12 replies to this topic

[The Immortalist]

Just thought I would post this video here. He states the obvious and what we all feel but he articulates it in a very good way.

[brokenportal]

I'm pretty sure that I heard Rick Santorum say that we owe the current up-trend in the economy to the notion that people know the Republicans will win the next presidential election and so the market confidence has grown. I think that is what he said but I cant imagine that any serious candidate for leadership of a country would ever say that given the state of things, so my brain tells me that he must not have said that.

[Link]

I loved it.

I am amazed that people actually support this guy and this sums it up perfectly.

[Ben]

Enough said:

http://encyclopediad...eAmazingAtheist

You look a bit like this genetic refuse in your picture too. Interesting.

[The Immortalist]

I'm pretty sure that I heard Rick Santorum say that we owe the current up-trend in the economy to the notion that people know the Republicans will win the next presidential election and so the market confidence has grown. I think that is what he said but I cant imagine that any serious candidate for leadership of a country would ever say that given the state of things, so my brain tells me that he must not have said that.

He probably did say it. The guy's a complete psycho.

[Arch_NME]

He's very anti-science in general. He doesn't believe in evolution or global warming. The future of the life sciences in this country aren't going to be so great if all of our kids are taught "intelligent design" in schools rather than actual biology. He's not just pandering to the ignorant republican masses when he says those things either, he genuinely thinks these things. He himself actually drafted an amendment to "No child left behind" to have creationism taught in classrooms.

[Rational Madman]

Listen, I think many are making the analytical error of assuming that policy proposals made on the campaign trail will inevitably become statutes once the candidate arrives in office. But in reality, there is a palpable disparity between what is promised, and what happens in presidential terms. In part, this is because we have a system that was brilliantly designed to prevent the rise of tyranny, and the sort of political revolutions that invariably leave lasting scars on the body politic---even if such are necessary, and in the long run, beneficial to a nation's health. So it's important to not be hypereactive to communications made during the campaign season, since much of what is said and done is extraterrestrial.

I would like to think that much of the more celestial proposals on the platforms are simply cynical attempts to allay the schizophrenic symptoms of the voting public, but I'm not sure this is universally true. Ardent supporters of the aboliton of the Federal Reserve, for instance, strike me as being quite sincere in their convictions---and the chances of enactment. But disconcertingly, there often seems to be almost no recognition of the unfeasibility of some of the more extreme positions that are proposed. Of course, there could be other motivations, like a belief in the necessity of challenging even the most sacred beliefs of a society, but really, I doubt this is the true impetus in most cases. Rather, I'm more inclined to believe that the propagators of extreme positions are driven by the analgesic attention that their positions receive, because in all liklihood, this attention is addressing internal discord that they are loath to understand, and desperately want to pacify.

Furthermore, once a candidate runs for public office, political expediency demands that one attempt to establish harmony with disparate interest groups that give political parties their shape. This is because a failure to do so would ensure not only result in certain political loss, but more seriously, lead to a more costly failure to realize goals that have a greater systemic value---as related to the national interest that political actors help define. For instance, Republican party aspirants will almost without fail, have to adopt a pro-life posture. And again, some are sincere, while others are more cynical. But really, these sentiments matter very little, because even if Congress managed to somehow to sharply restrict the reproductive choices of women, there's almost no chance that such a law would survive the hostile scrutiny that has defined the responses of federal courts. And once again, such represents a heartening manifestation of the self-regulating properties of our system.

Additionally, there also might be a silver lining to highly objectionable political initiatives, because their failure will often appease rabid interest groups that have a minority stake in decision making. And because such an effort could make these groups believe that their views have been taken seriously, they might be less resistant to more mainstream proposals---provided that the appeasing legislation is not in perfect accordance with their expressed desires. So therefore, by lending support to marginally important policy proposals that are certain to fail and live a short life, policymakers are consciously---or unconsciously---lowering the likely transaction costs for more meaningful iniatives.

Synthesizing my comments with the topic's subject, there's no need to worry about the breathtakingly stupid comments that candidates make on the campaign trail, because regardless of their motivations, the physics will change once they enter the White House. In the case of demagogues like Santorum, such a political outcome has a probability of close to nil. This is because demagogues are almost never able to marshal the requisite support that's needed to become politically viable in national contests, and must painfully learn to become content with powers that are primarily obstructionist.

Edited by Rational Madman, 18 January 2012 - 12:16 AM.

[cherrysilver]

He's very anti-science in general. He doesn't believe in evolution or global warming. The future of the life sciences in this country aren't going to be so great if all of our kids are taught "intelligent design" in schools rather than actual biology. He's not just pandering to the ignorant republican masses when he says those things either, he genuinely thinks these things. He himself actually drafted an amendment to "No child left behind" to have creationism taught in classrooms.

Santorum doesn't believe in birth control either or abortion for any reason at all (including rape, life of mother, etc.). He also supports cutting aid programs to those very recipients whose birth control or lack thereof failed. This seems to be a total dicotomy and at complete and total odds with reducing welfare rolls and related aid programs.

[nowayout]

He is rabidly anti-gay. Total nutcase.

[Rational Madman]

He is rabidly anti-gay. Total nutcase.

Although I'm reluctant to come to his defense, I would say that his views on homosexuality are somewhat more complicated. Like some evangelicals, he regards this orientation as a sin, but he has exhibited some tolerance in the past. For instance, in his last senatorial campaign, his press secretary was openly homosexual, and when this was revealed, he didn't succumb to calls to terminate his professional relationship.

Edited by Rational Madman, 04 February 2012 - 01:17 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Regarding the evangelical position on homosexuality, I think it would be more appropriate to say that "nearly all"---rather than "some"----consider homosexuality to be a sin. But in my experience, there isn't always a desire to limit the response to the condemnation, or possible segregation of homosexuals. Rather, there is also a sincere desire to "save" them from their ostensible sins. And while this position remains exceedingly disagreeable, I suppose it can be considered a positive sign of progress---since death was previously considered by many to be the only tolerable response.

[nowayout]

He is rabidly anti-gay. Total nutcase.

Although I'm reluctant to come to his defense, I would say that his views on homosexuality are somewhat more complicated.

Don't pee on me and tell me it's raining. Just how is the following "complicated"?

In an interview with the Associated Press (AP) taped on April 7, 2003, and published April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.

While campaigning in New Hampshire, Santorum engaged college students who asked about his position on gay marriage, suggesting that allowing gay marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamy and other forms of marriage. The back-and-forth resulted in him being booed at the conclusion of the event. At another event, Santorum suggested that children would better off having a father in prison than being raised by lesbian parents.

During the Fox News/Google-sponsored debate, which took place in Orlando, Florida on September 22, 2011, a gay soldier deployed in Iraq asked the candidates if they would take measures to "circumvent" the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", if elected president. Santorum, who answered the question, called the repeal of DADT "social experimentation" - and "tragic". "I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military," Santorum responded. "And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to -- and removing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' I think tries to inject social policy into the military.

I guess Republicans are against government EXCEPT when they are for government sticking its nose in your crotch.

Also, rape victims should just accept their gift from God.

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=LaPKt3c8S-w

Edited by viveutvivas, 05 February 2012 - 12:41 AM.

[Ben]

Jeepers creepers. You're all such leftist betamen. No doubt programmed rigorously at uni.

Read some Descartes.

Edited by Ben, 06 February 2012 - 01:26 PM.