On February 15 2012 10:58 Yongwang wrote: How could anyone support Rick Santorum, he's a liberal/socialist in Republican clothes:
By that standard you could never support any republican since Eisenhower.
This just shows how out of touch with reality this man is. The U.S. is quite unique in how much conversation there is about the government's role in controlling morality/actions of its people. I can't think of another western developed country that comes close to how much control its politicians try to exert over its people's actions.
Just look at the European Union and the lefties who are/were in charge of Europe. You'll see these politicians and bureaucrats trying to control their people to an extent far worse than here in the States.
What social issues are these "lefties" more conservative on than U.S. conservatives? Or U.S. politicians in general?
Obviously gun control would be one of them, there's nothing "liberal" about wanting to ban/control guns. But in Europe they mostly use economics, globalization, and bureaucracy to control the population.
I´d rather have universal health care than the shady government bureaucracy spying on me via the patriot act and other laws heading into this direction. That´s in my opinion a more dangerous road towards "controlling people".
Exactly. Republicans are incredibly hypocritical when it comes to the idea of "liberty". Apparently social freedom just isn't a concept they understand, and all they think about is fiscal freedom.
That has more to do with religion than anything else.
Romney is losing ground in Michigan and deservedly so. His original stance on the auto-industry was pro-bailout (“The question is, where is Washington?”) when he first fought with McCain in Michigan in 2008 and then in November he took the harsh anti-bailout stance. That flip, more than going against the bailout, is what's hurting him and he doesn't realize it. He believes it's because of the anti-bailout stance and the Op-Ed he wrote, so he's digging himself deeper in explaining why he was against it and why it "failed", without realizing it's simply a trustworthiness issue.
And then he's spent the rest of his time talking about himself and how he was a "Detroit boy" (it should be pretty obvious this is false - the city he grew up in is 20 miles from Detroit and is the 4th richest city in America) and very little time speaking about actual Detroiters, Michiganders or what his plans are.
When you're scrambling to restore credibility in your home state, instead of focusing on policy or the more typical pandering, you're basically dead in the water.
On February 16 2012 02:00 Djzapz wrote: Well, Santorum certainly is a frightening person. Blows my mind that 21st century people in a civilized country are still at that level.
as yongwang said, this has more to do with religion than anything else
On February 16 2012 02:00 Djzapz wrote: Well, Santorum certainly is a frightening person. Blows my mind that 21st century people in a civilized country are still at that level.
as yongwang said, this has more to do with religion than anything else
I know plenty of religious people that have sane opinions though. Blaming his opinions of just religion is not really fair.
On February 16 2012 02:00 Djzapz wrote: Well, Santorum certainly is a frightening person. Blows my mind that 21st century people in a civilized country are still at that level.
as yongwang said, this has more to do with religion than anything else
I know plenty of religious people that have sane opinions though. Blaming his opinions of just religion is not really fair.
Well, which of his opinions are not based on some kind of religious/christian rooting?
On February 16 2012 02:00 Djzapz wrote: Well, Santorum certainly is a frightening person. Blows my mind that 21st century people in a civilized country are still at that level.
as yongwang said, this has more to do with religion than anything else
I know plenty of religious people that have sane opinions though. Blaming his opinions of just religion is not really fair.
That's like saying some Nazis were good people and so National Socialism is a good thing. Hell the majority of the Nazis were in fact good people. Regardless of some religious people being "good" or "kind-hearted," religion itself is responsible for many, if not the majority, of the problems in this world.
On February 16 2012 02:00 Djzapz wrote: Well, Santorum certainly is a frightening person. Blows my mind that 21st century people in a civilized country are still at that level.
as yongwang said, this has more to do with religion than anything else
I know plenty of religious people that have sane opinions though. Blaming his opinions of just religion is not really fair.
That's like saying some Nazis were good people and so National Socialism is a good thing. Hell the majority of the Nazis were in fact good people. Regardless of some religious people being "good" or "kind-hearted," religion itself is responsible for many, if not the majority, of the problems in this world.
As the majority of Americans are religious, this is a bad attitude to take. It's not wise to immediately set yourself against people especially if morally you may be very close. Regardless if religion itself is evil, it contains the majority of good people at the moment. We should be finding common moral ground against fundamentalists rather making enemies of the secularized religious.
Personally as an atheist I believe very strongly in freedom of/from religion. It sounds like you are actually condemning that, suggesting that nobody should have religion.
On February 16 2012 02:00 Djzapz wrote: Well, Santorum certainly is a frightening person. Blows my mind that 21st century people in a civilized country are still at that level.
as yongwang said, this has more to do with religion than anything else
I know plenty of religious people that have sane opinions though. Blaming his opinions of just religion is not really fair.
