|
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?
I think this has become very difficult if not impossible after the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
|
How and where does one get paid to think about moral relativism?
Anyway, I take offense to even the insinuation that the counterpoint to moral relativism should be considered alongside Rick Santorum or the ideological wing he comes from.
Yes, moral relativism and the problems and philosophies that birthed and honed it need addressing but not through the capital disingenuousness that marks Santorum, et al. We should be able to agree on that.
|
On August 16 2011 23:12 drag_ wrote:
Idk if anyone watched the Daily Show yesterday but there was a segment on how the media is pretty much ignoring Ron Paul, who seems to be the only republican I could see myself voting for. I hope he wins the nomination, but I unfortunately can't see it happening.
thats because the media doesn't get paid to do more stories about him. Not like it matters anyways, whoever the president is it won't change anything, this country is an oligarchy at best anyways.
voting is an illusion of choice like in the matrix lol.
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 05 2011 02:42 jon arbuckle wrote:
How and where does one get paid to think about moral relativism?
Anyway, I take offense to even the insinuation that the counterpoint to moral relativism should be considered alongside Rick Santorum or the ideological wing he comes from.
Yes, moral relativism and the problems and philosophies that birthed and honed it need addressing but not through the capital disingenuousness that marks Santorum, et al. We should be able to agree on that.
Oh of course, Santorum is a moron and a nutcase.
|
On September 05 2011 03:46 SpoR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 23:12 drag_ wrote:
Idk if anyone watched the Daily Show yesterday but there was a segment on how the media is pretty much ignoring Ron Paul, who seems to be the only republican I could see myself voting for. I hope he wins the nomination, but I unfortunately can't see it happening. thats because the media doesn't get paid to do more stories about him. Not like it matters anyways, whoever the president is it won't change anything, this country is an oligarchy at best anyways. voting is an illusion of choice like in the matrix lol.
That's because you subscribe to the belief that voting for the President is important. It isn't. Voting for your State Senators and Representatives is more important.
|
On September 05 2011 02:42 jon arbuckle wrote:
How and where does one get paid to think about moral relativism?
Anyway, I take offense to even the insinuation that the counterpoint to moral relativism should be considered alongside Rick Santorum or the ideological wing he comes from.
Yes, moral relativism and the problems and philosophies that birthed and honed it need addressing but not through the capital disingenuousness that marks Santorum, et al. We should be able to agree on that.
Universities for doing research and teaching or training to do either.
I can assure you that no one is defending Rick Santorum.
|
On September 05 2011 03:54 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2011 03:46 SpoR wrote:On August 16 2011 23:12 drag_ wrote:
Idk if anyone watched the Daily Show yesterday but there was a segment on how the media is pretty much ignoring Ron Paul, who seems to be the only republican I could see myself voting for. I hope he wins the nomination, but I unfortunately can't see it happening. thats because the media doesn't get paid to do more stories about him. Not like it matters anyways, whoever the president is it won't change anything, this country is an oligarchy at best anyways. voting is an illusion of choice like in the matrix lol. That's because you subscribe to the belief that voting for the President is important. It isn't. Voting for your State Senators and Representatives is more important.
where in my post did it sound like i was saying voting (for president) was important? I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite.
For example I live in california, its going to vote democrat (probably obama again) and I could care less anyways if it voted R because it doesn't matter.
|
Via Rolling Stone:
Michele Bachmann says Hurricane Irene is God’s way of telling Washington that it is spending too much.
For his part, Ron Paul says hurricane relief isn’t the responsibility of the state and we should stop using tax dollars to rescue people. Apparently we should go back to our year-1900 disaster policies, which included watching 6,000 people die in a hurricane that hit Galveston, Texas.
What else does anyone need to hear? There are two powerful wings of the Republican Party heading into 2012, and these two comments sum them up perfectly.
The Ron Paul camp believes government has no role at all.
The Michele Bachmann camp also believes that government has no role at all – but she differs from Paul in that she learned this through personal communication with the Almighty.
This is what the Republican debate is going to boil down to: a question of authority.
If you believe the Bible is the only book you ever need to read, you’ll vote for Bachmann or Santorum, or maybe Rick Perry.
If you think the sacred text is The Road to Serfdom, you’ll vote for Ron Paul (or, Rick Perry hopes, maybe Rick Perry).
Both rhetorical strategies are heavily dependent upon apocalyptic imagery. From the Road to Serfdom crew, we’re going to hear a lot about the impending socialist takeover and an imminent international financial collapse tied to government/Fed spending policy.
Source
|
Im a democrat but i would vote for huntsman over obama, he wants are troops out of afghanistan he has in depth knowledge of china which would allow to making good decisions concerning them and he is a fan of the greatful dead wat more could ask for?
|
There are so many things wrong with rick perry but wat i find most disturbing about him is the role he played in the execution of willingham
|
/shudder... I just watched some videos of Bachmann talking and I got scared. I'm from Minnesota, and on behalf of us all, I apologize.
|
On September 05 2011 02:03 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +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?
