Republican candidates for 2012

• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1095997 wrote:Printing money to bomb kids in third world countries = good. Printing money to spend on health care for US citizens = evil communism. Obviously.
  
  To be fair both solutions are stupid but I get a bit upset when people support the former and then act like the latter is unjust.

  The number one job I need and can't do on my own from he federal government is it's military.
  
  Everything else is just a social experiment.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1096083 wrote:The number one job I need and can't do on my own from he federal government is it's military.
  
  Everything else is just a social experiment.

  Why do you need the federal government to be waging wars abroad that make us less safe and make us economically weak?
• IggyPride00

  

  
• sjmvsfscs08

  [video=youtube;BJMHlUJNl3s][/video]
• I Wear Pants

  IggyPride00;1097176 wrote:

  That's a joke right?
• I Wear Pants

  "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," -Santorum
  
  How the hell is this guy leading the polls in Ohio (or anywhere)? Which one of you retards is supporting this shit?
• sjmvsfscs08

  See, even though I think Santorum is the worst Presidential candidate to come along in a loooooooong time, I don't even necessarily disagree with that per se. I mean the meaning of "absolute" is really the debatable point.
  
  I don't think the government should financially support religion(s), but that doesn't mean that government has to be atheist. I see nothing wrong with a local school renting out its space to religious prayer groups to use on the weekend. I don't see anything wrong inherently with a nativity scene being set up on public land. I don't see anything wrong with the governor wishing people Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
  
  I don't think government is meant to function as if religion did not exist. That is pretty naive, in my opinion. I don't think the government should be atheist. I think governments should be nondenominational to the tenth power. Catholic? Cool. Methodist? Cool. Muslim? Cool. Buddhist? Cool. Atheist? Cool. I think local governments should be barred from spending money favoring a particular religion, of course, but that's not all there is to it in my opinion.
  
  I dunno, I don't think what he said was that crazy if you look at it from a different angle perhaps.
• sjmvsfscs08

  And what are the polls like in Ohio? I will drive back to Toledo to vote if it's really that close.
• believer

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1097281 wrote:See, even though I think Santorum is the worst Presidential candidate to come along in a loooooooong time, I don't even necessarily disagree with that per se. I mean the meaning of "absolute" is really the debatable point.
  
  I don't think the government should financially support religion(s), but that doesn't mean that government has to be atheist. I see nothing wrong with a local school renting out its space to religious prayer groups to use on the weekend. I don't see anything wrong inherently with a nativity scene being set up on public land. I don't see anything wrong with the governor wishing people Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
  
  I don't think government is meant to function as if religion did not exist. That is pretty naive, in my opinion. I don't think the government should be atheist. I think governments should be nondenominational to the tenth power. Catholic? Cool. Methodist? Cool. Muslim? Cool. Buddhist? Cool. Atheist? Cool. I think local governments should be barred from spending money favoring a particular religion, of course, but that's not all there is to it in my opinion.
  
  I dunno, I don't think what he said was that crazy if you look at it from a different angle perhaps.

  THIS - but the left gets its nasty thong stuck up deep up its ass if anyone dares suggest that maybe - just maybe - that religion and government at not necessarily 100% mutually exclusive.
  
  Christians that I know aren't anywhere near suggesting or supporting the establishment of state religion. We're simply tired of gubmint trampling on freedom of religion in the name of political correctness. Frankly I think that's where Santorum is coming from in his statements. But I'm just a bigoted narrow-minded Bible thumping religious kook....hallelujah. :rolleyes:
• believer

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1097281 wrote:See, even though I think Santorum is the worst Presidential candidate to come along in a loooooooong time, I don't even necessarily disagree with that per se. I mean the meaning of "absolute" is really the debatable point.
  
  I don't think the government should financially support religion(s), but that doesn't mean that government has to be atheist. I see nothing wrong with a local school renting out its space to religious prayer groups to use on the weekend. I don't see anything wrong inherently with a nativity scene being set up on public land. I don't see anything wrong with the governor wishing people Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
  
  I don't think government is meant to function as if religion did not exist. That is pretty naive, in my opinion. I don't think the government should be atheist. I think governments should be nondenominational to the tenth power. Catholic? Cool. Methodist? Cool. Muslim? Cool. Buddhist? Cool. Atheist? Cool. I think local governments should be barred from spending money favoring a particular religion, of course, but that's not all there is to it in my opinion.
  
  I dunno, I don't think what he said was that crazy if you look at it from a different angle perhaps.

  THIS - but the left gets its nasty thong stuck deep up its politically correct ass if anyone dares suggest that maybe - just maybe - that religion and government at not necessarily 100% mutually exclusive.
  
