EPTRepublican nominations - Page 526
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
DamnCats
United States1472 Posts
On March 07 2012 09:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Newt takes Georgia. Unfortunately for him I daresay he could win 100 percent of the Georgia primary and still be completely irrelevant :[ | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On March 07 2012 09:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Newt takes Georgia. Well that pretty much gurantee's that he'll be in for the rest of the race, considering his convictions. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Also his new logo is a gas pump. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 07 2012 07:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: What? Would rather have something work well or just work? i would rather have it work well, but that wasn't the question. the statement i was referring to was that a non-secular government couldn't work. they can and do work. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
In Georgia, Gingrich won every demographic except those who said "strong moral character" is most important (via @foxnewspolitics) | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 07 2012 09:12 sc2superfan101 wrote: i would rather have it work well, but that wasn't the question. the statement i was referring to was that a non-secular government couldn't work. they can and do work. Isn't this a non-sequitor? America was founded to be a secular state and that is one of our core values as a country. Regardless of whether or not it can work, it does not apply to America because America is secular. On March 07 2012 09:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: LOL | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
Isn't this a non-sequitor? America was founded to be a secular state and that is one of our core values as a country. Regardless of whether or not it can work, it does not apply to America because America is secular. i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way. the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
as far as I know, Santorum has never said that a person who is homosexual is not a person... do you have any reasons why you believe he is a homophobe? and how does his being allowed to run for office make him a bigot? we don't outlaw people from running for elections for personal opinions that they may or may not hold. Santorum has said regularly that homosexuality is a sin. Considering that there is substantial scientific evidence that being homosexual is not a choice but simply is something one is born with, this suggests that these people are simply sinners and cursed from god. It's not the same as saying that they aren't people, but it's close. he is against the idea that there must be a complete and total wall between a person's faith and their role in government. his criticism of Kennedy was based on the idea that a person's faith should not inform and affect their decisions as policy makers. he believes that a person's faith should. No, he regularly has stated that he wants constitutional amendments to subject people in the country to christian law. And yes, there has to be a wall explicitly between the state and religion, because otherwise it is state sponsored support of a religion, which is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. There must be a separation, as strong as one as possible, in order for freedom of religion in this country to succeed. he is a social conservative, yes. i don't see how this makes him ignorant, discriminatory or racist though. He's ignorant, discriminatory and racist for other reasons, not his conservatism. This was just a point against him in another field. do you have any sources that quote him saying that he would outlaw schools from teaching safe sex? He's never specifically mentioned outlawing other forms of it, but he's clearly stated on a regular basis that he supports abstinence-only sex education (which is more or less the same things as preventing them from teaching safe sex), and has regularly attacked obama for not supporting abstinence-only sex education. i fail to see how allowing public prayer prevents you from being an atheist or forces you to be a Christian. I see you've never bothered to put in any effort at all into learning about concepts like peer pressure and institutionalization. Do your research. do you have any sources that quote him saying that he does not believe children should go to school? Rick Santorum on Early Childhood Education: "the government wants their hands on your children as fast as they can. That is why I opposed all these early starts and pre-early starts, and early-early starts. They want your children from the womb so they can indoctrinate your children as to what they want them to be." (lol wut?) it's not so black and white as torture vs no torture. enhanced interrogation techniques have been proven to work, and have saved American lives. the line between them is blurred. on the other point, do you have any sources that quote him saying the CIA should not have any oversight? Ah I see the problem, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're EXACTLY wrong, you couldn't be more wrong. 