Be a Supporter!
Benovere
Benovere
  • Member since: Jul. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-07 20:01:51 Reply

Although I lean towards conservative in the respect that I believe that capitalism is better for this country than socialism/communism, I was hoping that the least conservative of all of them, Ron Paul, would win the primaries. Although I don't necessarily agree to all of his philosophies and views, he was the least nutty out of all of them. If Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Romney win the primaries and I am forced to pick between any of those three and Obama, I will have to vote for Obama. Yes, he is taking this country and slowly crippling it (ie signing ACTA without taking it through congress and of course the ill-provisioned Obamacare), but he is doing a hell of a lot better job with foreign policy than those three jokers could ever do, which isn't saying much. A flawed trait in die-hard republicans is that they are very quick to arms, instead of looking at the surrounding events to determine a course of action.

Take Bush for example. With the intelligence he was given, and trust me, he did not come to the conclusion on his own that Iraq had WMDs, any trigger happy leader would have went to war with Saddam. However, if he had waited even a few days to allow the Army and the Air Force to get their shit straight, we may not be in Iraq at all right now. Unfortunately, especially in Obama's case, democrats tend to be weak handed when it comes down to the table. Any insurance broker could tell you that the worst possible thing you can do is admit fault, even if it is your fault. We were not the only ones going into Iraq, we are not the only ones in Afghanistan, and we are not the only ones who have a stake in this war. To go around apologizing, especially to dictators, is a sign of weakness that they are all too happy to exploit.

But in either case, I would much rather have Obama in office than have another war sitting on our country's declining credit rating. Out of all three republican candidates, I believe that Ron Paul would be most likely to keep our internet free, keep us out of future wars and help us in keeping our troops home, and ensuring that we have as many rights as possible. Granted, he may be against abortion, but I believe he stated somewhere that he would rather the individual states have that right to decide instead of the feds.

End chaotic rant that is no doubt flooded with inaccuracies and misinterpretations.


-Lost Signature-
If found, please call 555-1212 to claim your prize. disclaimer - prizes may cause fatigue, bad breath, erectile dysfunction, tax audit, or anal bleeding.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-08 22:04:05 Reply

Have you heard the Santorum song? Wow, his supporters are some very depressed people...

Gario
Gario
  • Member since: Jul. 30, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-08 23:45:36 Reply

At 1 hour ago, Camarohusky wrote: Have you heard the Santorum song? Wow, his supporters are some very depressed people...

I tried to look it up, but there's dozens of them to chose from. Any one in particular that you're thinking about?


Need some music for a flash or game? Check it out. If none of this works send me a PM, I'm taking requests.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-09 09:50:14 Reply

At 10 hours ago, Gario wrote:
At 1 hour ago, Camarohusky wrote: Have you heard the Santorum song? Wow, his supporters are some very depressed people...
I tried to look it up, but there's dozens of them to chose from. Any one in particular that you're thinking about?

Here you go.

Gario
Gario
  • Member since: Jul. 30, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-09 12:08:59 Reply

Huh, I actually think that's pretty catchy. Even if I don't agree with them at all, I think they're pretty good musicians... That's just the musician in me talking, I guess.


Need some music for a flash or game? Check it out. If none of this works send me a PM, I'm taking requests.

The-Great-One
The-Great-One
  • Member since: Sep. 2, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 30
Writer
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-18 00:55:54 Reply

A lot of people say that the Republicans will shred themselves to pieces, but not everybody watches the Primaries and only look for information when they come to their state. Everything said here is just for here, when the candidate goes against Obama it will be Round 1 all over again.

That's the thing, which one can beat Obama? We all know Obama can talk the talk, as far as a man with speeches and debates goes, this guy can kick ass, there is no doubting it and if you do then I'm sorry, but you're an idiot... and this is coming from a Republican.

I don't see Rick Santorum beating Obama in the debates, not by a long shot. Mitt Romney will try to sound political and Obama will be able to shoot him down fast. A Newt Gingrich vs. Barack Obama debate would be very fascinating to see, Newt isn't given enough credit as a candidate or as a threat to the Democrats. Ron Paul is the only one who could actually give Obama a run for his money, but let's face it, that's not gonna happen.

Apparently when it comes to Ron Paul and the Republican Party they really don't want you to speak your mind. They just want the candidates to tell them what they want to hear... like with Mitt Romney and cheese grits. The south looks down upon you Mitt... then again that is why you lost to Rick Santorum recently.

