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.
I don't consider a state's role in denying human beings basic fundamental rights even a question of states' rights vs. federal control. No government should have that ability, period. So no, I wouldn't consider the 14th amendment a huge blow to states' rights.
14th didn't abolish slavery; that was the 13th. 14th has been used to apply principles that previously only applied at the federal level at the level of states. So it did severely damage states rights (which was good).
Santorum winning would be a warning sign to everyone in the US. It could mean that the days of tolerance and multiculturalism are over. At least Gingrich is just pretending to be religious and Mitt Romney will impulsively change his positions because he's been doing it constantly for years to try and win conservative Republican votes. But Santorum would fight the fights against equality and civil rights because he passionately believes in certain things. Scary to think of.
Climate change denial has become a litmus test for modern Republicans, but Rick Santorum, in his fondness for melding faith and government, has become one of the precious few to cite the Bible as evidence that the science-accepting crowd has it all wrong — and apparently the first to bring that thinking to the presidential stage.
“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Santorum told a Colorado crowd earlier this month.
He went on to call climate change “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”
The surging presidential hopeful fleshed out this argument further this Sunday on CBS Face The Nation, when asked to justify his recent controversial claim that President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible.” He said the President sides with “radical environmentalists” who don’t understand what God intended to be the relationship between humans and the planet.
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.
I don't consider a state's role in denying human beings basic fundamental rights even a question of states' rights vs. federal control. No government should have that ability, period. So no, I wouldn't consider the 14th amendment a huge blow to states' rights.
14th didn't abolish slavery; that was the 13th. 14th has been used to apply principles that previously only applied at the federal level at the level of states. So it did severely damage states rights (which was good).
I know what the amendments are, and I would consider equal protection under the law and enforcing the states to acknowledge the Bill of Rights as fundamental rights for people in the U.S.
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?
[quote]
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.
I don't consider a state's role in denying human beings basic fundamental rights even a question of states' rights vs. federal control. No government should have that ability, period. So no, I wouldn't consider the 14th amendment a huge blow to states' rights.
14th didn't abolish slavery; that was the 13th. 14th has been used to apply principles that previously only applied at the federal level at the level of states. So it did severely damage states rights (which was good).
I know what the amendments are, and I would consider equal protection under the law and enforcing the states to acknowledge the Bill of Rights as fundamental rights for people in the U.S.
Okay, so no one here is saying the 14th is bad or even that state's rights are good or anything. But the States had the right to not follow the bill of rights in their own constitutions and do all sorts of shenanigans. Then after the civil war they were no longer able to do that. The States lost their rights to do all that.
That's all we're saying. No one is saying that's a bad thing. The states did lose rights though (they must abide by the federal bill of rights as well).
And technically, didn't we also basically say "states cannot secede from the union"? That could be seen as a state right as well.
On February 21 2012 09:14 Stratos_speAr wrote: [quote]
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.
I don't consider a state's role in denying human beings basic fundamental rights even a question of states' rights vs. federal control. No government should have that ability, period. So no, I wouldn't consider the 14th amendment a huge blow to states' rights.
14th didn't abolish slavery; that was the 13th. 14th has been used to apply principles that previously only applied at the federal level at the level of states. So it did severely damage states rights (which was good).
I know what the amendments are, and I would consider equal protection under the law and enforcing the states to acknowledge the Bill of Rights as fundamental rights for people in the U.S.
Okay, so no one here is saying the 14th is bad or even that state's rights are good or anything. But the States had the right to not follow the bill of rights in their own constitutions and do all sorts of shenanigans. Then after the civil war they were no longer able to do that. The States lost their rights to do all that.
That's all we're saying. No one is saying that's a bad thing. The states did lose rights though (they must abide by the federal bill of rights as well).
And technically, didn't we also basically say "states cannot secede from the union"? That could be seen as a state right as well.
This is similar to the current argument about health insurance covering contraception.
