Be a Supporter!
Ihatedapatriots
Ihatedapatriots
  • Member since: Oct. 12, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Programmer
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 14th, 2012 @ 02:47 PM Reply

I honestly have nothing against him, but he's the wrong guy for the job. Newt would have a much better chance of beating Obama and would do a better job once he got in there.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 14th, 2012 @ 02:59 PM Reply

At 40 minutes ago, BrianEtrius wrote: The problem with Rick Santorum in the general election if he would get nominated as a candidate for the presidency are social issues that's going to make him [lose] huge amounts of independent support.

I figured this is what you meant, but checking anyways.

1. Gay Marriage
2. Women in Combat

I do agree that Santorum will have a hard time winning over many independents with these views. That is, so long as Obama and the economy are doing ok. The conomy and the public view of the President aren't so low as to result in a lesser of two evils fight.

I would also minimize you importance of the youth vote. The youth vote is extremely fickle. They lean fairly strong toward liberal, but they are fickle when it comes to actually voting. Bush being a two termer and Obama both created a perfect storm for the last election. I doubt that this election will carry anywhere near the amount of youth enthusiasm as before.

Also, most who wouldn't tolerate Santorum's views in office would already vote against him regardless.

I do agree that Santorum is not a winning pick for the Republicans.

joe9320
joe9320
  • Member since: Aug. 20, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Gamer
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 15th, 2012 @ 12:40 AM Reply

At 4 days ago, LordZeebmork wrote:
At 8 hours ago, BenjaminTibbetts wrote: I'm just amazed he's survived the lube and fecal matter thing.
No, it makes perfect sense. Anyone who gives a damn about Dan Savage wouldn't vote for him in the first place.

Can't care less about Dan Savage. He hates bisexuals, which to me is tantamount to homophobia.


I still like Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven!

BBS Signature
MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 15th, 2012 @ 01:42 AM Reply

At 10 hours ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote: I honestly have nothing against him, but he's the wrong guy for the job. Newt would have a much better chance of beating Obama and would do a better job once he got in there.

Newt Gingrich is a corrupt moralless politician without any principles who spreads knowingly false information to the public in order to gain support. At least ignorant politicians like Santorum and Perry have values and are motivated by what they consider to be right or wrong. Newt Gingrich is the worst of the republicans. He's also the most intelligent.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
dude23
dude23
  • Member since: Mar. 1, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 17th, 2012 @ 12:59 AM Reply

OMG RICK SANTORUM my favorete guy running four presedent. I feal like he will do GRATE WORK in the white house if he gets alected. All the stuff he always says abowt gay people makes me smile. When he spekes, I feal like he is tawking to me!!!!!! I also feal like his faith in god is unpareleled by the other candadates. He is defenetly gon'na get my vote!!!!!!!!

Earfetish
Earfetish
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Melancholy
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 17th, 2012 @ 08:19 AM Reply

At 5 days ago, mothballs wrote:
At 5 days ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: If by "true conservative" you mean "raging hypocrite", then yeah, I can totally see that. Like when he argues for capping the amount of money you can sue for medical malpractice at $250,000, but when Santorum's wife sues for medical malpractice, they sue for twice of that, $500,000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G-JUuMDG lo
He's a greedy cunt. He's just in it for himself and he'll do whatever it takes to get elected.

Look at this bullshit:

http://tyrannyoftradition.com/2012/02/10/rick-santorum-decla res-war-on-heavy-metal/

Amazing your 'I am being gullible and believing in lies and should have my vote rejected due to gullibility' alarm didn't go off. Did you not google the quote or do any cursory research into how truthful the story was? Or even read the comments?

Other post from the blog, providing evidence that it does not claim to be a news source:
http://tyrannyoftradition.com/2012/02/15/satan-to-metal-band s-stop-writing-songs-about-me-already/

Blogger talking about how this hoax was believed and went viral:
http://backwardmessages.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/the-war-aga inst-metal-is-still-alive-in-some-minds/

I don't mean to be a dick but the fact that you thought that blog was true provides good evidence of a lack of political insight and poor analytical skills.

âEUoeIf you listen to the radio today, many of these brand new, so-called heavy metal music bands like Black Sabbath, Venom, The WASP and Iron Maiden use satanic imagery to corrupt the minds of young people" is what you alledge he said. Did it not immediately strike you as odd that he said 'brand new' to describe Black Sabbath?