TylerFromTexas
TylerFromTexas
  • Member since: Jul. 20, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-18 13:00:23 Reply

At 12 hours ago, The-Great-One wrote:
Apparently when it comes to Ron Paul and the Republican Party they really don't want you to speak your mind. They just want the candidates to tell them what they want to hear... like with Mitt Romney and cheese grits. The south looks down upon you Mitt... then again that is why you lost to Rick Santorum recently.

At this point I am begging the sane people to at least choose Romney over Santorum...


I used to be TNT
Latest song cover: Learn To Fly
Steam ID: echoes83 (Tyler from Texas)

All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-19 00:55:17 Reply

Apparently santorum supporters use bing. That's the only rational explanation for such a result, since no sane person uses bing.

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-19 01:39:37 Reply

well if you are so hell bent on screwing your own country up so much then I guess you better go big or go home. Everyone who wants another statist in charge should be all over this guy.


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

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-19 10:40:12 Reply

At 9 hours ago, All-American-Badass wrote: Apparently santorum supporters use bing. That's the only rational explanation for such a result, since no sane person uses bing.

I use Bing as a homepage because it has pretty pictures. I then type in "google.com" into my browser bar and search from there.

Davoo
Davoo
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-19 20:27:03 Reply

At 1 day ago, The-Great-One wrote: Obama is a good debater.

Debates are one of the few places where substance always wins. One candidate bullshits around, and the other candidate can immediately call him out on it. One candidate says something legitimate, and the other candidate looks like a dumbass formulating and excuse to disagree. Style and charm still have a major impact, but only when all candidates are essentially equal in substantive quality do they become the dominant influences.

Obama was able to look good in 2008 debates because he didn't have a record. But now he does, and it's a really, really bad one. Any glob of mud BO could throw at Mitt, Rick, Newt or Ron, he'd get ten globs of mud thrown right back at him. So anyone with basic public speaking skills and a decent report card could be a decisive winner against Barack today.

That's all I wanted to say.

Ron Paul is the only one who could actually give Obama a run for his money

I get close to really, REALLY liking Ron Paul. Much of the things that he says excite me into a bubbly twitch. But there are two gripes I am constantly bumping into when analyzing him, and yes you probably know exactly what they are.

One: I am not yet informed on the whole 'backlash' thing that Paul runs on. Here's the ad I keep seeing on Youtube that I believe briefly explains it all: http://youtu.be/vF3K2JvFcJA

This video was put out by the Ron Paul campaign, so I assume it's what he believes in. If it's all true, then that sucks and it sucks harder that even the best conservatives in the media and in Washington lie so blatantly. If it's not, then that completely disqualifies Ron Paul as a candidate.

I have not yet looked into this 'blowback' issue nearly enough to have a conclusive understanding of it one way or another, so I'd like to know what you may have to say about it.

You know what I find really funny, though? Is that 9/11 truthers seem to almost exclusively support Paul. Why? It can't be because he believes in what they believe; they say America blew up those buildings deliberately and covered the conspiracy up. Ron Paul's people, on the other hand, say that while 9/11 is America's fault, it was accidental, even if it was reckless and stupid.
So from the perspective of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, even though Ron Paul claims something different, he's ultimately just another puppet in the government cover-up, right?

Two: His ability as a politician. What was the number? Four? Yeah, four bills he ever supported out of thousands ever passed. I know this is often a groan-inducing criticism, but politics does require an ability to work with other people. As far as I know, Paul is almost completely isolated from both parties.

I know people criticize Rick Santorum for having compromised on his ideals and morals multiple times in congress by voting for legislation that wasn't conservative nor Christian (going so far one time as to vote to give more federal money to Planned Parenthood).

But how Rick has always responded is that compromise is required to get anything done. That politics is a team sport; that you've got to give the other side some of what they want to get some of what you want; that not being able to do whatever you want is the whole point of a republic and the separation of powers. And that sounds perfectly logical and rational to me. What Rick also says, however, is that it's also about how good you are at negotiating and maneuvering yourself around diplomatically.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, has seemingly not bent his pen at all, ever; has done little diplomatic work or connections as a representative; he just appears to be all alone, voting for or against stuff. Is this all wrong? I don't know for sure, but I know that Ron never mentions anything he's done in Washington other than how he voted.

