|
On February 21 2012 15:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +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
That's pretty huge. It sounds like Romney needs to start winning immediately or he's out of the race. Maybe I should make a donation to Santorum LOL
|
On February 20 2012 15:04 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 13:32 LazyDT wrote:On February 20 2012 10:28 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2012 10:20 Instigata wrote:On February 20 2012 10:17 hillman wrote:
Ron Paul is the only candidate with an understanding and/or the political will to make changes to US fiscal policy....he also is the only candidate who is requiring that the Federal reserve have some god damn accountability. If he doesn't win then we're going deeper and deeper into money pit and may never get out. The establishment in Washington clearly doesn't want him to win but he is far and away the soundest candidate out there. This whole left-right paradigm in Washington is so despicable and played out...vote for change..quit fooling yourself that the political BS actually matters... Sucks because a lot of people see him as crazy. Yeah, about half his policies are good, but the other half are legitimately batshit insane. This puts him in the upper 90% of Republican politicians when it comes to those I'd like to see in the White House, he's only half nuts. Which policies are insane? Maybe I can help explain! We've been over this about 6 or 7 times in the thread, I don't feel like getting into it again. If you'd like to scroll back and read the previous arguments and then respond to those, be my guest.
I understand your frustration, it's very hard to have a rational discussion in a forum sometimes. If you do want to discuss, feel free to PM me anytime. That goes for anyone with any doubts/questions about Ron Paul. I'd like to help dispel some doubts/confusions.
|
On February 21 2012 15:17 LazyDT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 09:24 Stratos_speAr wrote: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.
There was no "destroying" of states' rights. The entire thing was caused by the secession of the Confederate states and then their attack on Fort Sumter. This was in turn caused by the fact that Lincoln got elected and that the Republicans had been fighting to not allow slavery in the new territories, which isn't a destruction of states' rights because it wasn't actually trampling on the rights of the southern States at all because there was never an attempt to actually get rid of slavery in states where it was already in place until the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. The vast majority of the war was fought to preserve the unity of the country. The abolition of slavery was tacked on later and wasn't even a main talking point until after the war because it was the biggest effect that it actually had.
|
On February 21 2012 15:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 15:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: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 That's pretty huge. It sounds like Romney needs to start winning immediately or he's out of the race. Maybe I should make a donation to Santorum LOL
Romney has lost the lead about a dozen times to ten different people and he has always regained it. It would be silly to think he won't defeat Santorum's second surge just as he defeated Gingrich's second surge. He still has the most organized and well funded campaign and Santorum probably has the weakest funding of the four. Romney winning the nomination is inevitable.
|
On February 21 2012 15:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 15:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 21 2012 15:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: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 That's pretty huge. It sounds like Romney needs to start winning immediately or he's out of the race. Maybe I should make a donation to Santorum LOL Romney has lost the lead about a dozen times to ten different people and he has always regained it. It would be silly to think he won't defeat Santorum's second surge just as he defeated Gingrich's second surge. He still has the most organized and well funded campaign and Santorum probably has the weakest funding of the four. Romney winning the nomination is inevitable.
"Inevitable" is a bit strong of a word.
|
On February 21 2012 15:21 LazyDT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 15:04 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2012 13:32 LazyDT wrote:On February 20 2012 10:28 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2012 10:20 Instigata wrote:On February 20 2012 10:17 hillman wrote:
Ron Paul is the only candidate with an understanding and/or the political will to make changes to US fiscal policy....he also is the only candidate who is requiring that the Federal reserve have some god damn accountability. If he doesn't win then we're going deeper and deeper into money pit and may never get out. The establishment in Washington clearly doesn't want him to win but he is far and away the soundest candidate out there. This whole left-right paradigm in Washington is so despicable and played out...vote for change..quit fooling yourself that the political BS actually matters... Sucks because a lot of people see him as crazy. Yeah, about half his policies are good, but the other half are legitimately batshit insane. This puts him in the upper 90% of Republican politicians when it comes to those I'd like to see in the White House, he's only half nuts. Which policies are insane? Maybe I can help explain! We've been over this about 6 or 7 times in the thread, I don't feel like getting into it again. If you'd like to scroll back and read the previous arguments and then respond to those, be my guest. I understand your frustration, it's very hard to have a rational discussion in a forum sometimes. If you do want to discuss, feel free to PM me anytime. That goes for anyone with any doubts/questions about Ron Paul. I'd like to help dispel some doubts/confusions.