I (any many others) would argue that the states never had the right to not follow the Bill of Rights, but they just didn't do it anyway. I think that any reasonable person would agree that everyone throughout the world has the basic fundamental right to life, yet we see criminals, dictators, etc. killing people every day. Just because they did it doesn't mean they had (or have) the right to. Many (such as those in the Union at the time) would also argue that the Confederacy never had the right to secede, so it's contentious if that if restricting states' rights as well.
On February 22 2012 08:05 DoubleReed wrote: Wtf is "Theological secularism"?! WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?!
On February 22 2012 07:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On February 22 2012 07:07 frogrubdown wrote:
On February 22 2012 05:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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: [quote]
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.
I don't consider a state's role in denying human beings basic fundamental rights even a question of states' rights vs. federal control. No government should have that ability, period. So no, I wouldn't consider the 14th amendment a huge blow to states' rights.
14th didn't abolish slavery; that was the 13th. 14th has been used to apply principles that previously only applied at the federal level at the level of states. So it did severely damage states rights (which was good).
I know what the amendments are, and I would consider equal protection under the law and enforcing the states to acknowledge the Bill of Rights as fundamental rights for people in the U.S.
Okay, so no one here is saying the 14th is bad or even that state's rights are good or anything. But the States had the right to not follow the bill of rights in their own constitutions and do all sorts of shenanigans. Then after the civil war they were no longer able to do that. The States lost their rights to do all that.
That's all we're saying. No one is saying that's a bad thing. The states did lose rights though (they must abide by the federal bill of rights as well).
And technically, didn't we also basically say "states cannot secede from the union"? That could be seen as a state right as well.
This is similar to the current argument about health insurance covering contraception.
I (any many others) would argue that the states never had the right to not follow the Bill of Rights, but they just didn't do it anyway. Many (such as those in the Union at the time) would also argue that the Confederacy never had the right to secede.
While that's true about secession, I've never heard that about the Bill of Rights.
For instance, the 1st Amendment starts "Congress shall make no law..." It does not refer to state governments. Most state governments had their own provisions that said so, but it specifically refers to Congress.
The 14th Amendment has been specifically used to enforce the bill of rights for the states. I don't actually think what you're saying is a generally held position. It may be, I'm not sure. Either way, I don't think you'd disagree that the civil war forcefully ended the dispute. The South certainly thought they had such rights.
On February 22 2012 07:37 Sumahi wrote: Santorum winning would be a warning sign to everyone in the US. It could mean that the days of tolerance and multiculturalism are over. At least Gingrich is just pretending to be religious and Mitt Romney will impulsively change his positions because he's been doing it constantly for years to try and win conservative Republican votes. But Santorum would fight the fights against equality and civil rights because he passionately believes in certain things. Scary to think of.
Santorum winning is exactly what they want to happen, or he can take everyone down with him. This silly contest of who can say the most ridiculously stupid things is just a play to scare the moderates to Obama. The only one they can't control is Ron Paul who isn't amazing but has some pretty neat ideas so they censor his time so he can't help but lose. Now ignorant hyper-religious neo-con is up against Barrack "well he wasn't that bad" Obama and everything is status quo. The masses are entertained for another year while they don't have to shuffle anything too quickly.
On February 22 2012 05:33 koreasilver wrote: Obviously not. At this point I'm more interested in the 2016 elections, really.
Yeah me too. I assume Hilary would be the democratic nominee but who gets the Rep nomination. If we assume that Obama wins this year whoever get the rep nomination will have done serious damage to their support base. For example if Romney wins the nomination but loses the election because he doesn't ignite massive republican support, he would have had a shot a the presidency twice and failed both times (once to get the nomination and once in an election). So his type of middle of the road candidacy obviously isn't viable so the 2016 candidate would likely be more conservative. Alternatively, if one of the crazies (eg Santorum) gets the nomination and loses, does that mean that the ultra-conservative christian wing of the party will lose influence? Would you expect a more reasonable candidate in 2016 or a further shift rightwards?