'Enhanced interrogation techniques' (knock off with the silly euphamisms, we have enough complaints about political correctness. Call it torture). have been proven NOT to work, they're unreliable, and they're a violation of the Geneva Convention! Santorum has specifically said that John McCain is completely wrong on torture (McCain is a former POW who was tortured by the vietkong), and that torture works (the evidence is nearly incontrovertible that it does not). i am not aware that he has ever said that being a homosexual-atheist makes you a bad person. he may call those things sins, but i am sure that he would call himself a sinner. everyone is a sinner. that doesn't mean they are all bad people. Are you deliberately being obtuse? He says, on a regular basis, that these are sins, and that people who voluntarily do these things (not believe in god, although to be honest he means non-christian) or are homosexual are regularly making a sin of their entire lifestyle, which suggests strongly that he considers them to be bad people. it worked for over 1,000 years in europe. furthermore, the invention of a secular state is a relatively new one. almost every single society that has ever existed was religious and had no clear separation between religion and politics. now, you and i may say that a separation leads to a more preferable society, but to claim that they "don't work" is flat out wrong. the dark ages quote is very funny because most modern historians don't refer to them as the "dark ages" anymore, precisely because they weren't that "dark". You should study some history, maybe you'll learn a few things. Firstly, it didn't work well in Europe at all well, just compare the growth of the past few hundred years to the thousands that came before. Secondly, it's pretty clear that many of the most successful civilizations weren't ever theocracies (like China). They don't work, look at the Salem Witch Trials for evidence of that. I can provide an almost endless list of them. They also CAN'T work in a more heterogeneous society, the only examples of it working (however transcendentally) are in homogeneous societies where everyone was of the same religion (or they just tortured, executed, or exiled those who weren't, I.E. Spanish Inquisition) Thirdly, it's irrelevant, our entire nation is founded on secular values, the founding fathers wrote them into our founding documents. i guess we'll have to just disagree. i may not vote for Santorum, but i don't believe his views on almost anything are born out of "ignorance". This belief can only be born out of your own ignorance. Some other fun things: Santorum wants to tell you how you're allowed to have sex: "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special." Santorum blames social security problems on abortion (he has no fucking clue what the hell he's talking about): "The reason Social Security is in big trouble is we don’t have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion." Santorum blames Liberals for priests molesting children: “Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.” Santorum compares same-sex marriage to terrorism (because we all know gay and lesbian couples marrying each other is the same thing as flying planes into the twin towers): “This is an issue just like 9/11. We didn't decide we wanted to fight the war on terrorism because we wanted to. It was brought to us. And if not now, when? When the supreme courts in all the other states have succumbed to the Massachusetts version of the law?” Santorum with a very racist comment on Obama's Pro-Choice stance (which doesn't make sense at all either I might add, as if giving women the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not is the same as dictating who is allowed to be born): “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’” Santorum denying global warming with some completely wrong bullshit (which was debunked several times in this very thread. Hint: there is no global conspiracy of scientists who are deliberately lying about climate change. They believe it because the data supports it.): “I believe the earth gets warmer, and I also believe the earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man through the production of CO2, which is a trace gas in the atmosphere and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas, is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all of the other factors, El Niño, La Niña, sunspots, you know, moisture in the air.” Here's a quote that supports my point above about him talking out of his ass with regards to homosexuality, and how he doesn't want homosexuals serving in the military: “There are people who were gay and lived the gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore. I don’t know if that’s the similar situation or that’s the case for anyone that’s black. It’s a behavioral issue as opposed to a color of the skin issue, and that’s the diff for serving in the military.” Santorum on supporting the GOP's plan to rig the electoral system in Pennsylvania: “Certainly from the standpoint of a Republican, it’s a winner. Republicans will come out ahead in Pennsylvania in every election. The way Democrats win, they have two big cities with huge concentrations of voters — and then overwhelm the rest of the state. All of a sudden, a Republican can win — and would probably routinely win — all but three or four congressional districts in Pennsylvania. It would turn it from a state Democrats rely on, as part of the base, to a state that they’re gonna lose under almost any scenario.” Santorum believes homosexuality will indoctrinate children in schools: “Let’s look at what’s going to be taught in our schools because now we have same sex couples being the same and their sexual activity being seen as equal and being affirmed by society as heterosexual couples and their activity. So what is going to be taught to our people in health class in our schools? What is going to be taught to our children about who in our stories, even to little children — what are