Let me dispel your doubt/confusion right now: when Whitewing and other people consider many of Paul's policy ideas insane, it's not because they're confused about the said ideas, it's because they've looked at them.
|
On February 21 2012 22:05 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 15:21 LazyDT wrote:On February 20 2012 15:04 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2012 13:32 LazyDT wrote:On February 20 2012 10:28 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2012 10:20 Instigata wrote:On February 20 2012 10:17 hillman wrote:
Ron Paul is the only candidate with an understanding and/or the political will to make changes to US fiscal policy....he also is the only candidate who is requiring that the Federal reserve have some god damn accountability. If he doesn't win then we're going deeper and deeper into money pit and may never get out. The establishment in Washington clearly doesn't want him to win but he is far and away the soundest candidate out there. This whole left-right paradigm in Washington is so despicable and played out...vote for change..quit fooling yourself that the political BS actually matters... Sucks because a lot of people see him as crazy. Yeah, about half his policies are good, but the other half are legitimately batshit insane. This puts him in the upper 90% of Republican politicians when it comes to those I'd like to see in the White House, he's only half nuts. Which policies are insane? Maybe I can help explain! We've been over this about 6 or 7 times in the thread, I don't feel like getting into it again. If you'd like to scroll back and read the previous arguments and then respond to those, be my guest. I understand your frustration, it's very hard to have a rational discussion in a forum sometimes. If you do want to discuss, feel free to PM me anytime. That goes for anyone with any doubts/questions about Ron Paul. I'd like to help dispel some doubts/confusions. Let me dispel your doubt/confusion right now: when Whitewing and other people consider many of Paul's policy ideas insane, it's not because they're confused about the said ideas, it's because they've looked at them.
I imagine any soft marxists would
|
It's incredible how well Ron Paul is doing! Thousands are attending his speeches, really incredible support for such an uncompromisingly pro liberty candidate.
|
On February 20 2012 12:18 Attican wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:10 aksfjh wrote:On February 20 2012 09:44 Attican wrote:On February 20 2012 08:58 antelope591 wrote:On February 19 2012 16:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I mean... I don't care who you are or where you stand in American Politics, this is frightening: Reporting from Columbus, Ohio — Republican GOP hopeful Rick Santorum may be the most prominent homeschooler in America. So it might not have been surprising that, on Saturday, he told a conservative Christian audience that he intended to homeschool his children in the White House.
In his remarks to the Ohio Christian Alliance, however, Santorum went further, seeming to attack the very idea of public education.
In the nation’s past, he said, “Most presidents homeschooled their children in the White House.… Parents educated their children because it was their responsibility.”
“Yes, the government can help,” he continued, “but the idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly much less that the state government should be running schools, is anachronistic.”
He said it is an artifact of the Industrial Revolution, “when people came off the farms where they did homeschool or had a little neighborhood school, and into these big factories … called public schools.” Source Umm...I think Santorum's a nut but I don't see anything wrong with this comment at all. The public school system IS a POS and you can learn a lot more from your parents if they're dedicated enough to put the work into homeschooling. Of course most parents aren't gonna have the patience for that but if they choose to go that route I don't see anything wrong with that at all. Up until university everything you do in the classroom is a joke in public school anyway....I don't think I ever spent more than an hour on homework or studying on a test until grade 12. So where's the big loss? Well that free ride must have been very nice for you, sadly not everyone has had your exact experience with public school. By the way the public school I went to when I lived in Wisconsin was awesome, I would take that over being homeschooled anytime. Public school is also very useful for helping kids develop social skills, unlike homeschooling where you just stay home all the time. Even though this is slightly off topic, homeschooling doesn't really help or hurt the development of social skills any more than public school. As long as the parents aren't locking kids up in their rooms for 18 years, they'll develop the same social strengths as any other kid. I guess I should change it to "unlike homeschooling where you spend a lot less time around a group of peers." My point is that people need a lot of interaction with other people to learn how to function well in society and that is likely achieved more easily if you spend about 7 hours per weekday with a large group of peers rather than spending that time with parents and possibly siblings. I don't have any actual source to provide proof for that but it seems to be an intuitive connection to make, at least from my point of view.