I think this has become very difficult if not impossible after the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
Uhh, no. The case struck down limits on corporate funding of political broadcasts, but they're still required to disclose all funding.
|
On September 05 2011 08:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Via Rolling Stone: Show nested quote +Michele Bachmann says Hurricane Irene is God’s way of telling Washington that it is spending too much.
For his part, Ron Paul says hurricane relief isn’t the responsibility of the state and we should stop using tax dollars to rescue people. Apparently we should go back to our year-1900 disaster policies, which included watching 6,000 people die in a hurricane that hit Galveston, Texas.
What else does anyone need to hear? There are two powerful wings of the Republican Party heading into 2012, and these two comments sum them up perfectly.
The Ron Paul camp believes government has no role at all.
The Michele Bachmann camp also believes that government has no role at all – but she differs from Paul in that she learned this through personal communication with the Almighty.
This is what the Republican debate is going to boil down to: a question of authority.
If you believe the Bible is the only book you ever need to read, you’ll vote for Bachmann or Santorum, or maybe Rick Perry.
If you think the sacred text is The Road to Serfdom, you’ll vote for Ron Paul (or, Rick Perry hopes, maybe Rick Perry).
Both rhetorical strategies are heavily dependent upon apocalyptic imagery. From the Road to Serfdom crew, we’re going to hear a lot about the impending socialist takeover and an imminent international financial collapse tied to government/Fed spending policy. Source
Ouch!
It would be hilarious if it wasn't possible. Of course the other alternative is to vote for Palin because you like her hair 
I guess the best hope is for the GOP to tear itself apart at this election, and for a more moderate traditional GOP to emerge on the other side. Who do you vote for if you have a progressive view on social, domestic, foreign and security policy but a conservative approach to economics?
|
On September 05 2011 08:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Via Rolling Stone: Show nested quote +Michele Bachmann says Hurricane Irene is God’s way of telling Washington that it is spending too much.
For his part, Ron Paul says hurricane relief isn’t the responsibility of the state and we should stop using tax dollars to rescue people. Apparently we should go back to our year-1900 disaster policies, which included watching 6,000 people die in a hurricane that hit Galveston, Texas.
What else does anyone need to hear? There are two powerful wings of the Republican Party heading into 2012, and these two comments sum them up perfectly.
The Ron Paul camp believes government has no role at all.
The Michele Bachmann camp also believes that government has no role at all – but she differs from Paul in that she learned this through personal communication with the Almighty.
This is what the Republican debate is going to boil down to: a question of authority.
If you believe the Bible is the only book you ever need to read, you’ll vote for Bachmann or Santorum, or maybe Rick Perry.
If you think the sacred text is The Road to Serfdom, you’ll vote for Ron Paul (or, Rick Perry hopes, maybe Rick Perry).
Both rhetorical strategies are heavily dependent upon apocalyptic imagery. From the Road to Serfdom crew, we’re going to hear a lot about the impending socialist takeover and an imminent international financial collapse tied to government/Fed spending policy. Source
Gross oversimplification of Dr. Paul's beliefs.
Of course, who am I to question a magazine as well informed and politically balanced as the Rolling Stone.
|
The fuck? The state is much better equipped to deal with disasters than it was in 1900. That is one of the stupidest comment I've seen yet about the debate of whether we should leave national aid in the hand of the government or the state.
Also stating that Ron Paul thinks the government should have no role at all is idiotic. He want the governments roll to be to protect and serve it's people in matter that it can, while we protect ourselves in matters where the government has absolutely failed us before.
|
Canada11504 Posts
One thing I do like about Romney's position on illegal immigrants is he also wants to go after businesses that hire illegal immigrants. I've debated with people that somehow thought if businesses knowingly hire illegal immigrants then the immigrant is at fault, but not the business owner.
To me if you really want to deal with illegal immigrants, then it makes sense to cut-off the opportunity. It's the supply/demand thing. If there is a demand for illegal immigrants as long as you can get across the border, then you're home free. But if businesses have a heavy interest in hiring legal immigrants, then it adds another layer of defence and cuts off demand at the source. Hopping the border isn't nearly so attractive if you can't make any money.
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 06 2011 07:40 Falling wrote:
One thing I do like about Romney's position on illegal immigrants is he also wants to go after businesses that hire illegal immigrants. I've debated with people that somehow thought if businesses knowingly hire illegal immigrants then the immigrant is at fault, but not the business owner.
To me if you really want to deal with illegal immigrants, then it makes sense to cut-off the opportunity. It's the supply/demand thing. If there is a demand for illegal immigrants as long as you can get across the border, then you're home free. But if businesses have a heavy interest in hiring legal immigrants, then it adds another layer of defence and cuts off demand at the source. Hopping the border isn't nearly so attractive if you can't make any money.
Better to hire illegal immigrants than to outsource jobs, at least in terms of boosting the U.S. economy. If we're going to crack down on hiring illegal immigrants, we'd better do something about the job outsourcing issue first.
|
On September 06 2011 12:26 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 07:40 Falling wrote:
One thing I do like about Romney's position on illegal immigrants is he also wants to go after businesses that hire illegal immigrants. I've debated with people that somehow thought if businesses knowingly hire illegal immigrants then the immigrant is at fault, but not the business owner.
