Rick Santorum

jumping in after reading page 1:

I love the idea of conservatism. stick to the old ways and such... however, the country was founded in the fucking 1700s, 240 years ago... times change and what is required to function properly as a country has also changed. just the constitution is not sufficient to govern a nation these days. just pointing out the obvious here.

also, I don't know if the term "separation of church and state" is actually written outrght in the constitution, but follow it logically, how can a government that promises religious freedoms to people who practice all religions expect to uphold that system with a shred of even fake imparitiality if the government openly declares a religion? it can't. Even in our religiously "impartial" system, most of the government is christian and all or most of the actions it takes are often influenced by that.

and one more thing to consider:

government runs a country

religion promotes a spiritual life and belief in higher powers etc

they have nothing in common. the only reason they coexisted for so long was because religion was the best way to maintain power over the masses, control the church, control the afterlife, control people's primal fears and therefore the people. we're a bit beyond that these days.

end rant
 
off topic but i informed myself on this whole mormon thing (with finding that book, with the battle between native americans and that isrealian tribe and shit) and its so incredibly made up that the bible looks incredibly reliable all of a sudden.

his point is that religion is not a choice for most people, but more of a cultural thing and something your parents are responsible for. to think that your religion is the correct one just because of where you were born is hilarious.

#####################################################

AND MY CONTRIBUTION TO THIS THREAD:

obama is a huge factor why the US is not the laughingstock of the world anymore. seriously, bush was such a joke its almost not even funny. when obama was voted, a lot of people outside the US were positively surprised and still are.

when santorum gets the nod somehow, this movement will probably be reverted and all the stereotypes will resurface.

i know though that most americans dont care about what others think about the US.
 
I agree that we have way too many people living above their means, which is why its really really hard for me to be sympathetic to the majority of the "poor" because it really seems like most the "poor" put themselves in that position by being stupid with their money. I worked at a friends car dealership last year and it was fucking amazing how many people would buy nice ass cars that could not afford it. my boss was constantly amazed at how many people deep in debt would come in with a loan and get some retardedly unnecessary car.

its not hard to live off little money, i may not be able to talk because i live on my own, by myself right now. but i made something like 7,000 last year and that was enough to live plenty comfortably, buy shit i wanted, buy a new bike, skis etc.. and still be smart with my money and save some. a good friend of mine's family, 3 kids and a mom are living off of 15,000 a year in an apartment, and its surprising how well they can live yet still not be in debt and fuck themselves over, they dont have cell phones, big screen tv's and other unnecessary shit, but they can eat well, live in a decent appartment, have decent clothes etc.. its not ideal, put you can definitely get by with little money. and you can definitely do it without government covering your ass.

its this stupid liberal idea that everyone who isnt middle or upper class needs to have their ass whiped by the rich/government that i cannot stand. and its whats causing, and worse, allowing people to live like that. when you can fuck yourself over into debt, to the point where your on welfare and dont have to actually work for money anymore. there's no punishment for your own retarded actions. its almost rewarding people for fucking up. people need to be responsible for themselves, and this thought that the rich owe everyone, and the rich are evil, and its ok to spend like a retard and have everyones sympathy, that has created this self entitled, you owe me because i exist mindset.

 
99% of all of you need to take some hardcore political history courses before you try and open your fucking dumbass mouths, sorry, but you don't know anything. ANYTHING!
 
Why do I need "IMMENSE" amounts of studies to prove to you that people won't work for 20-30 cents on the dollar? People act upon incentives and when you remove the incentive to work hard for yourself to earn a good living, then you take the work ethic out of people. Plain and simple.

Perfect example of what I am talking about skip to 15min 10sec

/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
 
I would way rather be seen as a laughing stock to the fuckin wine swillers in Europe than be seen as a paper tiger by our enemies and economic ccompetators in the middle east and asia
 
I consider myself a republican and even i dont understand how this guy is even running for president.

PAUL 2012
 
It must be nice to live in a country that it's totally irevevent in international affairs and insulated by stronger ally nations that will do your dirty work for you... Like Germany, UK, America who would all come to your aid if you were attacked... As an American though I do not have the luxury of denial. We do have real enemies, who really want to hurt, kill and by their own admittance "crush" our nation and all of the good things that come with it. America has real enemies so does Europe be them economic or physical enemies if you can't acknowledge that wtvr as a Fin I guess you have that luxury but as a real global player and world power with a lot farther to fall than you guys America cannot afford to have a flower power, we are all friends mindset. That's denial. It's not wrong to acknowledge your enemies... Especially when your enemies openly acknowledge you
 
Probably a debate for another thread, but just so you know, Finland has no strong allies when it comes to the outbreak of war. During the Winter War, no one came to our aid against the Soviet Union's attack, except for Portugal who sent us a few tons of fish. So thanks for that, say the Finns.