Just because it's intuitive doesn't mean it's right. A lot of homeschooled kids grow up to be perfectly well-adjusted. And a lot of kids who aren't well-adjusted (having social or developmental issues) are homeschooled because of those issues --- regular school would not be a productive environment for them. Even though it might seem obvious that homeschooling makes kids weird, it's not as simple as that.
As for social interaction... it's something that homeschooling families need to keep an eye on, because every kid needs it, but school is far from the only place to get it. I did a lot of stuff with other kids, like music groups, karate classes, some academic subject classes, besides just the usual hanging out with my friends... and since public school where I grew up was a waste of time academically, studying smart gave me way more time to hang out with my friends than most kids my age had.
That said, there are a lot of really weird homeschooling families; I'm just saying the correlation/causation is not obvious like you are making it out to be 
Sorry for the huge off-topic... PM me I guess if you're still curious...
|
On February 19 2012 05:16 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2012 04:12 Haemonculus wrote:On February 18 2012 03:58 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 03:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 18 2012 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 18 2012 00:52 DoubleReed wrote:On February 18 2012 00:09 xDaunt wrote:On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote:
Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point. It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing. What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering. Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either. Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons. There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views. See, this is the kind of thing that I don't understand. The country has real problems right now -- problems with a capital P. Regardless of where you fall on the birth control issue, federal funding (or lack thereof) is not one of those big problems. Yet, people blow issues like this one up way out of proportion and base their electoral issues on where candidates fall on these relativity minor issues. So instead of focusing on real issues like looming fiscal disaster and seemingly imminent war in and around Iran, the country is talking about contraception right now. How stupid are we? It's because social freedoms are NOT a minor issue to many in this country. Consistently ignoring "minor" social issues is what ends you up in a police state or a theocracy that takes away rights based on arbitrary religious beliefs. Yeah, except no one's talking about taking away social freedoms. The conversation, to the extent that it exists, revolves around who has to pay for the exercise of those freedoms. Except that those very same insurance plans already all cover Viagra, Cialis, etc, and no one seems to be complaining about that. There's so little consistency between conservative rhetoric and actions. That's because no religion (that I know of) has a stance against sexual enhancement medication or treatments. Even in a "sex isn't meant for recreation" sense, Viagra could be used solely for procreation.
So could condoms. How else would women fool their men that don't want to have children by picking holes in them?
Honestly though, the large majority of people using viagra are "elderly" men and are in fact used in the recreational sense. It's a bit fateicious to claim that viagra is ok because it solves a medical problem if you are also venomly against things like condoms.
|
On February 21 2012 22:34 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 22:05 kwizach wrote:On February 21 2012 15:21 LazyDT wrote:On February 20 2012 15:04 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2012 13:32 LazyDT wrote:On February 20 2012 10:28 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2012 10:20 Instigata wrote:On February 20 2012 10:17 hillman wrote:
Ron Paul is the only candidate with an understanding and/or the political will to make changes to US fiscal policy....he also is the only candidate who is requiring that the Federal reserve have some god damn accountability. If he doesn't win then we're going deeper and deeper into money pit and may never get out. The establishment in Washington clearly doesn't want him to win but he is far and away the soundest candidate out there. This whole left-right paradigm in Washington is so despicable and played out...vote for change..quit fooling yourself that the political BS actually matters... Sucks because a lot of people see him as crazy. Yeah, about half his policies are good, but the other half are legitimately batshit insane. This puts him in the upper 90% of Republican politicians when it comes to those I'd like to see in the White House, he's only half nuts. Which policies are insane? Maybe I can help explain! We've been over this about 6 or 7 times in the thread, I don't feel like getting into it again. If you'd like to scroll back and read the previous arguments and then respond to those, be my guest. I understand your frustration, it's very hard to have a rational discussion in a forum sometimes. If you do want to discuss, feel free to PM me anytime. That goes for anyone with any doubts/questions about Ron Paul. I'd like to help dispel some doubts/confusions. Let me dispel your doubt/confusion right now: when Whitewing and other people consider many of Paul's policy ideas insane, it's not because they're confused about the said ideas, it's because they've looked at them. I imagine any soft marxists would
Really? People who disagree with Ron Paul's ideas are "Soft Marxists" now?
