|
On February 21 2012 09:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 02:26 DoubleReed wrote:I don't understand the problem with that video. So he didn't think all the Americans needed to die, so he's delusional? "What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!" You do know that he has said multiple times that MLK is a personal idol of his. Regardless of his views, he's historically innacurate and so his entire point is way off-base. The Civil War wasn't started because the north wanted the south to abolish slavery. It was started over states' rights and slavery was the main talking point for that larger issue.
That was Ron Paul's response to the idea that without the civil war we wouldn't have slavery. He was saying that we could have done something less wasteful than war. Where is he historically inaccurate?
|
On February 21 2012 09:22 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 09:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 21 2012 02:26 DoubleReed wrote:I don't understand the problem with that video. So he didn't think all the Americans needed to die, so he's delusional? "What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!" You do know that he has said multiple times that MLK is a personal idol of his. Regardless of his views, he's historically innacurate and so his entire point is way off-base. The Civil War wasn't started because the north wanted the south to abolish slavery. It was started over states' rights and slavery was the main talking point for that larger issue. That was Ron Paul's response to the idea that without the civil war we wouldn't have slavery. He was saying that we could have done something less wasteful than war. Where is he historically inaccurate?
The quoted statement at the beginning directly implies that Lincoln went to war to abolish slavery. Paul then says, "Absolutely" to agree with the statement. This was simply was not the case, thus the historical innacuracy.
|
I must admit i have not followed the republican nominations up close this year, but i just wanted to say i was truly shocked with what Santorum said about euthanasia in the Netherlands. To my own surprise, i actually felt offended.
After reading up on him, i can hardly believe he is a serious candidate.
Excuse me if this has (probably) been discussed already. I will read more then the last few pages of this thread tomorrow.
|
On February 21 2012 09:55 snIJIJzer wrote:
I must admit i have not followed the republican nominations up close this year, but i just wanted to say i was truly shocked with what Santorum said about euthanasia in the Netherlands. To my own surprise, i actually felt offended.
After reading up on him, i can hardly believe he is a serious candidate.
Excuse me if this has (probably) been discussed already. I will read more then the last few pages of this thread tomorrow.
You sir are not the only one. It is kind of scary the support he seems to be getting. People can complain that foreigners shouldn't care about US elections but the world could be a very different place with this guy in charge. He reminds me of the Self-Help guy from Donnie Darko.
|
United States5162 Posts
On February 21 2012 10:00 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 09:55 snIJIJzer wrote:
I must admit i have not followed the republican nominations up close this year, but i just wanted to say i was truly shocked with what Santorum said about euthanasia in the Netherlands. To my own surprise, i actually felt offended.
After reading up on him, i can hardly believe he is a serious candidate.
Excuse me if this has (probably) been discussed already. I will read more then the last few pages of this thread tomorrow. You sir are not the only one. It is kind of scary the support he seems to be getting. People can complain that foreigners shouldn't care about US elections but the world could be a very different place with this guy in charge. He reminds me of the Self-Help guy from Donnie Darko.
I scratch my head wondering how he's a viable candidate nearly every time he talks.
|
On February 21 2012 09:55 snIJIJzer wrote:
I must admit i have not followed the republican nominations up close this year, but i just wanted to say i was truly shocked with what Santorum said about euthanasia in the Netherlands. To my own surprise, i actually felt offended.
After reading up on him, i can hardly believe he is a serious candidate.
Excuse me if this has (probably) been discussed already. I will read more then the last few pages of this thread tomorrow.
The problem is that the US has a really low voter turn out, especially among left and moderate voters. Church organization and culture places a lot more emphasis on voting and organizing people. Our left has a lot of people who don't see the benefit to trying to be involved in voting, though they would vote democrat if they were forced to choose one.
It all comes down to the religious influence in our country and them being a much more organized and committed to voting group of people.
|
On February 21 2012 10:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 09:55 snIJIJzer wrote:
I must admit i have not followed the republican nominations up close this year, but i just wanted to say i was truly shocked with what Santorum said about euthanasia in the Netherlands. To my own surprise, i actually felt offended.
After reading up on him, i can hardly believe he is a serious candidate.
Excuse me if this has (probably) been discussed already. I will read more then the last few pages of this thread tomorrow. The problem is that the US has a really low voter turn out, especially among left and moderate voters. Church organization and culture places a lot more emphasis on voting and organizing people. Our left has a lot of people who don't see the benefit to trying to be involved in voting, though they would vote democrat if they were forced to choose one. It all comes down to the religious influence in our country and them being a much more organized and committed to voting group of people.
Roll that up with a "winner takes all" approach to elections and an election and voting timing that dissuades the younger, busier population. On top of that, pile on that many districts are drawn by political bodies, preventing individual concerns on either side to force a change or modification to a stance and further dissuading the minority opinions from ever voicing that opinion.
|
On February 21 2012 10:02 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 10:00 Probulous wrote:On February 21 2012 09:55 snIJIJzer wrote:
I must admit i have not followed the republican nominations up close this year, but i just wanted to say i was truly shocked with what Santorum said about euthanasia in the Netherlands. To my own surprise, i actually felt offended.