We are still not in the NATO, and hopefully never will a part of it. We have no strong, military allies to our name that would act to our benefit and defense come the dawn of war, for example from our Eastern neighbour as the Elder Scrolls have foretold.

I don't know how Finland is "irevevent" in international affairs, seeing how it is one of the smallest countries in the EU and still has the highest AAA classification and one of highest GDPs in Europe to boot, not to mention the greater technological advancements in IT, forestry and cellular gadgets that have come from the country that just roughly 60 years ago was a regular shithole in terms of industry and development.

Still, I hope you understand that I am not a patriot, I happen to be born here between some arbitrary, invisible lines, but that doesn't make me indebted or thankful or proud of it just because. I am grateful to the veterans who protected our country in the Winter War. I am not grateful for the megalomaniac President and his generals in war who decided to try and take back our lost areas in the Continuation War, while siding with this little controversial force known as the Axis.

I understand it's not very nice knowing that there might be people out there, bent on killing some of your citizens, but I hope that the majority of US people get it together and try to stop their government and army of serving as the world police, often with very controversial reasons.

 
I can't, because like you said, there hasn't been a true free market. But I'm concerned that a truly free market, completely deregulated, would allow corporations to take advantage of people and the enviroment in a way not seen before.
 
Not to mention that Finland, along with most of the former Soviet Union, borders Russia and when push comes to shove, the people live under constant and imminent threat - that is something one cannot not deny. It is possible, when looking at the proliferated warfare budget applied by Putin's puppet Medvedev during the last presidency and now with Vlad back on the throne, dreaming of the consolidation and remembrance of returning to the glory days of the CCCP, things are not looking up.

The US shares no borders with their prospective "enemies".
 
abc_tw_rick_santorum_1_jt_120318_wg.jpg
010311-politics-rick-santorum.jpg


rick-santorum-as-hitler.jpg


santorum-with-cross4.jpg
 
Sorry, what I meant was: give me an example of a worst case scenario that could happen. Not that has happened or definitely will happen, just something bad that could happen. I'd just like to get an idea of where youre coming from so I don't respond with something that has nothing to do with what youre saying.
 
I totally get that Newschoolers jokes about girls all the time, but Rick Santorum, on the other hand, has some major lady-issues. He blames the "radical feminists" for convincing women to work outside the home which is ruining the "traditional family". Also, contraception is bad too? What year is this? 443259.jpeg
 
I mean like companies putting harmful chemicals in food because its cheaper than the safe way. Or child labor. Or demeaning working conditions, like in some factories in China. I'm saying that there if there is no limit to what companies can do, then they will eventually do the worst.
 
That's interesting, do you think people wouldn't be concerned about safety without a government? Also, why do you think companies will do the worst? My experience with businesses is that they do what makes their customers happy. If they don't do that, they fail. So I'm not really understanding why they would go against their self interest if their wasn't a government.
 
as hobbes would say: government curtails individual self-interest, so that the collective self-interest of society may be sought. i think feudal orders in medieval europe had quite some trouble with self-interested individuals/parties who controlled the means of force. corporations who become powerful can be counted on to exploit certain individuals, parties, or environments in order to grow their incomes without government regulation and laws. whether liberal-democratic regimes are the most apt for controlling society is a different debate, but I believe some measure of law and enforcement, binded in a constitution or some sort of agreement with the public is necessary for maintaining a safe and equitable society.
 
Every government in the world is just as corrupt as any big corporation and any high ranking government official is willing to lie, cheat and steal in order benefit themselves; and at the end of the day they are only trying to help themselves.
 
i think with the social structure to confront it (government) people would still be concerned, they just could do less about it. the reason i think that they would do the worst, eventually, if given completely free rein for all eternity, is that business is driven by the motive of profit. now i'm not saying that profit is a bad thing, its not. but there are people who are willing to do almost anything for profit. now, those people right now might be drug lords, or mafia men. but what if that type of person, one who isn't concerned with much else but the advancement of his own interests, what if he was to become a ceo of a major corporation? or even head of a small factory? and he was willing to hire children, or abuse workers, just to keep a good profit margin? and i understand that businesses do what customers like, but in this case, as you can see nowadays with companies like foxcon, the customer often doesnt really care or chooses not to care that there is injustice and abuse in the system. thats what i'm concerned about.
 