So my point is that, if he were elected president, I question how good he would be as a politician and how effective he would be as a leader.

But please, Ron Paul supporters, I am very eager to hear what you have to say in response to this post, because I really want to like him.

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 01:15:07 Reply

At 4 hours ago, Davoo wrote:
At 1 day ago, The-Great-One wrote: Obama is a good debater.
Debates are one of the few places where substance always wins. One candidate bullshits around, and the other candidate can immediately call him out on it. One candidate says something legitimate, and the other candidate looks like a dumbass formulating and excuse to disagree. Style and charm still have a major impact, but only when all candidates are essentially equal in substantive quality do they become the dominant influences.

There is some truth here, but there are lots of exceptions. For example, one candidate says an popular lie and the other counters with a regrettable truth. The liar gets the applause and the honest politician gets booed. It happens all the time.

For example, say New Gingrich claims that the Palestinian people moved there from Jordan in 1948 to freeload off of Israel (which he says said). Gingrich is being knowingly dishonest. An honest politician can refute this, but the crowd might not listen to reason. This is usually the case. Tell the people what they want to hear and you'll go far in politics.

But yes. When you have a politician who is genuinely unintelligent and ignorant about the American government (like Sarah Palin) it is great to see them get ripped apart in a debate. Debates do weed out some idiots. But articulate idiots who have a decent amount of knowledge (knowledge, not logic or reason) may do well in debates. As do intelligent sociopaths (New Gingrich). But I agree that debates are crucial to the political process.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 01:53:38 Reply

At 5 hours ago, Davoo wrote: Debates are one of the few places where substance always wins.

Not even close to true. I'll point you to the first ever televised Presidential debate, the first of the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon debates. People who watched the debate on TV thought that Kennedy had won the debate, while people listening to the debate on the radio thought that Nixon had come out on top. Why? Because Nixon had just come back from a stint in the hospital from a knee injury and appeared sick, frail, sweaty, uncomfortable, and unkempt, and refusing to put on any makeup before the debate didn't help him much. Kennedy, by contrast, appeared calm, collected, tanned, and youthful. This should tell you that in a televised debate, visuals matter just as much if not more than the actual substance of the candidates arguments.

The 1960 debate is in many ways parallel to the 2008 debates, and I'm willing to bet that McCain's weird facial tics during the 2008 debates played as big of a role in determining the winner of them as did anything that was actually said during the debates.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 13:47:23 Reply

At 11 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote:
At 5 hours ago, Davoo wrote: Debates are one of the few places where substance always wins.
Not even close to true. I'll point you to the first ever televised Presidential debate, the first of the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon debates. People who watched the debate on TV thought that Kennedy had won the debate, while people listening to the debate on the radio thought that Nixon had come out on top. Why? Because Nixon had just come back from a stint in the hospital from a knee injury and appeared sick, frail, sweaty, uncomfortable, and unkempt, and refusing to put on any makeup before the debate didn't help him much. Kennedy, by contrast, appeared calm, collected, tanned, and youthful. This should tell you that in a televised debate, visuals matter just as much if not more than the actual substance of the candidates arguments.

The 1960 debate is in many ways parallel to the 2008 debates, and I'm willing to bet that McCain's weird facial tics during the 2008 debates played as big of a role in determining the winner of them as did anything that was actually said during the debates.

I'm inclined to agree with this. In a debate what you say it less important than the way you say it. If you speak with confidence and passion while telling the people what they want to hear, you'll get thunderous applause. Santorum does this all the time. He verbally defecates and the people eat it up (ok that sounded a lot more disgusting than I intended).

You can make a blatant egregious lie (Newt Gingrich) but as long as it is a popular lie, the audience will applause and boo whoever argues against it. Here's a great example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfBKKh0C2eo

Ron Paul says the truth, but its an uncomfortable truth that the people don't want to hear, so he gets booed. Santorum makes a fallacious appeal to emotions and gets applause. Ron Paul's argument had substance. Santorum's was verbal diarrhea. But who wins the debate? The liar.