Davoo
Davoo
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 17th, 2012 @ 06:53 PM Reply

At 5 days ago, GeneralJ wrote: Don't even get me started on his love for a large government.

Explain and prove.

VictorGrey
VictorGrey
  • Member since: Jun. 4, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 26th, 2012 @ 04:55 PM Reply

Since some people seem to only care about what a politican says and could care less about his actual voting record:

Rick Santorum Quote clips (titles paraphrased)

http://race42012.com/2012/01/05/rick-santorum-denounces-smal l-government/

Rick Santorum on Small Government: âEUoeOne of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I donâEUTMt think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldnâEUTMt get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world.âEU

http://theweek.com/article/index/223041/9-controversial-rick -santorum-quotes

Rick Santorum on 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.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay."

Rick Santorum on Religious Tolerance: "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. ... What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values."

Rick Santorum on More Religious Tolerance: "Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?"

Rick Santorum, on Gay: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. ... That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/05/31-rick-santorum-quo tes-that-prove-he-would-be-a-destructive-president/

Rick Santorum on the Freedom: âEUoeThe idea is that the state doesnâEUTMt have rights to limit individualsâEUTM 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.âEU

Rick Santorum on Trade Negotiation: âEUoeI donâEUTMt want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China. I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business.âEU

Rick Santorum on America's Future: âEUoeSuffering, if youâEUTMre a Christian, suffering is a part of life. And itâEUTMs not a bad thing, it is an essential thing in life âEU¦ There are all different ways to suffer. One way to suffer is through lack of food and shelter and thereâEUTMs another way to suffer which is lack of dignity and hope and thereâEUTMs all sorts of ways that people suffer and itâEUTMs not just tangible, itâEUTMs also intangible and we have to consider both.âEU

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/rick-santorum-v-limited-gover nment/

Rick Santorum in Defense: âEUoeSome will reject what I have to say as a kind of âEU~Big GovernmentâEUTM conservatism.âEU

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/99240/santorum-surge-201 2-vetting-quotes

Epic Rick Santorum: âEUoeAs the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else. It's being drawn to Iraq. You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the eye to come back to the United States.âEU

Rick Santorum trollface.jpg: âEUoeYou can say IâEUTMm a hater. But I would argue IâEUTMm a lover. . ."

ph0ne
ph0ne
  • Member since: Nov. 25, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 26th, 2012 @ 07:57 PM Reply

fiscally, hes not a conservative at all. just read his voting record.
socially, hes just fucking insane.

VictorGrey
VictorGrey
  • Member since: Jun. 4, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 27th, 2012 @ 04:44 AM Reply

At 20 minutes ago, RightWingGamer wrote: Not a Santorum fan; but between him and Spendy-spend-spender-spend-spendorama McSpenderson, it's a pretty easy choice.

George Bush?

Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 27th, 2012 @ 11:05 AM Reply

At 18 hours ago, VictorGrey wrote: Rick Santorum on America's Future: âEUoeSuffering, if youâEUTMre a Christian, suffering is a part of life. And itâEUTMs not a bad thing, it is an essential thing in life âEU¦ There are all different ways to suffer. One way to suffer is through lack of food and shelter and thereâEUTMs another way to suffer which is lack of dignity and hope and thereâEUTMs all sorts of ways that people suffer and itâEUTMs not just tangible, itâEUTMs also intangible and we have to consider both.âEU

What's with the aEUTMs? What does that mean? Anyway, I looked up some stuff about Rick Santorum and I can understand why people think he's nuts, because...he pretty much is. The fact that he's going on the polls is pretty scary. A pity Ron Paul will never become popular enough to win.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 27th, 2012 @ 12:54 PM Reply

At 1 hour ago, Ericho wrote:
At 18 hours ago, VictorGrey wrote: Rick Santorum on America's Future: Ãf¢EUo
What's with the aEUTMs? What does that mean?

I think it's a bug caused by copy-pasting apostrophes and quote marks that the admins haven't fixed yet.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 27th, 2012 @ 12:56 PM Reply

At 1 hour ago, Ericho wrote: What's with the aEUTMs? What does that mean?

it means the BBS rewriter missed some important code when programming the text interface. Those aEUTMs are coming from the BBS representing apostrophes in code.