After reading up on him, i can hardly believe he is a serious candidate.
Excuse me if this has (probably) been discussed already. I will read more then the last few pages of this thread tomorrow. You sir are not the only one. It is kind of scary the support he seems to be getting. People can complain that foreigners shouldn't care about US elections but the world could be a very different place with this guy in charge. He reminds me of the Self-Help guy from Donnie Darko. I scratch my head wondering how he's a viable candidate nearly every time he talks.
He reminds me of Jeremy Piven's charater on Old School ...just lamer
|
Freudian slip much?
Santorum Spokesperson Refers To Obama's 'Radical Islamic Policies' Rick Santorum spokesperson Alice Stewart slipped up on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports Monday afternoon when talking about President Obama's environmental policies. Instead, she called them Obama's "radical Islamic policies." Santorum communications director Hogan Gidley told TPM that Stewart "misspoke." Andrea Mitchell said that Stewart called her to say she slipped up. "She had repeatedly said during that same interview ‘radical environmental policies’ and she said she slipped when she apparently said [it]." Source
|
Because Islamist and Enviourmental are such similar concepts or similar sounding words right Santorum?
|
On February 21 2012 10:02 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 10:00 Probulous wrote:On February 21 2012 09:55 snIJIJzer wrote:
I must admit i have not followed the republican nominations up close this year, but i just wanted to say i was truly shocked with what Santorum said about euthanasia in the Netherlands. To my own surprise, i actually felt offended.
After reading up on him, i can hardly believe he is a serious candidate.
Excuse me if this has (probably) been discussed already. I will read more then the last few pages of this thread tomorrow. You sir are not the only one. It is kind of scary the support he seems to be getting. People can complain that foreigners shouldn't care about US elections but the world could be a very different place with this guy in charge. He reminds me of the Self-Help guy from Donnie Darko. I scratch my head wondering how he's a viable candidate nearly every time he talks.
And you live in the United States (according to your profile)? I scratch my head wondering how you aren't aware of the millions of religious evangelical meatheads living in your own country.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 21 2012 11:40 Saryph wrote:Freudian slip much? Show nested quote +Santorum Spokesperson Refers To Obama's 'Radical Islamic Policies' Rick Santorum spokesperson Alice Stewart slipped up on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports Monday afternoon when talking about President Obama's environmental policies. Instead, she called them Obama's "radical Islamic policies." Santorum communications director Hogan Gidley told TPM that Stewart "misspoke." Andrea Mitchell said that Stewart called her to say she slipped up. "She had repeatedly said during that same interview ‘radical environmental policies’ and she said she slipped when she apparently said [it]." Source
Ignoring religious bigotry for the moment:
What does 'radical environmental policies' even mean? Radical would suggest extreme to either side, so it's either in favor of no environmental protection at all, which would be one extreme position, and the other would be what exactly? No environmental damage allowed at all? No buildings? No harming animals?
I don't get it. What's radical about suggesting that we don't annihilate every shred of this planet? He's not a hippie.
|
On February 21 2012 11:51 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 11:40 Saryph wrote:Freudian slip much? Santorum Spokesperson Refers To Obama's 'Radical Islamic Policies' Rick Santorum spokesperson Alice Stewart slipped up on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports Monday afternoon when talking about President Obama's environmental policies. Instead, she called them Obama's "radical Islamic policies." Santorum communications director Hogan Gidley told TPM that Stewart "misspoke." Andrea Mitchell said that Stewart called her to say she slipped up. "She had repeatedly said during that same interview ‘radical environmental policies’ and she said she slipped when she apparently said [it]." Source Ignoring religious bigotry for the moment: What does 'radical environmental policies' even mean? Radical would suggest extreme to either side, so it's either in favor of no environmental protection at all, which would be one extreme position, and the other would be what exactly? No environmental damage allowed at all? No buildings? No harming animals? I don't get it. What's radical about suggesting that we don't annihilate every shred of this planet? He's not a hippie.
I would think that any environmental position that is based on science and not lobbying would be too radical for Mr Santorum.
|
On February 21 2012 11:51 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 11:40 Saryph wrote:Freudian slip much? Santorum Spokesperson Refers To Obama's 'Radical Islamic Policies' Rick Santorum spokesperson Alice Stewart slipped up on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports Monday afternoon when talking about President Obama's environmental policies. Instead, she called them Obama's "radical Islamic policies." Santorum communications director Hogan Gidley told TPM that Stewart "misspoke." Andrea Mitchell said that Stewart called her to say she slipped up. "She had repeatedly said during that same interview ‘radical environmental policies’ and she said she slipped when she apparently said [it]." Source Ignoring religious bigotry for the moment: What does 'radical environmental policies' even mean? Radical would suggest extreme to either side, so it's either in favor of no environmental protection at all, which would be one extreme position, and the other would be what exactly? No environmental damage allowed at all? No buildings? No harming animals? I don't get it. What's radical about suggesting that we don't annihilate every shred of this planet? He's not a hippie.