But I will say that there are times when debates are useful. People like Sarah Palin and Rick Perry have fallen apart in debates because they don't have enough knowledge in their brains to keep their mouths moving. However, idiots who have mastered the art of articulation (Santorum) as well as manipulative intelligent sociopaths (Gingrich) go far.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 17:15:33 Reply

At 3 hours ago, MrFlopz wrote: I'm inclined to agree with this. In a debate what you say it less important than the way you say it. If you speak with confidence and passion while telling the people what they want to hear, you'll get thunderous applause. Santorum does this all the time. He verbally defecates and the people eat it up (ok that sounded a lot more disgusting than I intended).

You can make a blatant egregious lie (Newt Gingrich) but as long as it is a popular lie, the audience will applause and boo whoever argues against it. Here's a great example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfBKKh0C2eo

Yeah, but you have to remember, that's a Republican primary debate, and there are two major differences between that and the general elction presidential debates. Firstly, it's a Republican debate, so the crowds are made up overwhelmingly of Republicans, and secondly, the general election debates have a rule that the crowds aren't allowed to make any noise. So, the advantage of having the crowd on your side is effectively eliminated in the general election debates.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

J1993
J1993
  • Member since: May. 26, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 18:29:32 Reply

Unfortunately elections can and often do swing entirely on charisma or failing that the age old tactic of drowning your opponents in advertising which I would view as important due to the correlation of whoever spent the most money and the likelyhood of coming out on top.

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 18:46:10 Reply

At 1 hour ago, Angry-Hatter wrote:
At 3 hours ago, MrFlopz wrote: I'm inclined to agree with this. In a debate what you say it less important than the way you say it. If you speak with confidence and passion while telling the people what they want to hear, you'll get thunderous applause. Santorum does this all the time. He verbally defecates and the people eat it up (ok that sounded a lot more disgusting than I intended).

You can make a blatant egregious lie (Newt Gingrich) but as long as it is a popular lie, the audience will applause and boo whoever argues against it. Here's a great example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfBKKh0C2eo
Yeah, but you have to remember, that's a Republican primary debate, and there are two major differences between that and the general elction presidential debates. Firstly, it's a Republican debate, so the crowds are made up overwhelmingly of Republicans, and secondly, the general election debates have a rule that the crowds aren't allowed to make any noise. So, the advantage of having the crowd on your side is effectively eliminated in the general election debates.

True true true. It's easy to get applause from a bunch of tea partiers, but the general public is not that easily to fool. But that sort of thing still happens. There are popular lies that the general public wants to believe. It's a little harder to fool such a diverse crowd but politicians are masters at it.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 18:52:45 Reply

At 1 minute ago, MrFlopz wrote: True true true. It's easy to get applause from a bunch of tea partiers, but the general public is not that easily to fool. But that sort of thing still happens. There are popular lies that the general public wants to believe. It's a little harder to fool such a diverse crowd but politicians are masters at it.

Oh, no doubt, and at a campaign rally, that's definitely true. I'm just saying that chucking bombs around works swimmingly when you're in a Republican debate with a Republican crowd, but doing the same thing in a general election debate is much more likely to hurt you than help you, especially since EVERYONE is paying attention to you now. Independants, moderates, and undecideds don't take kindly to incendiary rhetoric.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 18:58:33 Reply

At 2 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Oh, no doubt, and at a campaign rally, that's definitely true. I'm just saying that chucking bombs around works swimmingly when you're in a Republican debate with a Republican crowd, but doing the same thing in a general election debate is much more likely to hurt you than help you, especially since EVERYONE is paying attention to you now. Independants, moderates, and undecideds don't take kindly to incendiary rhetoric.

Yeah, I saw a Republican debate where that asshole Newt Gingrich told a Palestinian to his face that there is no such thing as Palestinians. He would have been blasted in the media for making such a remark in a general election, but it was pretty much ignored since it was a Republican debate.

I don't know why I bother to watch the Republican debates. It's pretty much sadomasochism on my part.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 19:10:22 Reply

At 1 minute ago, MrFlopz wrote: Yeah, I saw a Republican debate where that asshole Newt Gingrich told a Palestinian to his face that there is no such thing as Palestinians. He would have been blasted in the media for making such a remark in a general election, but it was pretty much ignored since it was a Republican debate.

Newt Gingrich is one of those candidates who do very well when the crowd is on his side, but really poorly when the crowd has to be quiet. Evidence of this can be seen in the early debates; he was pretty much rocking in every debate since he gave up his phony adherence to the 11th Commandment, but when they came to Tampa in Florida, the moderator advised the crowd to be silent, and Romney was widely viewed as the winner of that one.

