EPTRepublican nominations - Page 69
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
| ||
|
Josealtron
United States219 Posts
On September 03 2011 00:58 jon arbuckle wrote: Santorum being a moron is well established. He doesn't even have charisma like other well-established morons in the race. Santorum never had a chance. It's true. We should really be discussing the only candidate who seems to have a chance right now, which is Perry | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
BTW, I think I've figured out why these candidates seem to be doing well: it's simple statistics. Half the population has below average intelligence, and 1/3 the population has significantly below average intelligence. | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
| ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
| ||
|
KSMB
United States100 Posts
On September 03 2011 04:44 Sanctimonius wrote:Some of the views expressed by these candidates really are abhorrent. And we're supposed to take these people seriously? They are saying what they think their profoundly stupid voter base wants to hear. In any case, it is a very sad state of affairs. | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On September 02 2011 20:08 BlackFlag wrote: Because they have the best propaganda, together with the fact that since the 1920's there is and was a massive attack on everything leftist. (red scare, mccarthy, "liberal media", the attacks on obama, etc. blabla) Also the fact that the american unions are weak and have problems in itself. Because of this (partly) right-wing positions are much more centered in American society as a whole. Man his views on right and wrong are soooooo infantile. What is truth and right obviously changes based on the society we live in. Bloody vengeance ("Blutrache", I don't found the english expression for it) was for a long time accepted and normal, but nowadays, if I kill your whole family because you killed my brother I am going to jail because it is not accepted. Social norms are changing and dependant on the surrounding society.... edit2: Or a more recent example is racism in the south and it's perception. That interview with the highschooler is so stupid. With his view nothing is ever proof because everything is just people saying something. What a goddam moron. first of all: happy birthday. I think if Rick Santorum actually read the Bible from front to back, the last thing he would decide after closing it is: okay so no gays, got it! And what he said about the APA is very indicative of this anti-science mindset we seem to foster in our country. "Those scientists don't matter because they disagree with me" should not be an acceptable political stance. Why do we let people use religion as an excuse for lack of intelligence? Complements of dictionary.com: bigot noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. This really isn't aimed directly at Santorum, the first part of that interview was actually relatively reasonable for someone in his party until he started going crazy, and we know that he never had a chance anyway. But as a general critique of the whole political position against gay marriage, I think it applies to all of them. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
In what was perhaps her most candidate-sounding speech yet, Palin wowed a star-struck audience but also defended the influence of the Tea Party and her own viability on the national stage. A recent Fox poll found that even 71% of Republicans do not wish her in the race. "They're for strippers and cross-country skiers," Palin said of polls in general. Source | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
I especially like the part where she's for the complete elimination of the corporate tax bracket. | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On September 04 2011 08:29 Haemonculus wrote: I especially like the part where she's for the complete elimination of the corporate tax bracket. Probably a good idea, actually, especially when you look at how little revenue the corporate tax brings in. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On September 02 2011 20:08 BlackFlag wrote: Because they have the best propaganda, together with the fact that since the 1920's there is and was a massive attack on everything leftist. (red scare, mccarthy, "liberal media", the attacks on obama, etc. blabla) Also the fact that the american unions are weak and have problems in itself. Because of this (partly) right-wing positions are much more centered in American society as a whole. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic5EAO8RqVE&feature=player_embedded Man his views on right and wrong are soooooo infantile. What is truth and right obviously changes based on the society we live in. Bloody vengeance ("Blutrache", I don't found the english expression for it) was for a long time accepted and normal, but nowadays, if I kill your whole family because you killed my brother I am going to jail because it is not accepted. Social norms are changing and dependant on the surrounding society.... edit2: Or a more recent example is racism in the south and it's perception. That interview with the highschooler is so stupid. With his view nothing is ever proof because everything is just people saying something. What a goddam moron. Obviously... | ||
|
Stijx
United States804 Posts
| ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On September 04 2011 11:23 Stijx wrote: In a time where more and more people in the world are becoming educated and moving away from religious bigotry, I can't help but feel that the United States Republican party is kind of crumbling... They seem to not have a single candidate who honestly believes in the Republican standpoint, and gets in for that... They all play the religion card again and again... This country was built on founding fathers who opposed religion having anything to do with religion at all and made a first amendment around that, where are all the real candidates? Old school Republican conservative pragmatism bears little resemblance to the frothing-at-the-mouth Tea Party faction that has effectively hijacked the GOP, but the Establishment rode the fury into the House of Representatives. I mean, it's a readily-tapped resource of fervour that will never, ever vote Democrat. A Rush Limbaugh double-down, all the rage from Roe v. Wade and Nixonland that used to exist at the fringe bubbling up. What's not to love about that is that "pragmatism" doesn't enter into the new Party vocabulary and psychology - one that believed a default would be good for the country, that tax increases are the devil's