That's like saying some Nazis were good people and so National Socialism is a good thing. Hell the majority of the Nazis were in fact good people. Regardless of some religious people being "good" or "kind-hearted," religion itself is responsible for many, if not the majority, of the problems in this world.
It's ironic that Romney wants Washington to sell the GM holdings - pretty much all financial analysts right now believe the GM stock will be rising for the foreseeable future.
On February 15 2012 11:45 Yongwang wrote: Why is everyone overlooking Buddy Roemer, the former governor of Louisiana? He has been campaigning for the GOP nomination since March 2011 and still continues too. Yet he has received hardly any coverage in the mainstream media and even on these (and other) forums, references to him are sparse. So why is he so underrepresented here, I mean we have people openly supporting Rick Santorum and Barack Obama (the two worst candidates in the race) on the boards, but not Buddy Roemer? Isn't that a bit messed up? So what does everyone think about him and his policies?
It's hardly "messed up", especially when many here think that Obama is the best choice that we have. Furthermore, that's just how the media works. The men that are more popular originally/have more money are going to get the coverage. If you want a civilized discussion, take your obnoxious levels of bias and tone them down a bit.
Err... let's just say that Buddy Roemer lost his last election to a crook and a white supremacist(Edwards and Duke). He wasn't that great of a Louisiana governor far as I know. However, I do think his $100 or less donations is a pretty good thing.
On February 15 2012 11:49 Stratos_speAr wrote: It's hardly "messed up", especially when many here think that Obama is the best choice that we have.
Who thinks that other than black people who vote for him solely because he's black? Republicans and independents hate him because he's a socialist. Democrats hate him because he's pro-war and in bed with the corporations. If that's not enough, religious people hate him because he has been doing everything he can to violate the First Amendment. Obama is extremely unpopular and this time he has to run on his record, which is something he can't do. The real problem is that there are no real conservatives running against him. America needs a leader and as we all know, Obama is anything but a leader, and Romney/Santorum isn't much better. Paul doesn't understand how a government works or anything regarding foreign policy. Gingrich MIGHT be able to be a leader if he stays true to making the moon the 51st state, but he's going to have a hard time getting women and religious people to vote for him with his multiple extramarital affairs.
On February 15 2012 11:49 Stratos_speAr wrote: It's hardly "messed up", especially when many here think that Obama is the best choice that we have.
Who thinks that other than black people who vote for him solely because he's black? Republicans and independents hate him because he's a socialist. Democrats hate him because he's pro-war and in bed with the corporations. If that's not enough, religious people hate him because he has been doing everything he can to violate the First Amendment. Obama is extremely unpopular and this time he has to run on his record, which is something he can't do. The real problem is that there are no real conservatives running against him. America needs a leader and as we all know, Obama is anything but a leader, and Romney/Santorum isn't much better. Paul doesn't understand how a government works or anything regarding foreign policy. Gingrich MIGHT be able to be a leader if he stays true to making the moon the 51st state, but he's going to have a hard time getting women and religious people to vote for him with his multiple extramarital affairs.
Oh really? Where is Obama violating the first amendment? What is this bullshit?
Paul probably understands more about foreign policy and how the government works more than any of the other candidates including Obama.
Seriously, you're using Gingrich as the most model conservative? Really?
On February 15 2012 11:49 Stratos_speAr wrote: It's hardly "messed up", especially when many here think that Obama is the best choice that we have.
Who thinks that other than black people who vote for him solely because he's black? Republicans and independents hate him because he's a socialist. Democrats hate him because he's pro-war and in bed with the corporations. If that's not enough, religious people hate him because he has been doing everything he can to violate the First Amendment. Obama is extremely unpopular and this time he has to run on his record, which is something he can't do. The real problem is that there are no real conservatives running against him. America needs a leader and as we all know, Obama is anything but a leader, and Romney/Santorum isn't much better. Paul doesn't understand how a government works or anything regarding foreign policy. Gingrich MIGHT be able to be a leader if he stays true to making the moon the 51st state, but he's going to have a hard time getting women and religious people to vote for him with his multiple extramarital affairs.
Oh man. Like I'm not trying to defend Obama here but you are honestly a complete fool.
Do you even know what Socialism means? . . . No you don't. So stop using it to describe people. Pro-war? Give the dude some credit, he's gotten us out of one war (albeit slowly), and managed to avoid another one in a pretty nice fashion. It's "lets charge in Iran" Santorum that is pro-war. Haha, violating the 1st amendment. Last I checked stopping Christianity from overstepping their rights isn't going against the 1st amendment...it's up holding it.
Gingrich? Wtf is wrong with you. What the hell does building a moon colony have to do with being a leader, besides putting us further into debt? And nice jab at women there, personally I as a man find adultery to be absolutely disgusting, probably more so than most of my female friends (however I do not think it necessarily represents leadership ability) but apparentely according to you it only matters to women.