' ' '

lapis
lapis
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 27th, 2012 @ 03:03 PM Reply

Does anyone know if Santorum is a young earth creationists or not? Yahoo Answers thinks he is, but if he is, I do'n't know what to make of this comment regarding Iraqi Christians:

"The last thing we want is for them to abandon the land their ancestors have occupied for nearly 7,000 years, forsake the culture they have preserved in that volatile region for all these millennia, and deprive the country, the region, and the world of the positive contributions they could still make if only some space was created for them in Iraqi society."

6,016 years is not "nearly 7,000" and if it was, it would still have to mean that Adam, who lived up to the venerable age of 930 years old, lived in Iraq. Or was this comment just a fuck-up?


BBS Signature
All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 27th, 2012 @ 09:52 PM Reply

At 6 hours ago, lapis wrote: Does anyone know if Santorum is a young earth creationists or not? Yahoo Answers thinks he is, but if he is, I do'n't know what to make of this comment regarding Iraqi Christians:

"The last thing we want is for them to abandon the land their ancestors have occupied for nearly 7,000 years,"
6,016 years is not "nearly 7,000" and if it was, it would still have to mean that Adam, who lived up to the venerable age of 930 years old, lived in Iraq. Or was this comment just a fuck-up?

Well the Bible does state the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers were a part of the Garden of Eden, so I can see how he would believe that. However genealogist has the human race starting somewhere near the horn of Africa, which is also speculated to be part of the Garden of Eden.

TNT
TNT
  • Member since: Jul. 20, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 27th, 2012 @ 11:10 PM Reply

"Obama says that everyone should go to college. WHAT A SNOB!" - Rick Santorum.

I know that some wealthy people were college dropouts or never attended at all (CEO of Facebook, Steve Jobs, etc.), but YOU are the snob Santorum!


Latest song cover: Rock Is Dead.
Steam ID: echoes83 (Tyler from Texas)

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 27th, 2012 @ 11:20 PM Reply

At 1 hour ago, All-American-Badass wrote: Well the Bible does state the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers were a part of the Garden of Eden, so I can see how he would believe that. However genealogist has the human race starting somewhere near the horn of Africa, which is also speculated to be part of the Garden of Eden.

And Stonehenge and Tiwanako were created by Satan to fuck with us.

orangebomb
orangebomb
  • Member since: Mar. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Gamer
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 12:02 AM Reply

I've read through his history and the stances he takes with the issues, and it doesn't take a genius to know that Santorum is a neo-conservative prick. Naturally, he is going to scare off the independent and swing voters out there with a lot of his policies, leaving only the hardcore Tea Party supporters and the Evangelical Christian base {which most of them are really nothing more than jackasses.} in which to draw support from.

Granted, the other Republican candidates aren't really that much better than Santorum, considering most of their track records have been rather spotty at best, but at least they don't sound as insane as Rick is. If Santorum somehow does win the Republican nomination, then I would safely say that Obama will be getting his 2nd term as president, and by a comfortable margin too.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature
adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 04:12 PM Reply

At 1 day ago, VictorGrey wrote: Rick Santorum on Small Government: "This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don't think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world."

Your link doesn't explain the context of the quote. Radio interviews are tricky, especially when there's no expectation of scrutiny. I'd have to hear the whole interview before concluding this quote accurately summarized his beliefs.

Rick Santorum on 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.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay."

This quote is from a larger discussion on the concepts of promiscuity, the sexual revolution, and hedonism. He believes that sex should ideally be act of love, and that contraception erodes that by promising sex without consequences or love, done merely for the sake of pleasure. He doesn't think that attitude should be encouraged through subsizidizing contraception.

Rick Santorum on Religious Tolerance: "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. ... What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values."

There are too many concepts lumped into this one quote to go over all of them. I'm not even sure why this is controversial. The Crusaders did not reflect Christian values by modern standards.

Rick Santorum on More Religious Tolerance: "Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?"

This was a rhetorical question posed by a hypothetical voter concerned with Romney's faith. Sloppy reporting by the Week.

Rick Santorum, on Gay: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy..."

This is part of a larger argument about the merits of a traditional family unit. He personally believes that a man is improved through raising a family, that there is something inherently nourishing to personal development on the part of the parents and the children. The implication is that same-sex parents don't experience the same benefits. Hard to say either way unless you can specifically identify how you've been shaped by having parental figures of two sexes. Also note that he says legislation about gay intercourse, etc. should be left to the states to decide democratically.

