Republican candidates for 2012

• Con_Alma

  dtdtim;1079757 wrote:I don't really have an opinion on Santorum one way or the other at the moment because I haven't researched him enough. To be honest, I never seriously thought he was going to contend for the nomination even after it was close in Iowa. That being said, I'm intrigued by the last part of your response to I Wear Pants. Could you give an example of what you mean to elaborate on your agreement with Santorum? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from...what do you think Santorum really means with that quote?

  I don't pretend to know his intentions with the quote. I simply offered my opinion on the fact that we can't do what we please in this country so long as it doesn't harm others.
  
  I too do not believe he will gain the nomination.
• Con_Alma

  Cleveland Buck;1079760 wrote:What Santorum means is that the federal government should impose values on the people and police their behavior in hopes of changing their morality. It doesn't work and it is not at all legal in this country (yes the Constitution is the law).

  It may not work but our government has done it for many years and continues to do so.
• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck;1079750 wrote:Why? Has Paul offered to invade and occupy and bomb America?

  Tounge-in-cheek.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Con_Alma;1079766 wrote:It may not work but our government has done it for many years and continues to do so.

  Our government has done many illegal things to us for many years and continue to do so. That doesn't mean we should get promote it by getting behind a candidate who wants to do more.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1079765 wrote:I don't pretend to know his intentions with the quote. I simply offered my opinion on the fact that we can do what we please in this country so long as it doesn't harm others.
  
  I too do not believe he will gain the nomination.

  Could you expand upon that opinion please? I'm curious what activities that do not harm anyone you think should be illegal/the government should stop.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1079782 wrote:Could you expand upon that opinion please? I'm curious what activities that do not harm anyone you think should be illegal/the government should stop.

  ????
  
  Why would you assume that I think the government should stop?
• Con_Alma

  Cleveland Buck;1079781 wrote:Our government has done many illegal things to us for many years and continue to do so. That doesn't mean we should get promote it by getting behind a candidate who wants to do more.

  I certainly have not suggested that we do.
• WebFire

  Skyhook79;1079637 wrote:What do you do when the guy you believe in isn't on the Ballot in the General Election?

  Don't be dumb. I'm not talking about the general election. I am talking about now. And he is on the ballot. So I will vote for him.
  
  Obviously, if he isn't on the ballot for the general, you either vote for someone else, write him in, or don't vote at all. I won't write him in, unless I decide I'm not voting for any of the candidates otherwise.
• dtdtim

  Con_Alma;1079765 wrote: I simply offered my opinion on the fact that we can do what we please in this country so long as it doesn't harm others.

  I understand what you're saying, I was just curious. I can't decide what I think of his quote, I'll guess I have to research it more so I can understand the context and where he actually draws the line between 'okay' and 'unacceptable'. The first part of it is obviously poor word choice but the second seems to make sense from a realistic perspective/face value.
  
  I've given up trying to figure out the GOP nomination process. It's beginning to remind me of a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book. Although Santorum is like that one part of the book that you never realized was there and never read because you never chose the option taking you down that storyline. Then that one time, when you choose it you think to yourself 'wtf this is not at all how I thought this would end' and don't really know what you think.
• Con_Alma

  Yeah, Sorry for the confsion. It's supposed to say we can't do what we please so long as it doesn't harm others.
  
  My appologies.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  [video=youtube;5Aohgrn1peA][/video]
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1079809 wrote:????
  
  Why would you assume that I think the government should stop?

  Because saying "we can't do anything we want just because no one is harmed" (paraphrasing for you who will scream about putting words in people's mouths aka fish) sort of implies that there will/should be something to stop that.
  
  Even if you don't think there should be either of those things could you explain why you think people shouldn't be able to do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone?
• dwccrew

  

  bases_loaded;1079643 wrote:Whats more important...voting for Obama(by voting for him or 3rd party) or voting against Obama(voting for the repub candidate)?

  Voting for who you believe in and want as president.
• I Wear Pants

  dwccrew;1079960 wrote:Voting for who you believe in and want as president.

  This.
  
  I will not compromise with my vote.
• sjmvsfscs08

  bases_loaded;1079463 wrote:I bet you think you're smarter than everyone and your opinion is golden.
  
  My ancestors came here only speaking German and knowing how to work hard. Because of them my life doesn't suck.

  Ummm I think you're missing the point of my post.
  

  QuakerOats;1079538 wrote:You must be among the liberal elite.

  This guy's ancestors were witch-hunters too.
  
  
  I've never voted for a Democrat for governor or President. I voted for McCain and actually campaigned for him. Me, in the white, when he came to Toledo.
  