The only difference between a corrupt ceo and a corrupt government bureaucrat is the bureaucrat has a lot more power to screw stuff up.
 
wrong, the people can remove that bureacrat if they dont like him. or they can elect someone who will fire him. apples to oranges.
 
I see what you're saying. I apologize for my endless questions, I've found it's more useful to try to understand people rather than just argue so I hope you don't mind another. Why wouldn't there be a way to stop people like that without a government?
 
By that time the damage has already been done. I'm not trying to say there should not be any government regulation just not too much.
 
I fail to see the difference between a corrupt corporate suit and a corrupt government bureaucrat. Both use the power of the state to achieve their ends. Both can lose their jobs if public opinion turns on them. I mean, if you look at who heads up the state-sucking corporations and who heads the government, they're the same people. They bounce around from corporation to government. And if they're not in one they're funded by the other.
 
there is a difference. the politicians leave because they are forced out by the electorate, the suit leaves by choice, either his own or the choice of his superior. I do agree that government and business are too closely intertwined, but I don't think that eliminating government is the answer.
 
Oh I was just comparing corrupt to corrupt. I don't believe they're all the same. Do you think there's a way to have government and not have it be intertwined with business? To me it seems like that kind of corruption is inevitable.
 
Too many Americans are sleepwalking through this Presidential Race. VOTE PEOPLE. The Ohio polls were dead two weeks ago. I came in at 10 A.M. and the people at my voting place asked if I brought the crowd in behind me. VOTE PEOPLE
 
you know, "corruption" makes it sound silly. Might as well just call it what it is: theft, from the taxpayers. It's politicians taking the money that people were forced to pay (if you don't pay your taxes you're sent to jail) and giving it to people who they are involved with or have been bribed by.
 
I can't answer that. But I think that's what we should be trying to figure out, not how to get rid of government.
 
With publicly traded companies there are a lot of similarities between politicians and the"suits" simply because both have a responsibility to the public. Politician is supposed to listen to their constituents and represent them meanwhile the suit is supposed to earn as much money for the shareholders, both have responsibilities to people outside of their workplace. Private companies are totally different because they answer to no one but themselves.

 
people don't vote because they're not happy with the government. There's a reason approval ratings are so low. In my experience with people I've talked to, the government just isn't believed in anymore. People feel like their votes don't change anything. And I think there's a strong case to be made for that.
 
I feel pretty disenfranchised and I know plenty of other in their 20s who feel the same way. I want to abolish the 2 party system. Each election year new parties are created based off their agendas, pretty similar to how the college government worked.

 
Can't believe people are bitching about Santorum when we have had a leader for the last 4 years run our country into the ground. Need you forget where we have been? Can't believe anyone would want to re-elect him

/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
 
jesus fucking christ, another idiot saying gas prices are A) the presidents fault B) too damn high. For the millionth time, SAVE OUR FUCKING OIL FOR LATER. Dont drill it because $3.50 is too expensive for you (which is dead cheap compared to the rest of the world). Save it for WHEN WE NEED IT, WHICH IS NOT NOW. Saving a few bucks in the short term will fuck us over in the long run. I'm glad Energy Secretary Chu has a hard stance on letting them stay where they are. GLAD, AS IN HAPPY. It allows for other alternative sources to enter the picture, and make people think twice about:

1) where they go

2) what they drive

3) how to be more energy conscious

4) public transportation

5) the environment

6) what we can do in the future.

You guys (conservatives, libertarians) are seriously some of the most retarded cunts I've ever had to deal with.
 
So because Obama has spent a lot you want to elect another guy that will take away your freedoms and spend a lot? Brilliant.
 
Best statement in this thread so far.

I can't believe that some people in this thread just dont understand that there are people in bad conditions working their ass off to make ends meet, not lazy people at all, who just cant afford health care.

Seriously you people are so fucking lucky to be in the situations that you are that you can afford health care, insurance and every other necessity that you take for granted every day.

I waited in a hospital for 8 hours the other night to see a doctor and yes it sucks but I couldn't be happier that my government chooses to help every citizen as much as it can.
 
this. Yes Santorum is an extremely bad example of the right wing but he won't be the candidate anyway. If any of you think Obama can handle the economic crisis better than Romney your crazy. Look at his record, and all of the promises he made and fell far short of ( not to mention Joe Biden is actually retarded ). If Obama and the ridiculous spending train continues, this countries gonna be in some serious shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top