Rick Santorum on the Freedom: "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."

Self-explanatory; I want to have sex with that woman, whether she wants to or not."

Rick Santorum on Trade Negotiation: âEUoeI donâEUTMt want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China. I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business.âEU

Trade wars are destructive. He wants to beat China at its own game by making the US a better place to do business.

Rick Santorum on America's Future: Suffering, if you're a Christian, suffering is a part of life.

No source given from "addictinginfo"

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/rick-santorum-v-limited-gover nment/

Rick Santorum in Defense: "Some will reject what I have to say as a kind of a Government conservatism.

Already covered above.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/99240/santorum-surge-201 2-vetting-quotes

Epic Rick Santorum: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else. It's being drawn to Iraq. You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the eye to come back to the United States."

Original source error 404.

Implications of the original quote compiler's laziness aside, all this shows is that Rick Santorum believes the government shouldn't try to erode traditional values, though neither should it use the law to forcibly uphold them.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 07:04 PM Reply

You are defending Mr. Santorum pretty hard on these here.

At 2 hours ago, adrshepard wrote: This quote is from a larger discussion on the concepts of promiscuity, the sexual revolution, and hedonism. He believes that sex should ideally be act of love, and that contraception erodes that by promising sex without consequences or love, done merely for the sake of pleasure. He doesn't think that attitude should be encouraged through subsizidizing contraception.

That is completely naive. If I had wheel I'd be a wagon, but guess what? I don't. And to set up my surroundings as if I had wheels would be extremely damaging, expensive and serve no one. Santorum can have his values and opinions all he wants. However, his little happy place completely ignores the realities of scoiety and therefore should not be considered in the discourse of men and women who exist in a real world.

There are too many concepts lumped into this one quote to go over all of them. I'm not even sure why this is controversial. The Crusaders did not reflect Christian values by modern standards.

Reading the quote, name the "Onward American Soldiers" part seems like Santorum is intendiong to equate our current musings in teh Middle east and Central Asia with the Crusades. I read his quote as having a current feel "the Crusades AND the fight of Christendom..." surely implies something other than just the Crusades, and I have seen many of the lesser intelligent among us claim there is a war between Christianity and Islam waging right now.

This is part of a larger argument about the merits of a traditional family unit. He personally believes that a man is improved through raising a family, that there is something inherently nourishing to personal development on the part of the parents and the children. The implication is that same-sex parents don't experience the same benefits. Hard to say either way unless you can specifically identify how you've been shaped by having parental figures of two sexes. Also note that he says legislation about gay intercourse, etc. should be left to the states to decide democratically.

I don't but this crap one bit. One bit at all. This "Leave it to the states unless we think the states will actually allow the right" crap fucking insults me. Don't use this strawman defense. Santorum is just saying every avenue he can that gay marriage, and homosexuality as a whole should be illegalized. There is very little else you can take from this quote.

Rick Santorum on the Freedom: "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."
Self-explanatory; I want to have sex with that woman, whether she wants to or not."

The State has every right to protect the safety of people above the wants and passions of others. That is a flat out terrible example and you know it.

On a more general note, I do not feel comfortable with Mr. "Marriage is like a napkin" deciding which passions and wants are Ok and which aren't.

Trade wars are destructive. He wants to beat China at its own game by making the US a better place to do business.

By setting us back 150 years. China is better at doing cheap business because its government doesn't care about its people.

Implications of the original quote compiler's laziness aside, all this shows is that Rick Santorum believes the government shouldn't try to erode traditional values, though neither should it use the law to forcibly uphold them.

Umm, DADT? DOMA? Supporting a constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage? The inclusion of Chirstianity into every facet of government?

Santorum's quote/views and your defenses of them are a frothy mixture of bull and shit. I know you are smarter than this.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 08:18 PM Reply

The biggest thing I don't like about Santorum is how he plays the victim card with his values.

He claims that there is a war on Christianity because Gays and such are getting more rights. He plays it off as if others' values are being forced on him. However, I have yet to see any thing that he cannot do now that he could do before. However, his 'values' will restrict what others can do.

So in other words, he's being victimized in the sense that he cannot force others to live as he does... Such a victim.