What does that even mean?
|
On February 21 2012 15:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 15:17 LazyDT wrote:On February 21 2012 09:24 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. There was no "destroying" of states' rights. The entire thing was caused by the secession of the Confederate states and then their attack on Fort Sumter. This was in turn caused by the fact that Lincoln got elected and that the Republicans had been fighting to not allow slavery in the new territories, which isn't a destruction of states' rights because it wasn't actually trampling on the rights of the southern States at all because there was never an attempt to actually get rid of slavery in states where it was already in place until the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. The vast majority of the war was fought to preserve the unity of the country. The abolition of slavery was tacked on later and wasn't even a main talking point until after the war because it was the biggest effect that it actually had.
Of course there was a destroying of states' rights. The north used the opportunity to pass the 14th amendment, the biggest blow to states' rights in U.S. history, which never would have passed had the south been represented. And this is coming from someone who doesn't even particularly like states' rights (especially the kind that allow slavery).
edit: To be clear, they weren't represented in the sense that they never would have ratified it had the people's wishes been accurately represented. But the north, having just won the war, was in a position to pretty much do whatever they wanted.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 21 2012 23:58 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 22:34 BioNova wrote:On February 21 2012 22:05 kwizach wrote:On February 21 2012 15:21 LazyDT wrote:On February 20 2012 15:04 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2012 13:32 LazyDT wrote:On February 20 2012 10:28 Whitewing wrote:On February 20 2012 10:20 Instigata wrote:On February 20 2012 10:17 hillman wrote:
Ron Paul is the only candidate with an understanding and/or the political will to make changes to US fiscal policy....he also is the only candidate who is requiring that the Federal reserve have some god damn accountability. If he doesn't win then we're going deeper and deeper into money pit and may never get out. The establishment in Washington clearly doesn't want him to win but he is far and away the soundest candidate out there. This whole left-right paradigm in Washington is so despicable and played out...vote for change..quit fooling yourself that the political BS actually matters... Sucks because a lot of people see him as crazy. Yeah, about half his policies are good, but the other half are legitimately batshit insane. This puts him in the upper 90% of Republican politicians when it comes to those I'd like to see in the White House, he's only half nuts. Which policies are insane? Maybe I can help explain! We've been over this about 6 or 7 times in the thread, I don't feel like getting into it again. If you'd like to scroll back and read the previous arguments and then respond to those, be my guest. I understand your frustration, it's very hard to have a rational discussion in a forum sometimes. If you do want to discuss, feel free to PM me anytime. That goes for anyone with any doubts/questions about Ron Paul. I'd like to help dispel some doubts/confusions. Let me dispel your doubt/confusion right now: when Whitewing and other people consider many of Paul's policy ideas insane, it's not because they're confused about the said ideas, it's because they've looked at them. I imagine any soft marxists would Really? People who disagree with Ron Paul's ideas are "Soft Marxists" now? What does that even mean?
It means he's never read Marx.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 22 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 15:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 21 2012 15:17 LazyDT wrote:On February 21 2012 09:24 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. There was no "destroying" of states' rights. The entire thing was caused by the secession of the Confederate states and then their attack on Fort Sumter. This was in turn caused by the fact that Lincoln got elected and that the Republicans had been fighting to not allow slavery in the new territories, which isn't a destruction of states' rights because it wasn't actually trampling on the rights of the southern States at all because there was never an attempt to actually get rid of slavery in states where it was already in place until the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. The vast majority of the war was fought to preserve the unity of the country. The abolition of slavery was tacked on later and wasn't even a main talking point until after the war because it was the biggest effect that it actually had. Of course there was a destroying of states' rights. It was as much about state rights as it was the economy and slavery. They were all deeply intertwined and trying to dissect them like isolated parts in a science experiment is useless.