  Christians that I know aren't anywhere near suggesting or supporting the establishment of state religion. We're simply tired of gubmint trampling on freedom of religion in the name of political correctness. Frankly I think that's where Santorum is coming from in his statements. But I'm just a bigoted narrow-minded Bible thumping religious kook....hallelujah. :rolleyes:
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1097024 wrote:Why do you need the federal government to be waging wars abroad that make us less safe and make us economically weak?

  ??? WHat. I never said such a thing.
  
  The primary need I have from the federal government is to protect the citiznes.
  
  I'd rather it be with action abroad than at home.
  
  We need to reduce social programs which are secondary to military finding to maintain our economic strength.
• believer

  

  Con_Alma;1097296 wrote:We need to reduce social programs which are secondary to military finding to maintain our economic strength.

  Not to mention the establishment & maintenance of a standing army to protect our national security is Constitutional. Gubmint provided domestic social safety net programs? Um - not so much.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1097278 wrote:"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," -Santorum
  
  How the hell is this guy leading the polls in Ohio (or anywhere)? Which one of you retards is supporting this ****?

  He's leading the polls by delivering a message that resonates with the people. There's a bit of a snap back to social conservatism in our culture. It's interesting to watch.
  
  What's more interesting is seeing people get irritated and frustrated by the message of a guy who won't even be nominated.
  
  Maybe they should read Presidential Candidate Rocky Anderson's platform to calm their heart rate down a bit.
• believer

  

  Con_Alma;1097299 wrote:What's more interesting is seeing people get irritated and frustrated by the message of a guy who won't even be nominated.

  Exactly. It's almost comical to watch the MSM and the lefties (redundant?) foam at the mouth over this stuff.
• Con_Alma

  believer;1097298 wrote:Not to mention the establishment & maintenance of a standing army to protect our national security is Constitutional. Gubmint provided domestic social safety net programs? Um - not so much.

  
  People will claim that the general health andwlefare is the government's responibility. I say it's seconday to the protection of the people and if it comes down to funding one or the other like that which is being questioned, then the governmen tmust fund the mlitary first.
• believer

  

  Con_Alma;1097301 wrote:People will claim that the general health andwlefare is the government's responibility. I say it's seconday to the protection of the people and if it comes down to funding one or the other like that which is being questioned, then the governmen tmust fund the mlitary first.

  My interpretation of "promote the general welfare" is not one of gubmint handout's but one of insuring that everyone is playing out of the same handbook for economic opportunity.
• sjmvsfscs08

  believer;1097298 wrote:Not to mention the establishment & maintenance of a standing army to protect our national security is Constitutional. Gubmint provided domestic social safety net programs? Um - not so much.

  True, but things like Social Security have been a huge success. One of the things that really gets at me is how people seem to say sometimes, to paraphrase, "well it's not in the Constitution, so the Founding Fathers would have hated that idea." How are we to know that the Founding Fathers (who disagreed vehemently with eachother) would be against a program that would bring tens of millions of elderly out of poverty and thus improve the lives of almost everyone (because the families aren't spending their wherewithal keeping Pops and Grams alive, they are increasing their own standard of living at the same time).
  
  I mean, for me personally, it's really hard to take the word of the Founding Fathers as omniscient gospel when they lived back in the day when "nearly universal poverty" was accepted as fact by every government, philosopher, and religion on the globe. You cannot say with 100% certainty, and maybe you aren't and I'm just ranting to rant and not necessarily against anything you're saying, that the Founding Fathers would be against a social safety net program and specifically something like Social Security.
  
  The big issue with Social Security, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that a natural law of population and economics is that the rate of population increase will decrease and that spells disaster for Social Security if it's not reformed. Orrrr, we let the Mexicans in. GASP!
  

  Con_Alma;1097301 wrote:People will claim that the general health andwlefare is the government's responibility. I say it's seconday to the protection of the people and if it comes down to funding one or the other like that which is being questioned, then the governmen tmust fund the mlitary first.

  Yeah....huh???
  
  Isn't that sort of assuming that our country is in danger? I mean we literally cannot be invaded, we are the only Naval power in the world. No one can cross the oceans without us letting them do so, in a sense. We could stop any attempt to cross the Pacific or Atlantic, any attempt. We are also the only military that can move an actual army over land too, no one else has the logistics to move an invading force very far. We live in a world where the United States, and the United States alone, is the only country in the world than can move any military muscle by sea, land, or air. It's like playing chess against someone else, but you have an entire set of queens and they have an entire set of pawns. That's the current scenario.
  
  Now many you're talking on a purely philosophical level, the protection of the country is more important than that welfare programs. True. 100% true. Butttttt, when we are the only Naval and Air Force power in the world, and account for >50% of the world's military spending....don't you think it's a bit much?
  
