partisan ideologies. It's depressing
What about Paul? Seems like the only candidate here actually trying to put through a message. it's a shame the media doesn't seem to care a bit about him.
EPT