  
  
  
  
  I just think it's really really really really stupid to vote for Santorum. I would rather Paul, whom I like a lot, or Gingrich, albeit an asshole, get the nomination.
  
  Santorum went directly from law school to politics, and was elected to the House at age 32, and then was a Senator from 1994-2006. What has he done with his life to make me think he knows how to turn the economy around? He's the "fiscal conservative" who sat on his ass--unlike Paul--while the deficit exploded under Bush and had more than a billion dollars in earmarks. This fucker is more likely to end up being Bush III. I think he is a career politician who doesn't have anything else on his resume and I DON'T WANT THAT.
  
  Then you have to consider that if he couldn't beat some candidate from Pennsylvania as an incumbent Senator--how the fuck is he going to beat Obama and his billion-dollar campaign machine? Let alone doing it with every media outlet running his gay-bashing Muslim-hating creationism-teaching assbackward bigot comments all day every day. You don't need to "energize the base" you need to convince people who don't pay attention to politics and the smear campaign against Santorum would be horrific.
  
  So yeah, people who vote for him are FUCKING STUPID. Oh God...I might be a liberal because I think a guy who built businesses for decades and actually balanced budgets might be the guy who can turn the country around, not this Bible fucker.
• sleeper

  

  Curious what business Romney "built"? More like he bought business and installed people he knew would do a better job than the previous regime. That tells me nothing about how he's going to get this economy turned around.
• sjmvsfscs08

  sleeper;1079997 wrote:Curious what business Romney "built"? More like he bought business and installed people he knew would do a better job than the previous regime. That tells me nothing about how he's going to get this economy turned around.

  "Installing people he knows would do a better job" is 90% of what a President does, in case you didn't know.
  
  As usual, you oversimplify and disregard anything you disagree with. It is, and has always been, nothing short of pathetic. It's worse than an ad hominem attack, which usually isn't far behind in your usual arguments.
  
  I would think a Bakers Scholar from HBS has a little more influence in restructuring companies than simply calling a buddy in to run it more effectively.
  
  What's your explanation for when the Utahans begged him to turn around the Olympics? Did he install people he knew or did he do ____ to turn it around from $380 million in the red to $100 million in the black. Did he simply install people he knew to solve the biggest budget crisis in Massachusetts history?
  
  These people he installs tend to do a damn fine job, so I'm okay with it..
• Cleveland Buck

  

  sleeper;1079997 wrote:Curious what business Romney "built"? More like he bought business and installed people he knew would do a better job than the previous regime. That tells me nothing about how he's going to get this economy turned around.

  Romney and his company were very successful investing in start ups and troubled businesses. He does know his way around the business world, and I have no reason to hold that against him. I have no reason to favor him because of that either though. The federal government is not a business and should not be run like one. Being successful in one area of business does not qualify someone to centrally plan the whole economy. And looking at Romney's plan and his advisors, there is zero reason to believe he even understands what ails our economy right now.
• jhay78

  

  Con_Alma;1079765 wrote:I don't pretend to know his intentions with the quote. I simply offered my opinion on the fact that we can't do what we please in this country so long as it doesn't harm others.
  
  I too do not believe he will gain the nomination.

  This sums up the Santorum quote controversy well:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy_regarding_homosexuality
  
  He was commenting on a Supreme Court case (Lawrence vs. Texas) which eventually decided that states cannot create or enact laws banning homosexual behavior (sodomy). The case went further to claim a right to privacy in the US Constitution, and Santorum's point was, if that's true, then other forms of sexual behavior (like bestiality, polygamy, etc) cannot be outlawed by states as well. Anything and everything is OK- how dare a state tell someone what they can and can't do with regard to sexual behavior.
  
  It seems that anyone who believes in the 10th Amendment would agree with his assessment. Even though the few states with sodomy laws at the time were pretty much ignoring them, the Supreme Court injected themselves into the debate and once again proved idiots of themselves.
  

  A representative for Santorum asserted that his comments were relevant specifically to the then-pending case before the Supreme Court of the United States, Lawrence v. Texas.[SUP][28][/SUP] The Associated Press reported Santorum was offered an opportunity to explain his comments prior to the publishing of the interview – he refused to do so and replied, "I can't deny that I said it, and I can't deny that's how I feel."[SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][37]
  [/SUP]
  In a follow-up statement released after the Associated Press interview was published, Santorum said some of his remarks were "taken out of context", and defended his comments in the interview asserting "It is simply a reflection of the law."[SUP][11][/SUP] In an interview with Fox News Channel, Santorum said he was not going to apologize for his remarks, "I do not need to give an apology based on what I said and what I'm saying now – I think this is a legitimate public policy discussion. These are not ridiculous comments. These are very much a very important point."[SUP][18]
  [/SUP]
  Santorum defended his remarks, declaring that his comments were not intended to equate homosexuality with incest and adultery, but rather to challenge the specific legal position that the right to privacy prevents the government from regulating consensual acts among adults, a position he disputes, because he does not believe that there is a general constitutional right to privacy.[SUP][2]
  [/SUP]
  The dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) took a similar view—that, as the Texas homosexuality law had been ruled unconstitutional, because states have no right to interfere with an individual's choice of sexual partners, then the same ruling seems to imply that states have no right to legislate against incest, bigamy, adultery, polygamy, or any other mutually consensual sexual act not involving minors.