To me if you really want to deal with illegal immigrants, then it makes sense to cut-off the opportunity. It's the supply/demand thing. If there is a demand for illegal immigrants as long as you can get across the border, then you're home free. But if businesses have a heavy interest in hiring legal immigrants, then it adds another layer of defence and cuts off demand at the source. Hopping the border isn't nearly so attractive if you can't make any money. Better to hire illegal immigrants than to outsource jobs, at least in terms of boosting the U.S. economy. If we're going to crack down on hiring illegal immigrants, we'd better do something about the job outsourcing issue first.
Couldn't have said it better.
What's more I take issue with the fact that legislation that punishes the owners effectively require employers to do the governments job for them. It's just laziness. Pass better legislation and get control of the border, don't pass the bill off onto the employers.
|
On September 05 2011 08:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Via Rolling Stone: Show nested quote +Michele Bachmann says Hurricane Irene is God’s way of telling Washington that it is spending too much.
For his part, Ron Paul says hurricane relief isn’t the responsibility of the state and we should stop using tax dollars to rescue people. Apparently we should go back to our year-1900 disaster policies, which included watching 6,000 people die in a hurricane that hit Galveston, Texas.
What else does anyone need to hear? There are two powerful wings of the Republican Party heading into 2012, and these two comments sum them up perfectly.
The Ron Paul camp believes government has no role at all.
The Michele Bachmann camp also believes that government has no role at all – but she differs from Paul in that she learned this through personal communication with the Almighty.
This is what the Republican debate is going to boil down to: a question of authority.
If you believe the Bible is the only book you ever need to read, you’ll vote for Bachmann or Santorum, or maybe Rick Perry.
If you think the sacred text is The Road to Serfdom, you’ll vote for Ron Paul (or, Rick Perry hopes, maybe Rick Perry).
Both rhetorical strategies are heavily dependent upon apocalyptic imagery. From the Road to Serfdom crew, we’re going to hear a lot about the impending socialist takeover and an imminent international financial collapse tied to government/Fed spending policy. Source
This is just so stupid.
You are using a hurricane from 1900 to justify fema? You know 1900, back when we had no clue how to predict hurricanes and we didn't have neat little things like airplanes and radar to track storm systems?
If 6000 people die in a hurricane then there is nothing to say except that they must somehow deserve it because it is not difficult to take responsibility for your own life when a major hurricane is blowing in.
Aside from that you misrepresent Ron Paul's argument. The government can play a role in helping people with disaster relief, but why must it be the federal government? This is why the 17th amendment was a mistake, too much democracy and less federalism. Now all politicians at the federal level have an incentive to support things that make people "feel" good rather than things that make sense and abide by the constitution. If a state is prone to getting hurricanes should they not have systems in place to deal with them? Same goes for earthquake, blizzard and tornado prone states.
And sure disasters can strike anywhere but they have struck everywhere for the entire history of humanity and people always picked up the pieces and rebuilt their shit. For most of history people would rebuild their own stuff and help out their neighbors, the farther up the chain of government you go the less involvement there would be. Now we have this ridiculous system where we sit on our hands waiting for not just the government, but the federal government to come and clean up every mess for us. People will go without a roof for months waiting for a government check to come in the mail before they fix anything. And states have a financial incentive to declare a state of emergency every chance they get so that they can go to the public trough instead of using their own money. If they don't use fema when they can a political opponent will use that as ammunition and accuse that politician of wasting state tax money. Of course though it costs tax payers just the same..except more so because the federal government is necessarily more wasteful and inefficient. Of course this all gets to the root cause of progressivism anyways which is to replace families, communities and even local government with a powerful central government which can enact broad changes much more quickly.
*edit*
I'm pointing out the arguments against Ron Paul are stupid. I agree that Perry and Bachmann are fools and Santorum belongs in a sanitarium.
|
On September 05 2011 08:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Via Rolling Stone: + Show Spoiler +Michele Bachmann says Hurricane Irene is God’s way of telling Washington that it is spending too much.
For his part, Ron Paul says hurricane relief isn’t the responsibility of the state and we should stop using tax dollars to rescue people. Apparently we should go back to our year-1900 disaster policies, which included watching 6,000 people die in a hurricane that hit Galveston, Texas.
What else does anyone need to hear? There are two powerful wings of the Republican Party heading into 2012, and these two comments sum them up perfectly.
The Ron Paul camp believes government has no role at all.
The Michele Bachmann camp also believes that government has no role at all – but she differs from Paul in that she learned this through personal communication with the Almighty.
This is what the Republican debate is going to boil down to: a question of authority.
If you believe the Bible is the only book you ever need to read, you’ll vote for Bachmann or Santorum, or maybe Rick Perry.
If you think the sacred text is The Road to Serfdom, you’ll vote for Ron Paul (or, Rick Perry hopes, maybe Rick Perry).
Both rhetorical strategies are heavily dependent upon apocalyptic imagery. From the Road to Serfdom crew, we’re going to hear a lot about the impending socialist takeover and an imminent international financial collapse tied to government/Fed spending policy.
old article. but i remember the comment was "Michele Bachmann was a sign from God that Americans are idiots"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