It's radical because it doesn't fit perfectly in his (and the general Republican) belief of environmental stewardship, or lack thereof.
The entire Obama presidency has been characterized as a radical liberal takeover of U.S. politics, when it's really been a fairly centrist time. The only way to paint Obama into a radical corner at this point is to paint yourself on such a razor thin fence between the opposite extreme and the positions Obama takes. Apparently, it's all to court the ~30% of the population who diametrically oppose anything a Democratic president would do, regardless of the substance or belief around those actions.
|
On February 21 2012 09:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 09:22 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 09:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 21 2012 02:26 DoubleReed wrote:I don't understand the problem with that video. So he didn't think all the Americans needed to die, so he's delusional? "What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!" You do know that he has said multiple times that MLK is a personal idol of his. Regardless of his views, he's historically innacurate and so his entire point is way off-base. The Civil War wasn't started because the north wanted the south to abolish slavery. It was started over states' rights and slavery was the main talking point for that larger issue. That was Ron Paul's response to the idea that without the civil war we wouldn't have slavery. He was saying that we could have done something less wasteful than war. Where is he historically inaccurate? The quoted statement at the beginning directly implies that Lincoln went to war to abolish slavery. Paul then says, "Absolutely" to agree with the statement. This was simply was not the case, thus the historical innacuracy.
Oh I see. That's not really historical inaccuracy on his Paul's part though, because he's all about state's rights. I mean, the point (I assuming now) he's making is that we could have gotten rid of slavery without interfering with state's rights like Lincoln did. The quote is "...should never have gone to war. There were better ways to abolish slavery." As in, you could abolish slavery without screwing up the states' rights thing.
Granted, that makes it a far crazier idea than I originally thought it was.
|
If Santorum gets the nomination, Obama will smash him lol.
|
On February 21 2012 13:46 darthfoley wrote:
If Santorum gets the nomination, Obama will smash him lol.
I want to see Santorum get smashed in the general election. It will make me so freaking happy
|
On February 21 2012 14:32 Josealtron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 13:46 darthfoley wrote:
If Santorum gets the nomination, Obama will smash him lol. I want to see Santorum get smashed in the general election. It will make me so freaking happy
I'm terrified for Santorum getting the nomination. I really think that there's nothing in this world that would restore my faith in humanity more than watching him getting demolished in the general election, but I am also terrified because I know that there's a possibility that the American public would be dumb enough to elect him. If that happens, I'm gone.
|
WASHINGTON -- As he remains stuck in a four-way race for the Republican presidential nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's financial advantage is beginning to erode. His campaign raised only $6.4 million in the month of January, one of his worst fundraising months of his entire 2012 campaign. By comparison, in January 2008, during Romney's first unsuccessful presidential bid, he raised $9.6 million.
Romney may have a bigger problem on his hands than disappointing fundraising totals. His campaign burned through $18.7 million in January, only to win primaries in New Hampshire and Florida. Romney's losing streak continued into February, as he weathered three losses to the surging Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri.
Romney's fundraising and burn rate should both be causes for concern for his campaign. While small donors accounted for 18 percent of his January total, the highest percentage during his entire campaign so far, he is still relying heavily on donors who are maxing out their contributions. Fifty percent of his January contributions came from donors giving $2,500 or more.
Source
|
On February 21 2012 09:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 09:22 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 09:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 21 2012 02:26 DoubleReed wrote:I don't understand the problem with that video. So he didn't think all the Americans needed to die, so he's delusional? "What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!" You do know that he has said multiple times that MLK is a personal idol of his. Regardless of his views, he's historically innacurate and so his entire point is way off-base. The Civil War wasn't started because the north wanted the south to abolish slavery. It was started over states' rights and slavery was the main talking point for that larger issue. That was Ron Paul's response to the idea that without the civil war we wouldn't have slavery. He was saying that we could have done something less wasteful than war. Where is he historically inaccurate? The quoted statement at the beginning directly implies that Lincoln went to war to abolish slavery. Paul then says, "Absolutely" to agree with the statement. This was simply was not the case, thus the historical innacuracy.
He did agree to the quote, however, if you read anything he has written about the civil war, you would know that he is very well aware what the motives of the civil war were. The issue of slavery was what was used to drum up angry civilians to march off to war, while in reality it had very little to do with the underlying agenda of the federalists (Abe Lincoln).
If you watch his entire opinion on the subject (instead of a 1 min snippet taken completely out of context) you would hear that his argument is that "the civil war was to abolish slavery" is complete garbage. If the government was so worried about slavery, they would've done something beside splitting the country in half to fix it. THIS is the point he is trying to make. The government used slavery and injustice to rally troops to destroy individual state rights.
So please, before you just throw out 'he's historically inaccurate' crap, do a little bit of research, this man has been studying this for a very long time, and is actually trying to make a difference, rather than just keep the stupid status quo that we call American politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