This implies that Romney would probably do best in the general election debates against Obama.

I don't know why I bother to watch the Republican debates. It's pretty much sadomasochism on my part.

I do it because there's nothing more fun than watching a bunch of conservatives in a mud wrestling competition. They should be called "When Republicans Attack Republicans" and be run on daytime TV. Nothing but fun.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

n64kid
n64kid
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 19:13:47 Reply

At 1 day ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 9 hours ago, All-American-Badass wrote: Apparently santorum supporters use bing. That's the only rational explanation for such a result, since no sane person uses bing.
I use Bing as a homepage because it has pretty pictures. I then type in "google.com" into my browser bar and search from there.

That's what I do, exactly, for that reason. Open browser, Bing's my homepage, click the hot spots, then off to google.

I do have a wp7 and Bing on that is great though.


Tolerance comes with tolerance of the intolerant. True tolerance doesn't exist.

BBS Signature
MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 19:16:03 Reply

I have to say Hatter, Republican debates are the only form of reality TV that makes me laugh.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Davoo
Davoo
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 22:04:48 Reply

At 20 hours ago, MrFlopz wrote: There is some truth here, but there are lots of exceptions. For example, one candidate says an popular lie and the other counters with a regrettable truth. The liar gets the applause and the honest politician gets booed. It happens all the time.

I guess you're right. I should change what I said to,

"If a viewer truly cares about substance, debates are the best place to get them."

...As do intelligent sociopaths (New Gingrich). But I agree that debates are crucial to the political process.

Intelligent sociopath... that's exactly how I would classify Newt as well!

At 20 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Not even close to true. I'll point you to the first ever televised Presidential debate, the first of the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon debates. People who watched the debate on TV thought that Kennedy had won the debate, while people listening to the debate on the radio thought that Nixon had come out on top.

How do we know what the public opinion of 'who won' was? Was there a poll? I skimmed through the linked article and didn't see one.

Why? Because Nixon had just come back from a stint in the hospital from a knee injury and appeared sick, frail, sweaty, uncomfortable, and unkempt, and refusing to put on any makeup before the debate didn't help him much. Kennedy, by contrast, appeared calm, collected, tanned, and youthful. This should tell you that in a televised debate, visuals matter just as much if not more than the actual substance of the candidates arguments.

Which one was better in terms of substance? Which one had sounder arguments?

At 8 hours ago, MrFlopz wrote: Santorum does this all the time. He verbally defecates and the people eat it up (ok that sounded a lot more disgusting than I intended).

In the most recent debate, where he got booed three times for stuff he said and didn't take back.

I'd like to renew my request for someone to respond to the Ron Paul section of my post. I repeat: I REALLY WANT to like Ron Paul, but I haven't yet heard a good argument for him. Please help.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 22:32:27 Reply

At 16 minutes ago, Davoo wrote: "If a viewer truly cares about substance, debates are the best place to get them."

But alas... Debate viewers usually don't care about substance. Those who do get their info elsewhere.

How do we know what the public opinion of 'who won' was? Was there a poll? I skimmed through the linked article and didn't see one.

The main media outlets usually have polls, and/or have pundits pick. Can I find them? Maybe, if I cared to look.

Which one was better in terms of substance? Which one had sounder arguments?

It's been generally accepted that Nixon rocked the substance. The radio polls were overwhelmingly saying Nixon won, while the TV viewers said Kennedy destroyed Nixon. The demographics of who was using radio v. who was using a TV in 1960 might have had some play on this, but the general conclusion still stands.

I'd like to renew my request for someone to respond to the Ron Paul section of my post. I repeat: I REALLY WANT to like Ron Paul, but I haven't yet heard a good argument for him. Please help.

We don't agree on much, but at least we can agree on this.

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 22:51:09 Reply

At 36 minutes ago, Davoo wrote:
At 20 hours ago, MrFlopz wrote: There is some truth here, but there are lots of exceptions. For example, one candidate says an popular lie and the other counters with a regrettable truth. The liar gets the applause and the honest politician gets booed. It happens all the time.
I guess you're right. I should change what I said to,

"If a viewer truly cares about substance, debates are the best place to get them."

Ok, yes. That makes sense. Debates are a great way for an informed voter to dissect a candidate.