In a way, Paul was right because the markets were solving themselves with Northern states' much more mature economies enveloping those of the Southern states, but that was until the threat to secede.
Either way, the situation is alien to the discussion of states' rights today, even though they share the same nomenclature. Plus it's silly because the best way to abolish slavery would have been through federal government intervention, just as Britain did in 1833, but I don't think Paul would've liked that.
|
Holy shit. I agree that this country has problems (see several pages back), but this is ridiculous:
SANTORUM'S SATAN WARNING
Tue Feb 21 2012 09:27:20 ET
"Satan has his sights on the United States of America!" Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has declared.
"Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition."
MORE
The former senator from Pennsylvania warned in 2008 how politics and government are falling to Satan.
"This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country - the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?"
"He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions."
Santorum made the provocative comments to students at Ave Maria University in Florida.
MORE
The White House contender described how Satan is even taking hold of some religions.
"We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."
Developing...
Source: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3s.htm
|
Yeah, I read that in the papers a few days back. It is fucking insanity.
edit: also, isn't it rather wearisome that these Ron Paul propagandists always make new accounts just for this thread? It's all too obvious. I don't even want to call them supporters because pretty much the only reason they make accounts on TL is to unload their shit until their accounts' freshness expires before they make new ones. It's comical, really.
|
What? That's not serious is it? That sounds like an Onion article.
Rofl
|
United States22883 Posts
He said it at a commencement speech at Ave Maria University. Ave Maria is a private Catholic college started by Domino's founder Tom Monaghan (who is batshit insane, btw.) I thought they had to close down, or maybe it was their law school. I know they closed it in Michigan and went to Florida.
|
On February 22 2012 00:52 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 00:34 frogrubdown wrote:On February 21 2012 15:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 21 2012 15:17 LazyDT wrote:On February 21 2012 09:24 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. There was no "destroying" of states' rights. The entire thing was caused by the secession of the Confederate states and then their attack on Fort Sumter. This was in turn caused by the fact that Lincoln got elected and that the Republicans had been fighting to not allow slavery in the new territories, which isn't a destruction of states' rights because it wasn't actually trampling on the rights of the southern States at all because there was never an attempt to actually get rid of slavery in states where it was already in place until the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. The vast majority of the war was fought to preserve the unity of the country. The abolition of slavery was tacked on later and wasn't even a main talking point until after the war because it was the biggest effect that it actually had. Of course there was a destroying of states' rights. It was as much about state rights as it was the economy and slavery. They were all deeply intertwined and trying to dissect them like isolated parts in a science experiment is useless. In a way, Paul was right because the markets were solving themselves with Northern states' much more mature economies enveloping those of the Southern states, but that was until the threat to secede. Either way, the situation is alien to the discussion of states' rights today, even though they share the same nomenclature. Plus it's silly because the best way to abolish slavery would have been through federal government intervention, just as Britain did in 1833, but I don't think Paul would've liked that.
Slavery really couldn't have been abolished without federal government intervention because of Dredd Scott v. Sandford.. which basically said that as long a a slave was property in one state, another state couldn't take that property from you. (essentially your right to own slaves couldn't be taken away as you moved from state to state)
This essentially set up the principles of the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment (states+local governments can't take away your rights). Essentially it said that those rights needed to be respected on a federal level.
Which is why something like abortion has to be decided on a federal level. If One state has the right of the mother to kill the child, and another state says it is a crime if she does... does the mother lose her right to kill just by going over state lines, does the child lose the right to life because the mother went over state lines.
(Ie it would be as if some states had legal homicide and others didn't)
While state's rights are good for a Lot (allowing different social experiments, etc. Individual rights need to trump them and the issue of slavery was an issue of balancing individual rights (right to own slaves v. right to not be enslaved)
|
Satan? Really? Of aaaall the stupid things he could say he brings up Satan?
To anybody interrested in some laughs, there's a site posted on reddit where users can post their own ideas. Akin to the "In Soviet Russia" jokes, but instead "When Rick is President" jokes. http://whenrickispresident.com/ It might not be all that political, but really. By now I'm watching the news to laugh at the GOP candidates, then afterwards look at the Daily show to laugh some more. That's too much laughs in president runnings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