married couples? What families look like in America? So, you are going to have in our curriculum spread throughout our curriculum worldview that is fundamentally different than what is taught in schools today? Is that not a consequence of gay marriage?” Santorum thinks the state has the right to prevent people from pursuing their dreams: “The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.” Santorum talking out of his ass with completely backwards facts about the economy (Poverty increased, and certainly was nowhere near it's lowest point in history): “Yeah, remember, under the Bush administration, welfare — I mean, excuse me, poverty among African Americans and among single unmarried women, poverty was at the lowest rate ever in the history of this country. So Obama’s policies are not working, Bush polices worked! For long a time as a matter of fact.” Figure this one out: “The American Left hates Christendom. They hate Western civilization.” (As if Western Civilization is the same thing as Christendom?) Santorum has no understanding of the history of his own religion, and he's also anti-islam (more bigotry): “The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical.” Among other things Santorum has said, are: wanting to go to war with china (he specifically said NOT a trade war), not understanding health care at all (he suggested that veterans of ww2 are against government health care when the overwhelming majority of them benefit from government health care), and my personal favorite quote of all: "One of the favorite things of the left is to use your sentimentality, and your proper understanding and belief that we are stewards of this earth and we have a responsibility to hand off a beautiful earth to the next generation. 'They use that and they have used it in the past to try to scare you into supporting radical ideas on the environment. They tried it with this idea, this politicization of science called man-made global warming... I stood up and fought against those things. Why? Because they will destroy the very foundation of prosperity in our country." | ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On March 07 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote: i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way. the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy. Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists. | ||
|
Chessz
United States644 Posts
On March 07 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote: i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way. the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy. Outside of responding to what you said, can we please stop interpreting "the founders"? Or somehow integrating their beliefs/intentions into our current ideas of how to govern? And instead base ourselves in the document they left for the future, the Constitution? They were literally hundreds of guys with 18th century world views trying to make a new government in the time of the Enlightenment. It's nonsensical to assert they have positions on modern issues or could even comprehend our lives right now because humanity has changed so drastically. Now, first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Just because there is a dominant Christian paradigm, or that a lot of people are religious here, doesn't make us non-secular | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
i have yet to see a single policy that has been supported by him that would force people to abide by "Christian law" (whatever that is). i agree that there should be some separation, however, i do not agree that it must be so total as others do. supporting abstinence only sex education is not synonymous with outlawing safe-sex education. this is just more of trying to make his positions more radical than they really are. if you truly feel that the positions he holds are radical and wrong than you should be able to argue them without misrepresenting them. i don't see how allowing a public prayer puts peer pressure on anyone. i have gone to religious schools that were not of my own religion, and never felt pressured to take part in their ceremonies or prayers. simply allowing the principle to lead students in prayer will not suddenly make the atheist be bullied or stigmatized. i'd have to see the full quote and in what context, concerning his objections to "early starts". i don't know that we can say that he is outlawing pre-schools because he says he doesn't like early starts though. i'm sorry if this offends you, but enhanced interrogation techniques do work. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave up a lot of information that proved valuable in, among other things, taking out Osama. once again, saying that someone is living in sin, or is a sinner, is not synonymous with saying that they are a bad person or that they are inferior. there is no need to try to take his positions any further than he takes them, nor is there a need to assume that you know how he feels about an issue. it is ridiculous to say that they don't work. they worked for centuries. many of them are still working. make a distinction between working well and working, or don't. but the fact is, they did work. not one time in that quote did he tell people how to have sex, or say that he would force anyone to do anything. he simply stated his opinion. the rest of your quotes and the statements preceding them seem to follow this same pattern. you take a quote that says one thing, and then you say it means something else. we could go around and around in circles all day trying to figure out what he really meant, but i don't think that will be all that productive. | ||