• sleeper

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1080013 wrote:"Installing people he knows would do a better job" is 90% of what a President does, in case you didn't know.
  
  As usual, you oversimplify and disregard anything you disagree with. It is, and has always been, nothing short of pathetic. It's worse than an ad hominem attack, which usually isn't far behind in your usual arguments.
  
  I would think a Bakers Scholar from HBS has a little more influence in restructuring companies than simply calling a buddy in to run it more effectively.
  
  What's your explanation for when the Utahans begged him to turn around the Olympics? Did he install people he knew or did he do ____ to turn it around from $380 million in the red to $100 million in the black. Did he simply install people he knew to solve the biggest budget crisis in Massachusetts history?
  
  These people he installs tend to do a damn fine job, so I'm okay with it..

  Ad hominem attacks? You mean like the ones scattered all over the college football forums with your name on it? Hypocrite.
  
  I'm not going to vote someone into office with the idea of 90% of what a president does is place people in the right spots. Isn't that what we had with Obama, you know, until all of them quit?
  
  Masschusetts is also 47th in the nation in job creation while he was governor. But hey, Mitt can place people in the right spot so who cares!
• I Wear Pants

  So if you believe a state can outlaw gay sex then you also believe they can outlaw any sex at all if we're going to use that same logic.
• sjmvsfscs08

  Cleveland Buck;1080019 wrote:Romney and his company were very successful investing in start ups and troubled businesses. He does know his way around the business world, and I have no reason to hold that against him. I have no reason to favor him because of that either though. The federal government is not a business and should not be run like one.

  Considering all corporations inherently seek efficiency, and the government is an inefficient machine when it doesn't need to be. I would think a guy like Romney, with his business experience could do a thing or two. He was also not only the chief executive of companies but also the state of Massachusetts, so he has unparalleled experience in this regard. So I disagree here...
  

  Cleveland Buck;1080019 wrote:Being successful in one area of business does not qualify someone to centrally plan the whole economy. And looking at Romney's plan and his advisors, there is zero reason to believe he even understands what ails our economy right now.

  ..and here.
• sjmvsfscs08

  sleeper;1080026 wrote:Ad hominem attacks? You mean like the ones scattered all over the college football forums with your name on it? Hypocrite.
  
  I'm not going to vote someone into office with the idea of 90% of what a president does is place people in the right spots. Isn't that what we had with Obama, you know, until all of them quit?
  
  Masschusetts is also 47th in the nation in job creation while he was governor. But hey, Mitt can place people in the right spot so who cares!

  Jesus Christ haven't we been over the fact that having a great unemployment rate is better than job creation? Everyone in Massachusetts who wanted a job had one.
  
  Job creation wasn't the issue of Romney's term, it was the budget...which he solved.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Cleveland Buck;1080019 wrote:The federal government is not a business and should not be run like one. Being successful in one area of business does not qualify someone to centrally plan the whole economy.

  I've read hundreds of your posts and not once did I get the inclination that you believe the job of the federal government is to centrally plan the whole economy. Matter of fact, your champion is entirely against any central planning from the federal level that is not duly authorized by the Constitution/Amendments.
  
  Please clarify that you do not believe what you typed.
  
  If you do believe it is the federal government's responsibility to centrally plan the whole economy, then you are clearly backing the wrong candidate. If anyone believes this tenet, then we are truly doomed as a free society, as Quaker has noted on dozens of occasions.
• sleeper

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1080060 wrote:Jesus Christ haven't we been over the fact that having a great unemployment rate is better than job creation? Everyone in Massachusetts who wanted a job had one.
  
  Job creation wasn't the issue of Romney's term, it was the budget...which he solved.

  And how is he going to solve the USA's budget crisis? By going to war with Iran? I haven't seen anything from Mitt on how he's going to reduce the deficit, or in bigger terms the National debt. Ron Paul is going to get $1 trillion in his first year, how much is Romney going to cut?