  Facts are we can trim down the military sooooooo much and still be just as safe.
• Con_Alma

  sjmvsfscs08;1097313 wrote:...
  
  Yeah....huh???
  
  Isn't that sort of assuming that our country is in danger? I mean we literally cannot be invaded, we are the only Naval power in the world. No one can cross the oceans without us letting them do so, in a sense. We could stop any attempt to cross the Pacific or Atlantic, any attempt. We are the only military that can move an army, no one else has the logistics.
  
  Now many you're talking on a purely philosophical level, the protection of the country is more important than that welfare programs. True. 100% true. Butttttt, when we are the only Naval and Air Force power in the world, and account for >50% of the world's military spending....don't you think it's a bit much?
  
  Facts are we can trim down the military sooooooo much and still be just as safe.

  We don't have to be in danger to have a proactive military.
  
  Yes, I am talking philosophically. It was an answer and expansion to a question posed to me.
  
  I don't think it's a bit much. If I did I would hold the stance that I shared.
  
  The "Huh" question was a response to a statement presented as if I made it. I didn't, so I questioned it and then clarified my stance.
• Con_Alma

  believer;1097302 wrote:My interpretation of "promote the general welfare" is not one of gubmint handout's but one of insuring that everyone is playing out of the same handbook for economic opportunity.

  Nor is mine. I have listened to others, however, justify social programs with such a stance.
• believer

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1097313 wrote:True, but things like Social Security have been a huge success.

  Success is relative.
  
  Is the first massive Federal social program well entrenched in our society and economy? Absolutely and in that regard it can be called a success.
  
  Is Social Security an efficient self-funded well-run economic success? I think we all know the answer to that one.
• jhay78

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1097313 wrote:True, but things like Social Security have been a huge success. One of the things that really gets at me is how people seem to say sometimes, to paraphrase, "well it's not in the Constitution, so the Founding Fathers would have hated that idea." How are we to know that the Founding Fathers (who disagreed vehemently with eachother) would be against a program that would bring tens of millions of elderly out of poverty and thus improve the lives of almost everyone (because the families aren't spending their wherewithal keeping Pops and Grams alive, they are increasing their own standard of living at the same time).
  
  I mean, for me personally, it's really hard to take the word of the Founding Fathers as omniscient gospel when they lived back in the day when "nearly universal poverty" was accepted as fact by every government, philosopher, and religion on the globe. You cannot say with 100% certainty, and maybe you aren't and I'm just ranting to rant and not necessarily against anything you're saying, that the Founding Fathers would be against a social safety net program and specifically something like Social Security.
  
  The big issue with Social Security, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that a natural law of population and economics is that the rate of population increase will decrease and that spells disaster for Social Security if it's not reformed. Orrrr, we let the Mexicans in. GASP!

  SS has been "successful" because the proverbial can has been kicked and kicked and kicked down the road for over 75 years. Unfunded liabilities for SS and Medicare number well over $50 Trillion, and with the Baby Boomers reaching retirement age it ain't getting any lower. As for the founders, they would've recoiled in horror at the Ponzi-esque way the SS system was set up.
  
  This is the difference between wasteful defense spending and wasteful domestic entitlement spending. Both are bad, but the former consumes less than 20% of the federal budget, while domestic entitlements are close to half. This is where Ron Paul's focus on massive military cuts, combined with knee-jerk blaming America every time one drop of blood is shed in the Middle East, turns some people off.
• pmoney25

  

  Your point would be more valid if Paul just wanted to cut defense spending and not cut all. He Has plans to reform ss.
• Con_Alma

  It's an ideoloical view not a math disagreement.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1097296 wrote:??? WHat. I never said such a thing.
  
  The primary need I have from the federal government is to protect the citiznes.
  
  I'd rather it be with action abroad than at home.
  
  We need to reduce social programs which are secondary to military finding to maintain our economic strength.

  If you support our current and recent past military exploits then you support exactly what I said. It makes us less safe. It isn't "fighting our battles abroad" or something making us more safe. The options aren't A: Fight them here or B: Fight them there.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1097314 wrote:We don't have to be in danger to have a proactive military.
  
  Yes, I am talking philosophically. It was an answer and expansion to a question posed to me.
  
  I don't think it's a bit much. If I did I would hold the stance that I shared.
  
  The "Huh" question was a response to a statement presented as if I made it. I didn't, so I questioned it and then clarified my stance.

  You really think that we can sustain our current level of absurd military spending and that we should do so?
  
  Talk about being wrong.
  
  Also..."we don't have to be in danger to have a proactive military". Please expand on that.