Republican nominations - Page 488

On February 27 2012 01:24 Djzapz wrote:
I bet a lot of people right now are like "that thing about education being bad doesn't sound right but I'll run with it because I'm unable to think for myself"

On February 26 2012 14:49 Doublemint wrote:


I agree, very sensible post here. And I might ask(add?) for clarification that "losing some wars", you do mean on China´s homefront where people will eventually rise and demand similar freedoms and rights we fought so hard for in the western world. The other, very unpleasant alternative, would be that our politicians think that China is the model of the future... But I find that pretty unlikely, because even though a huge portion of people here(US/Europe) have gotten VERY complacent, this would not fly and there would be significant resistance. But thinking about Data Retention/SOPA/ACTA/Patriot Act/insertbullshitlawthatundermineseverythingtheweststandsfor... I tend to become a pessimistic cynic.

Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Republican presidential primary hopeful Rick Santorum said he doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state, noting that a speech on the topic by former President John F. Kennedy makes him want to “throw up.”

“I don’t believe that the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said in an interview today on ABC’s “This Week” program. “The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square.”

Santorum, 53, made the comments in an interview from Michigan, where he is campaigning ahead of the Republican primary this week. Polls show a close race there against Mitt Romney who spent his boyhood in the state and where his father, George Romney, served as governor and an automobile company chief executive officer.

Santorum said Kennedy’s 1960 speech in Houston about the separation of church and state, was an “absolutist doctrine” that he disagrees with.

On February 27 2012 05:01 xavra41 wrote:
Well people don't have a right to higher education... You have a right to your liberty and property, not to have somebody pay for your schooling.

On February 27 2012 05:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:


The majority of the western world thinks that you have a right to both proper health care and a proper education.

On February 27 2012 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:


See this isnt about a right but social mobility.
The best way to get out of poverty is to get a good job. But you cant get a good job without money. You cant get money without a good job.
This is why the rest of the world spends money on helping with education so poorer families can send there children to good schools where they make more money later in life.

On February 27 2012 05:13 xavra41 wrote:

If it isn't a right, then the government doesnt HAVE TO provide it and we are back to square one. Getting a good job often requires higher education and you can still have it, it just won't be free. What liberals don't understand is that you are TAKING money from somebody else to offer this service. The middle class pay highest proportionally so you are also making people poor while raising others. For example, I am middle class and I barely get any financial aid while others get most of it free. Because I have to pay for it with my own money I do research to make sure i can get a job with my degree. People who get it free (and easier admissions) don't value their choice because they never have to work for it. So they are fine with getting some dumb art major and being unemployed. The free market system ensures that scarce resources are being used optimally by society.

On February 27 2012 05:06 xavra41 wrote:

If you want to live in a liberal world, then go ahead and go to canada or europe, but this is america. We (used to) value free markets and limited government and that's the way it is here. I happen to think that I can run my life better than the government can so living here is wonderful for me.

On February 27 2012 05:36 rhmiller907 wrote:
Lets just hope that whoever is elected that they keep America out of any new wars and work to end the ones we have.

On February 27 2012 05:30 BallinWitStalin wrote:


You view you're notion of "liberty" and "right to property" as rights, but other people view things like education and healthcare as rights. It's just basically comes down to different assumptions about what consitutes a right. Other people (myself included) make vastly different assumptions about what constitutes a "right", particularly when it comes to a view on an unfettered right to private property.

It's fine to disagree on this stuff too, different people have different opinions. But your post sounds like you have an absolutist position about the things you view as rights, which I just generally don't agree with. How you define what is a right is determined by basic moral assumptions you make, and different people make different assumptions than you do. Like I said, that's okay, but don't act like your definition of rights is the be-all-end-all abosolute definition. Different people make different moral assumptions than you do, which is okay.

It's not that "liberals" (hello Foxnews) don't realize they're "taking" money from someone else. It's just that they view taxation as a legitimate means through which to provide services to other people which they consider basic rights (e.g. education and healthcare). Different people have well thought out criteria for rights as well, and ones that differ from yours.

Also, the motivations for providing services like healthcare and education can be different than one focused on "rights". Utilitarians wouldn't provide those things because they're rights, but because they provide maximum utility. Additionally, someone who's pro free-market, but has a somewhat marxist view of social history and class struggle, might want those services provided to curb capitalist excess and poverty such that the capitalist system is preserved from destruction by pissed off poor people.

Long story short, don't act like your moral position is the totally correct one, identify it based on the assumptions you make about morality. Additionally, try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people you're arguing against, and painting them as one homogenous group. There's lots of reasons why people might want government services.

On February 27 2012 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:


Its an outdated philosophy that is being phased out not only around the world, but within the US as well. Human nature has always tended towards increased community and connectedness, through formation of states, military, public schools, etc etc. Don't be so silly as to think that 50 years from now we're going to look much different than Europe. Its natural and logical and follows a trend we've seen throughout all of humanity's existence, to work together more and more closely.

On February 27 2012 05:44 xavra41 wrote:

Actually I do have an absolutist view of rights, because law determines people's rights. The constitutions mentions liberty as a right, but it says nothing of education. Our society doesn't go around asking people what you want to be a right, we actually have something meaningful called laws.