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 08:46 PM Reply

At 11 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: The biggest thing I don't like about Santorum is how he plays the victim card with his values.

He claims that there is a war on Christianity because Gays and such are getting more rights. He plays it off as if others' values are being forced on him. However, I have yet to see any thing that he cannot do now that he could do before. However, his 'values' will restrict what others can do.

So in other words, he's being victimized in the sense that he cannot force others to live as he does... Such a victim.

It is an important skill for wannabe tyrants to twist the idea of "force" and "victimization" into their opposites with these things. "this person will force gay marriage on us all" is a good one, but the only way for that to be true is if this guy actually said "I'm going to force all people to marry other people of the same gender". Storm front says that by allowing non-white people to live freely side by side with white people is equal to rounding all the white people up and shooting them.

As stupid as all of this sounds most people seem to be falling victim to something like this one way or another, and it is pretty hard to get them to realize this. It won't always be as obvious as "the robber was victimized by the shop keeper he killed because the shop keeper wouldn't give him his money" so some times you have to look hard, and be willing to look hard, even if doing so questions your established ideals. What sounds retarded to one person may sound genius to others.

So yes his tactic sounds totally stupid but at the same time, it's flawless.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
LordZeebmork
LordZeebmork
  • Member since: Feb. 12, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 22
Audiophile
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 29th, 2012 @ 12:49 AM Reply

At 2 days ago, VictorGrey wrote: This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don't think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world.

This is correct. They do not. "This whole idea of personal autonomy" is a very strange liberal doctrine, the essence of which is that society does not exist and people operate completely in a vacuum, or at least that we should all pretend that that is the case. It is falling in favor even among liberal theologians, due to their mass conversion to a very strange syncretic religion composed of bits and pieces of just about everything that didn't lose the second World War.

Rick Santorum on 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.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay."

Read this.

Rick Santorum on America's Future: Suffering, if you're a Christian, suffering is a part of life. And it's not a bad thing, it is an essential thing in life ... There are all different ways to suffer. One way to suffer is through lack of food and shelter and there's another way to suffer which is lack of dignity and hope and there's all sorts of ways that people suffer and it's not just tangible, it's also intangible and we have to consider both.

Why did you post this? I don't get what there is here to object to at all.

At 5 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote: That is completely naive. If I had wheel I'd be a wagon, but guess what? I don't. And to set up my surroundings as if I had wheels would be extremely damaging, expensive and serve no one. Santorum can have his values and opinions all he wants. However, his little happy place completely ignores the realities of scoiety and therefore should not be considered in the discourse of men and women who exist in a real world.

What realities? What would you propose as an alternative? Read this and see if you can still go with it.

At 4 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote: He claims that there is a war on Christianity

Which there is. If there is a state S in which:
* there exist competing political philosophies Pa, Pb etc.,
* some of those philosophies include a factor R and some do not,
* there exist sets of philosophies P1r and P1s, P2r and P2s, etc. that are essentially identical, except philosophies Pnr (for all existing n) explicitly contain factor R and philosophies Pns do not, and:
* philosophies Pnr are disadvantaged by the actions of S compared to philosophies Pns
Then the conclusion must be that S is opposed to R.

This, of course, is exactly what we see now; or rather, what we would see if liberal Christians (Quakers etc.) were theologically and politically outspoken to the degree that conservatives are. (To be even more specific, it is one possibility, albeit the most likely one; the other is that, since the ruling class identify with the liberal side over the conservative side, our theologians get to work interpreting our (large, unwieldy, and probably contradictory) books of civil scripture in a manner that allows the liberal Christians through, in which case they would be at war with all but liberalism.)

He plays it off as if others' values are being forced on him. However, I have yet to see any thing that he cannot do now that he could do before. However, his 'values' will restrict what others can do.

Tolerance is no more than one possible value among many. Do not assume it in this manner.

----

At 1 day ago, Ericho wrote: What's with the aEUTMs?

Those are what happens when you copy and paste from a site that (for some ridiculous reason that I will never understand -- probably they're being idiots and using MS Word as a backend) uses Unicode-exclusive quotes onto a site like this one which is still stuck in goddamn 1999 and doesn't support Unicode.


wolf piss

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 29th, 2012 @ 12:05 PM Reply

At 4 hours ago, Austerity wrote: Rick Santorum is looking more and more like the definitive candidate to defeat barack in the upcoming election ever since he came out of his shell a couple of weeks ago.