work, and that the United States has strayed from Christianity in any tangible sense. Karl Rove's grumblings these last few weeks are partly discounted as being things that Rove said (and fuck a Rove), but it betrays a real frustration among the Old School. Kind of a Prometheus moment, because the nature of the process could turn out an unelectable Tea Party Candidate™, and even then many among that ideological line would rather play Ron Paulitics than realpolitick. Again, though, this doesn't mean that the Republicans can't or won't take the next election. Obama's looking real weak these days - even Democrats are getting angry - and (I feel, although I haven't seen a study, that) Independent voters are more likely to vote against an incumbent they dislike for "not doing their job" than voting for an Incumbent they think isn't performing well because the other guy is bonkers. (I also feel like Democrats/Liberals in general are more likely to Hold Truths to be Self-Evident, while Tea Partiers will pack a PTA meeting to get evolution blacked out of the curriculum. Far leftists, like anarchists or non-liberal/democratic socialists, are generally too jaded by liberalist politics to do anything but riot when the G8 comes to town.) | ||
|
Shakespeare
32 Posts
On September 04 2011 12:14 jon arbuckle wrote: Old school Republican conservative pragmatism bears little resemblance to the frothing-at-the-mouth Tea Party faction that has effectively hijacked the GOP, but the Establishment rode the fury into the House of Representatives. I mean, it's a readily-tapped resource of fervour that will never, ever vote Democrat. A Rush Limbaugh double-down, all the rage from Roe v. Wade and Nixonland that used to exist at the fringe bubbling up. What's not to love about that is that "pragmatism" doesn't enter into the new Party vocabulary and psychology - one that believed a default would be good for the country, that tax increases are the devil's work, and that the United States has strayed from Christianity in any tangible sense. Karl Rove's grumblings these last few weeks are partly discounted as being things that Rove said (and fuck a Rove), but it betrays a real frustration among the Old School. Kind of a Prometheus moment, because the nature of the process could turn out an unelectable Tea Party Candidate™, and even then many among that ideological line would rather play Ron Paulitics than realpolitick. Again, though, this doesn't mean that the Republicans can't or won't take the next election. Obama's looking real weak these days - even Democrats are getting angry - and (I feel, although I haven't seen a study, that) Independent voters are more likely to vote against an incumbent they dislike for "not doing their job" than voting for an Incumbent they think isn't performing well because the other guy is bonkers. (I also feel like Democrats/Liberals in general are more likely to Hold Truths to be Self-Evident, while Tea Partiers will pack a PTA meeting to get evolution blacked out of the curriculum. Far leftists, like anarchists or non-liberal/democratic socialists, are generally too jaded by liberalist politics to do anything but riot when the G8 comes to town.) I've always wondered what exactly the hell Garfield's owner gets up to, as he appears to be unemployed. It would seem that he has an acute interest in the political arena. | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
If you disagree with me you could just say it, and maybe tell me why? | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
Do you know what who is sponsering (lobby groups, corporations) the Republican canditates that you might elect? And could you make a list out of it? | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On September 04 2011 22:33 Saji wrote: I have a question for the American Citizens who are going to vote for their electives republican canditates Do you know what who is sponsering (lobby groups, corporations) the Republican canditates that you might elect? And could you make a list out of it? It's very hard to conjure up a list of specific organizations. Just sayin' | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
On September 04 2011 23:09 Zergneedsfood wrote: It's very hard to conjure up a list of specific organizations. Just sayin' Wouldnt having a list of that (if its possible to attain) shed allot more information about what the actual differences are between the candidates and in who's intreset they are really representing? wouldn't that make it much more easier to decide instead of listining to their Rhetoric? | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On September 04 2011 21:49 BlackFlag wrote: If you disagree with me you could just say it, and maybe tell me why? Look, I know that this issue is way too big to be addressed in an internet forum. It's just that I was taken aback at how dismissive you were of views opposing relativism (potentially a relativism about far more than morality? Truth in general?). I get paid to think about shit like this. Everyday I interact with dozens or so people who get paid to think about shit like this. None of them would call this problem easy or deem its answer "obvious." For that matter, almost none of them and only a tiny minority overall of the people paid to think about shit like this find relativism even a little bit plausible. I'm not asking you to take anyone's word in choosing your metaethical views. But unless I'm reading you wrong you just called me and some of the smartest, most thoughtful people I know "infantile." | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On September 05 2011 01:50 frogrubdown wrote: Look, I know that this issue is way too big to be addressed in an internet forum. It's just that I was taken aback at how dismissive you were of views opposing relativism (potentially a relativism about far more than morality? Truth in general?). I get paid to think about shit like this. Everyday I interact with dozens or so people who get paid to think about shit like this. None of them would call this problem easy or deem its answer "obvious." For that matter, almost none of them and only a tiny minority overall of the people paid to think about shit like this find relativism even a little bit plausible. I'm not asking you to take anyone's word in choosing your metaethical views. But unless I'm reading you wrong you just called me and some of the smartest, most thoughtful people I know "infantile." Cultural relativism has a lot of problems with it, that much is clear. It's not an obvious or easy issue at all, and anyone who thinks it is hasn't spent the time to think about it. | ||
| ||