|
ranshaked
United States870 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On March 07 2012 09:44 sc2superfan101 wrote: calling someone a sinner is not even close to calling them inhuman. i'm sorry but you will not convince me that he said something he didn't. he did not call them inhuman or say that they were less than other people, so trying to put those words in his mouth is wrong. i have yet to see a single policy that has been supported by him that would force people to abide by "Christian law" (whatever that is). i agree that there should be some separation, however, i do not agree that it must be so total as others do. supporting abstinence only sex education is not synonymous with outlawing safe-sex education. this is just more of trying to make his positions more radical than they really are. if you truly feel that the positions he holds are radical and wrong than you should be able to argue them without misrepresenting them. i don't see how allowing a public prayer puts peer pressure on anyone. i have gone to religious schools that were not of my own religion, and never felt pressured to take part in their ceremonies or prayers. simply allowing the principle to lead students in prayer will not suddenly make the atheist be bullied or stigmatized. i'd have to see the full quote and in what context, concerning his objections to "early starts". i don't know that we can say that he is outlawing pre-schools because he says he doesn't like early starts though. i'm sorry if this offends you, but enhanced interrogation techniques do work. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave up a lot of information that proved valuable in, among other things, taking out Osama. once again, saying that someone is living in sin, or is a sinner, is not synonymous with saying that they are a bad person or that they are inferior. there is no need to try to take his positions any further than he takes them, nor is there a need to assume that you know how he feels about an issue. it is ridiculous to say that they don't work. they worked for centuries. many of them are still working. make a distinction between working well and working, or don't. but the fact is, they did work. not one time in that quote did he tell people how to have sex, or say that he would force anyone to do anything. he simply stated his opinion. the rest of your quotes and the statements preceding them seem to follow this same pattern. you take a quote that says one thing, and then you say it means something else. we could go around and around in circles all day trying to figure out what he really meant, but i don't think that will be all that productive. Um, that's exactly what being a sinner means. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 07 2012 09:32 DoubleReed wrote: Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists. i don't believe one can put the founder's into one homogenous group and claim that they felt anything. they were as varied then as we are now, as were many of their opinions. considering the fact that they are not here, i believe their true intentions are unknowable to a large extent. sure, many of them wrote much on their justifications, and much of their inner motivations can be known. but the fact remains that we do not know. the government was supposed to be secular to an extent, we can agree on that. i do not believe that most of the founders would have ever said that a politician should not let his faith inform or effect his policy decisions. edit: i don't want to take up 30 posts trying to respond to everyone so: no, being a sinner does not mean you are a bad person. otherwise we must believe that Santorum feels that everyone who has ever lived, barring Jesus and Mary, are bad people. then what are we complaining about? if he honestly feels that way (which he certainly doesn't) than he isn't singling out homosexuals at all. look, deep within his heart, Santorum may hate homosexuals. but i can't know that, you can't know that, no one can know that. we can only go off of what he says, and i doubt you will ever hear him say that he hates homosexuals or that they are bad people who are inferior. | ||
|
Chessz
United States644 Posts
But just think of the idea of the President of the United States making changes to govern people in his own image. Just the idea of it. And his own image/worldview is largely based on the principles of a God/religion, which tells people how they should live and is highly discriminatory towards certain groups (homosexuals). and then take a moment to remember this is the United States. and then realize how problematic that is. EDIT::: you just posted this: we can only go off of what he says and we have given you many things that demonstrate this. Even though I think what he's said verbatim is completely reprehensible, and shameful and disrespectful, and honestly depressing that he would ever become an elected official, remember that messages aren't void of subtext. Please use your brain for 2 seconds. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 07 2012 09:55 Chessz wrote: But just think of the idea of the President of the United States making changes to govern people in his own image. find me one President that didn't. but this has become a topic of "what sc2superfan believes" and not "republican nominations". so i'll bow out. y'all can take the last word for now, but until it's directly about the republican nominations, i'm not going to respond. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On March 07 2012 09:44 sc2superfan101 wrote: calling someone a sinner is not even close to calling them inhuman. i'm sorry but you will not convince me that he said something he didn't. he did not call them inhuman or say that they were less than other people, so trying to put those words in his mouth is wrong. i have yet to see a single policy that has been supported by him that would force people to abide by "Christian law" (whatever that is). i agree that there should be some separation, however, i do not agree that it must be so total as others do. supporting abstinence only sex education is not synonymous with outlawing safe-sex education. this is just more of trying to make his positions more radical than they really are. if you truly feel that the positions he holds are radical and wrong than you should be able to argue them without misrepresenting them. i don't see how allowing a public prayer puts peer pressure on anyone. i have gone to religious schools that were not of my own religion, and never felt pressured to take part in their ceremonies or prayers. simply allowing the principle to lead students in prayer will not suddenly make the atheist be bullied or stigmatized. i'd have to see the full quote and in what context, concerning his objections to "early starts". i don't know that we can say that he is outlawing pre-schools because he says he doesn't like early starts though. i'm sorry if this offends you, but enhanced interrogation techniques do work. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave up a lot of information that proved valuable in, among other things, taking out Osama. once again, saying that someone is living in sin, or is a sinner, is not synonymous with saying that they are a bad person or that they are inferior. there is no need to try to take his positions any further than he takes them, nor is there a need to assume that you know how he feels about an issue. it is ridiculous to say that they don't work. they worked for centuries. many of them are still working. make a distinction between working well and working, or don't. but the fact is, they did work. not one time in that quote did he tell people how to have sex, or say that he would force anyone to do anything. he simply stated his opinion. the rest of your quotes and the statements preceding them seem to follow this same pattern. you take a quote that says one thing, and then you say it means something else. we could go around and around in circles all day trying to figure out what he really meant, but i don't think that will be all that productive. Calling someone a sinner is not close to calling them inhuman, yes, you are correct. On the other hand, saying that they are deliberately choosing sin as a major part of their lifestyle insinuates that they are evil or not good people. You haven't seen a single policy? How about all of the constitutional amendments he supports? Yes, supporting abstinence only sex education IS synonymous with being opposed to safe sex education. Abstinence only specifically means that you prohibit the teaching of any other form of sex education. That's what the word 'only' means. You don't see how they put pressure on because A: you haven't done your research and B: you're applying your own experiences (and your assumption that you weren't influenced is wrong, we're all influenced by things like this, even if we don't notice it) to everyone and using that as some kind of argument that it'll never happen or that it doesn't happen; there's a reason anecdotal evidence is worthless. I posted a full quote, the context is that he was stating his position regarding pre-school and kindergarten and other forms of early education. Um, no, they don't work. Do your research. They 'might' rarely, on occasion work, but they're even more likely to give you bad and false information. Your suggestion that torture worked in this particular instance is wrong as well, the people in charge said the information did not come from him: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/may/05/torture-and-osama-bin-laden In fact, if you've ever heard of Game Theory, there is definite mathematics that shows that it doesn't work. I'll even provide you with some links so you can do some reading on why torture doesn't work: http://www.newswise.com/articles/torture-does-not-yield-useful-information http://blog.nola.com/guesteditorials/2009/04/how_effective_is_torture_not_v.html http://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf (A very thorough research paper on the subject) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=1&ref=global (Written by an FBI supervisor) http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-09/new-study-finds-torture-negatively-affects-memory Also, the position of many people who think it 'might' work: "My position is that even if it is 100% effective--in the sense of producing only true information--we should ban it. I don't trust anyone, not myself and certainly not the state, with the power implied by sanctioned torture. I don't want to live in a state that tortures people. And I don't think you need an efficacy argument to make that case." (This quote is from the Economist) One would think republicans and conservatives would be opposed to giving the government this sort of power. Theocracies do not work anywhere near as well as secular societies. I have no idea what you mean when you say 'work'. Do you mean that they still exist and haven't killed off all their citizens yet? My quotes were quite literal, I'm amazed you can't read them properly. I don't mean to be insulting, but you should honestly step back and think about this a bit more. All of the quotes I posted were in context and mean exactly what I said they did. | ||
| ||