I don't think his extreme conservative views are going to get much support. Sure his conservative base supports him but how is he going to sway moderates when he says he's going to bring back Don't Ask Don't Tell immediately and start conflict with Iran? I don't think Santorum is electable. Republicans are only siding with Romney because he's more electable. Then again, I don't think anyone thinks Romney is sincere so the Repubs are pretty screwed.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 29th, 2012 @ 12:07 PM Reply

At 4 hours ago, Austerity wrote: Rick Santorum is looking more and more like the definitive candidate to defeat barack in the upcoming election ever since he came out of his shell a couple of weeks ago.

It's not even close, don't be joking yourself.A win for Santorum is a win for Obama. Santorum's too polarizing of a figure to try to elect. Hell, at this point, I think the Republicans are looking for their white knight candidate.

And then all the rest of the conservatives will see they already pushed those candidates out. One thing's for sure, and that's Santorum's not the candidate they want.

A shoe could probably pick up more independent votes than Santorum.


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 29th, 2012 @ 03:14 PM Reply

At 14 hours ago, LordZeebmork wrote:
At 5 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote: That is completely naive. If I had wheel I'd be a wagon, but guess what? I don't. And to set up my surroundings as if I had wheels would be extremely damaging, expensive and serve no one. Santorum can have his values and opinions all he wants. However, his little happy place completely ignores the realities of scoiety and therefore should not be considered in the discourse of men and women who exist in a real world.
What realities? What would you propose as an alternative? Read this and see if you can still go with it.

For some reason that site keeps freezing. However, I assume it's abotu some sex crazed nut giving up on sex. If that's the case, good for him, but it's hardly reflective of society.

You can cry and cry and cry that contraceptives make people have sex, but it's not going to make people stop having sex when they're gone.

Which there is. If there is a state S in which:
* there exist competing political philosophies Pa, Pb etc.,
* some of those philosophies include a factor R and some do not,
* there exist sets of philosophies P1r and P1s, P2r and P2s, etc. that are essentially identical, except philosophies Pnr (for all existing n) explicitly contain factor R and philosophies Pns do not, and:
* philosophies Pnr are disadvantaged by the actions of S compared to philosophies Pns
Then the conclusion must be that S is opposed to R.

What the hell are you talking about? I am not a fan of this type of explanation, because it's needlessly complicated and 100% theoretical. How's about you just tell me in non math terms, cause this is not a math iussue. Also, the expanding of freedoms on Non Christians is only a war on Christianity if you think that Christianity has the right to control the free will of others.

Tolerance is no more than one possible value among many. Do not assume it in this manner.

He is forced to exist among others. He wants to force others to act, talk, and believe as he does. How the hell is he the one who is getting values thrust upon him?

Cootie
Cootie
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum Feb. 29th, 2012 @ 04:16 PM Reply

He said that he voted against gay marriage because he "doesn't want homosexuality forced onto the people of America", and that was the only sentence he needed to say for me to know he is so retarded it takes nearly all of his brain power to breathe. He is the absolute worst choice still in the race.


For I am and forever shall be... a master ruseman.

BBS Signature
LordZeebmork
LordZeebmork
  • Member since: Feb. 12, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 22
Audiophile
Response to Rick Santorum Mar. 7th, 2012 @ 12:06 AM Reply

At 6 days ago, Camarohusky wrote: You can cry and cry and cry that contraceptives make people have sex, but it's not going to make people stop having sex when they're gone.

Correct, which is why I don't personally support banning them. Not all political issues are issues of statecraft, and addressing the state side of an issue without addressing the side that can only be addressed in society at large is only going to make things worse. (A more relevant example: banning drugs doesn't make people stop doing drugs; it only drives them underground. To address the drug problem, you have to address its root causes.)

What the hell are you talking about? I am not a fan of this type of explanation, because it's needlessly complicated and 100% theoretical. How's about you just tell me in non math terms, cause this is not a math iussue.

If one person holds an opinion and justifies it with Christianity, and another person holds the exact same opinion and justifies it with, say, Kantianism, and the first person is barred by the state from taking that opinion somewhere the second person can, then the state favors Kantianism over Christianity in that regard.

Also, the expanding of freedoms on Non Christians is only a war on Christianity if you think that Christianity has the right to control the free will of others.