And to respond to your question about Ron Paul. Paul is the man when it comes to foreign policy. His domestic stuff isn't any better than the other GOPs. However, he is the only one who understands that the US is not infallible in its foreign policy. He understands that our actions in places like the middle east and south America are hurting others and causing a backlash (the 9/11 terrorist attacks for instance). Santorum and Gingrich are war hawks who have full unconditional support for Israel and believe (or in the case of Newt SAY they believe) that terrorists have no motivation other than jealousy. I have no doubt that Santorum would bring us to war with Iran. Ron Paul would improve relations with some of our enemies. Further more, he would cut back on foreign aid to the dictators and tyrants we have always supported. He defined foreign aid as "Taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries". The man does have his virtues. He's an honest politician. But in some ways he's just another republican. Depends on the issue.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-20 23:04:01 Reply

The republican party believes in traditional American values. That's why they only care about your rights if you're a wealthy white christian heterosexual man.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 00:02:34 Reply

At 58 minutes ago, Davoo wrote: How do we know what the public opinion of 'who won' was? Was there a poll? I skimmed through the linked article and didn't see one.

The page makes reference to studies with results to the effect of Kennedy coming out on top with television audiences while Nixon did well with radio audiences. A little snooping unearthed a study by a Philadelphia based polling firm called Sindlinger & Co, described briefly in this paper. Apparently, radio audiences preferred Nixon over Kennedy by 49% to 21%, while the TV audience preferred Kennedy over Nixon by 30% to 29%. I didn't know that the TV audience was split so evenly, but still, the numbers indicate a net gain of 29 points in Kennedy's favor based on whether the debate was watched on TV rather than listened to on the radio. As the paper mentions, there is some doubt as to how accurate these numbers were, because maybe radio audiences (generally poor, southern, and rural people) were more favorable towards Nixon to begin with, and there is little information on the sample used to obtain these numbers.

Still, regardless of the accuracy of this particular poll, political commentators were of the general opinion that Kennedy had won, and declared him the winner, and presidential preference polls showed Kennedy overtaking Nixon in the wake of the debate, so I wouldn't think that it's too unreasonable to say that Kennedy was the one who came out on top.

Which one was better in terms of substance? Which one had sounder arguments?

If you believe the poll, Nixon did better when people only heard his voice and his arguments, but honestly, I've watched the debate and I'm more inclined to call it a split decision with Kennedy as the winner by a little bit (based mostly on the fact that he was more on the offence while Nixon played defence). Both of them were head and shoulders above their modern counterparts, in my opinion. It's a great debate, I suggest you watch it if you're into that sort of thing. You can find it on Youtube.

I'd like to renew my request for someone to respond to the Ron Paul section of my post. I repeat: I REALLY WANT to like Ron Paul, but I haven't yet heard a good argument for him. Please help.

One thing I can say about Ron Paul is that he's consistent in his beliefs, and they are actually HIS beliefs. He's not likely to take a position or shy away from an issue because it is politically convenient, putting him in stark contrast to someone like Romney or Gingrich who will take any position they think is going to help get them elected. This is why I respect Paul, even though I don't agree with him on most issues, because the disagreements I have with him are genuine differences of opinion. Another thing is that when Paul is right on something, he's a million percent right on it. He's definitely the best candidate running for either party on drug policy, and his foreign policy isn't half-bad either.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 00:24:31 Reply

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are so transparent in their insincerity. I can see their fucking strings.

Ron Paul and Rick Santorum have their own values and stand by their beliefs. I believe Santorum is the worst choice for pres out of the four (mostly because he's the most likely to start a war with Iran), but he is perhaps a better person than Gingrich and Romney and I respect that he sticks to his principals. Of course, Ron Paul has more integrity because he doesn't spout off popular lies. He's a seeker of truth. These men are all very different... but none of them will be president.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 00:35:07 Reply

At 8 minutes ago, MrFlopz wrote: but he is perhaps a better person than Gingrich and Romney and I respect that he sticks to his principals.

Sticking to one's principles is a limited virtue. In a country as dynamic as ours in times as dynamic as ours, a good leader needs to know when to change in order to fit the current of the world. George W Bush had a hard time adjusting and doing the right thing if he didn't start doing the right thing.

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 00:35:30 Reply

At 1 hour ago, MrFlopz wrote: The republican party believes in the traditional American values that they just made up. That's why they only care about your rights if you're a wealthy heterosexual man.

fixed it for you


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

BBS Signature