I mean if the reps can't put a winning candidate up against Obama with the economy in the state it is in, they will have serious trouble in 2016 when presumably things will look better.
On February 22 2012 10:57 screamingpalm wrote: A Hillary v Palin 2016 POTUS election would make for some great entertainment lol.
That's not a bad idea. If there is one well known person in the Rep party who could reasonably claim the crazies and the more mainstream sector it would be Palin. I mean she is still bat-shit crazy compared to most people but the fact she gained the vice nomination with McCain would support her getting the main establishment nod of approval. I guess that is why she dropped out so early and has been touring the world. Trying to get a better image. Would be an interesting election.
On February 22 2012 02:37 Chaosvuistje wrote: 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.
Let me ask you a genuine question. Is it any more or less retarded to bring up 'Satan' as it is to bring up 'God' or 'Jesus' in a speech?
Mitt Romney warned in Michigan on Tuesday that if Congress cuts the budget too quickly, the economy could contract, a popular idea with economists but a huge departure from Republican orthodoxy that insists spending cuts will boost growth overall.
"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy," Romney said. "So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies."
NBC, which reported the above quote, reached out to small government group Club For Growth, whose vice president for government affairs, Andy Roth, was unsurprisingly upset.
"It's hogwash," he said. "It confirms yet again that Romney is not a limited government conservative."
Mitt Romney warned in Michigan on Tuesday that if Congress cuts the budget too quickly, the economy could contract, a popular idea with economists but a huge departure from Republican orthodoxy that insists spending cuts will boost growth overall.
"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy," Romney said. "So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies."
NBC, which reported the above quote, reached out to small government group Club For Growth, whose vice president for government affairs, Andy Roth, was unsurprisingly upset.
"It's hogwash," he said. "It confirms yet again that Romney is not a limited government conservative."
If Romney becomes president and the economy is still struggling, I think he'll propose another round of stimulus. He might not call it "stimulus," but it will be a round of tax cuts that aren't fully compensated for by spending cuts, which is just another form of Keynesian stimulus.
But if the economy recovers, Romney won't be president anyway. He might not even be the Republican nominee if the economy recovers (the stronger the economy, the more primary voters will focus on social issues). So it makes sense for him to start giving himself this leeway now.
On February 22 2012 15:06 Signet wrote: But if the economy recovers, Romney won't be president anyway. He might not even be the Republican nominee if the economy recovers (the stronger the economy, the more primary voters will focus on social issues). So it makes sense for him to start giving himself this leeway now.
You're making a presumption forgetting that he is one of the wealthiest people in the world. Money wins you elections. Obama won because he had money. Voter perceptions can be influenced by advertising. By saying he won't be President anyway is only showing your ignorance. You underestimate two things - money, and the retardation of the general American public. Just watch Borat or Bruno if you need a reminder of what the people in your country are like.
On February 22 2012 08:05 DoubleReed wrote: Wtf is "Theological secularism"?! WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?!
It means "Loonies like us have given religion a bad name, therefore we should accuse opponents of being religious even when they aren't."
Actually I think it's the opposite. It's probably more the cultural Christian "I-go-to-church-once-a-year" and fill out "Christian" on the census. And while that accounts for a lot of people in the West, I would say it's a neat rhetorical trick to de-legitimize Obama's faith claim. It allows a Catholic Santorum to accuse a Protestant Obama before Evangelical Protestants of not being sufficiently Christian. Which of course allows Santorum war on religion rhetoric- which would make no sense if Obama is an actual Christian. Furthermore, if you strip out politics, the Evangelicals theoretically should have more in common with Obama than Santorum theologically- except that the default setting for a lot of Evangelicals is to vote Republican even if action rarely matches the promises.
And because Santorum has positioned himself as the defender of social conservatism, he needs to de-legitimize Obama's faith claims. (Whatever Obama may actually believe- he's pretty quiet about it, but that might just be his style.)
EPT