Just about everyone thinks something has the right to control the free will of others (or some equivalent thing that doesn't fall into the trap of using the language of 'rights'); there's no objective moral reason to ban random murder, but it would be very difficult to find someone who would not support such a ban. Contemporary American political philosophy believes that, with some restrictions that are irrelevant here, any belief system that can gain the requisite political support has the right to control the free will of others as long as it does not make metaphysical claims supporting the existence of deities.

I differ from contemporary American political philosophy in that I don't see how the innate dignity of man, to run with the example from a few paragraphs ago, is any less of a metaphysically odd claim than the existence of God, or Allah, or Thor, or magickal wytch faeries, or what have you. How is the metaphysical justification relevant?

There's also the issue that the legal rationale behind the "wall of separation between church and state" involves drawing on a letter by Thomas Jefferson. I don't know what all can be read into the Constitution if you squint hard enough, but come on, the guy wasn't even in the damn country when the thing was written.

Tolerance is no more than one possible value among many. Do not assume it in this manner.
He is forced to exist among others. He wants to force others to act, talk, and believe as he does. How the hell is he the one who is getting values thrust upon him?

That gay marriage is unacceptable is a value; but that it is acceptable is also a value.


wolf piss

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum Mar. 7th, 2012 @ 12:28 AM Reply

At 11 minutes ago, LordZeebmork wrote: If one person holds an opinion and justifies it with Christianity, and another person holds the exact same opinion and justifies it with, say, Kantianism, and the first person is barred by the state from taking that opinion somewhere the second person can, then the state favors Kantianism over Christianity in that regard.

When has the State ever done this?

There's also the issue that the legal rationale behind the "wall of separation between church and state" involves drawing on a letter by Thomas Jefferson. I don't know what all can be read into the Constitution if you squint hard enough, but come on, the guy wasn't even in the damn country when the thing was written.

Yeah, except that rationale is not oft used in such analyses, and when it is it is merely a supporting factor, not the sole factor or a major factor.

But coercion, both de facto and de jure is recognized by many of the Justices and it functionally works as a wall of separation between Church and State. Coercion has grounds in the text of the First Amendment.

That gay marriage is unacceptable is a value; but that it is acceptable is also a value.

You assume these values are equal. The harms of these two values are not even close to equal. The value of allowing others the freedom to have gay marriages forces nothing upon anyone else. Just because gay marriages exist does not mean that a person opposed to them has to go through with one, visit one, support them, accept them, tolerate them, or even acknowledge their existence. The value of restricting gay marriages forces that view upon everyone else. This value forces all others to submit to this value whether they share it or not.

You also assume that they are mutually exclusive. If accepting gay marriage prevails it doesn't defeat the opposition. It does nothing to force the opposition to believe the value, or act as the value wants.

LordZeebmork
LordZeebmork
  • Member since: Feb. 12, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 22
Audiophile
Response to Rick Santorum Mar. 7th, 2012 @ 12:45 AM Reply

At 1 minute ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 11 minutes ago, LordZeebmork wrote: If one person holds an opinion and justifies it with Christianity, and another person holds the exact same opinion and justifies it with, say, Kantianism, and the first person is barred by the state from taking that opinion somewhere the second person can, then the state favors Kantianism over Christianity in that regard.
When has the State ever done this?

There exist pairs of belief systems where the only distinction of any significance is that one makes metaphysical claims as to the existence of a deity and the other does not. Have you ever heard of the Quakers?

Yeah, except that rationale is not oft used in such analyses, and when it is it is merely a supporting factor, not the sole factor or a major factor.

The Court is much less blatantly wrong about things than the rhetoricians; the latter certainly appear to draw their ideas from Jefferson.

You assume these values are equal. The harms of these two values are not even close to equal.

That depends on how you define 'harm', doesn't it?

The value of allowing others the freedom to have gay marriages forces nothing upon anyone else. Just because gay marriages exist does not mean that a person opposed to them has to go through with one, visit one, support them, accept them, tolerate them, or even acknowledge their existence.

What should the purpose of marriage be? If your answer doesn't blink in the direction of reproduction, you're right that it doesn't harm anyone. If it does, allowing something that doesn't even fit the right form for the possibility of reproduction directly undermines that purpose.

Of course, most opponents of gay marriage can't articulate that position; but that's still the argument against it.


wolf piss