Rick Santorum's candidacy ... [Archive]

D H

Jan6-12, 08:44 AM

Apparently Rick thinks that scientists aren't moral and need to be "checked"
He didn't say scientists are not moral. He said they are amoral. That is (my opinion) a valid criticism. It is a valid criticism of many human constructs. Businesses are, or can be, amoral; sometimes business can be downright immoral. So can science. The Tuskegee syphilis study was pretty repugnant.

This inherent amorality of human constructs is why we need to regulate them. Businesses need to be constrained in what they can and cannot do. So does medical research, weapons research, and just about any other scientific research that unconstrained could adversely impact us. The inherent amorality of human constructs applies to just about everything humans do as a group per Reinhold Niebuhr. His thinking has influenced a number of American politicians -- including both of the main contenders in the 2008 presidential election.

Jack21222

Jan6-12, 08:45 AM

Another of the current frontrunners in the GOP race. Anything you want to say about Santorum. Would you vote for him? Do you like anything about him? Etc.

My current opinion is that he seems to be a fanatical fundamental Christian extremist. So, being an atheist myself, I wouldn't vote for him. Hopefully this thread will enable me and others to learn more about this candidate.

I agree with your current opinion.

Santorum also opposes contraception. ALL forms of contraception. I can almost understand being opposed to Plan B, and I can certainly understand opposition to RU486, but being opposed to contraception in general? It boggles the mind.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/348007/rick-santorum-pledges-to-defund-contraception-its-not-okay-its-a-license-to-do-things/

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be”

D H

Jan6-12, 08:59 AM

In the same vein,
(CNN) - Potential 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum said the "abortion culture" in America is to blame for the failing Social Security system.
In short, young American women are getting busy and then getting abortions instead of getting busy birthing the future taxpayers needed to keep Social Security afloat. :uhh:

See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/29/santorum-blames-abortion-culture-for-problems-with-social-security/ for the full article.

Ryan_m_b

Jan6-12, 09:24 AM

He didn't say scientists are not moral. He said they are amoral. That is (my opinion) a valid criticism. It is a valid criticism of many human constructs. Businesses are, or can be, amoral; sometimes business can be downright immoral. So can science. The Tuskegee syphilis study was pretty repugnant.
Science isn't really amoral, biomedical research especially isn't considering it is done to better people's quality of life and to save lives. To say that scientists just go off and do whatever they want is utterly stupid, bioethics is a massive part of modern biology and biomedical research. What he is suggesting is that no scientist is thinking of the consequences and are committing immoral research because of their amorality, hidden subtext being that they aren't agreeing with his religions dogma.
What's he's saying here is not any more extreme than what any animal right's group would say. He did say he talked in particular about the scientists who are doing animal studies and harming animals in the process.
I wasn't referring to the animal rights stuff, all medicines are tested on animals because for the moment we have no other way. What he is trying to do here is shut down research like stem cell research because his religion (and by extension the voters who share his religion) deem it to be sinful and he's presenting it in a way that portrays researchers as amoral mad scientists who don't think of the consequences of their actions.

Jack21222

Jan6-12, 10:02 AM

He didn't say scientists are not moral. He said they are amoral. That is (my opinion) a valid criticism. It is a valid criticism of many human constructs. Businesses are, or can be, amoral; sometimes business can be downright immoral. So can science. The Tuskegee syphilis study was pretty repugnant.

This inherent amorality of human constructs is why we need to regulate them. Businesses need to be constrained in what they can and cannot do. So does medical research, weapons research, and just about any other scientific research that unconstrained could adversely impact us. The inherent amorality of human constructs applies to just about everything humans do as a group per Reinhold Niebuhr. His thinking has influenced a number of American politicians -- including both of the main contenders in the 2008 presidential election.

You just said two different things in your post. You said "He said [scientists] are amoral." You then said that human constructs can be amoral, including science.

There is a difference between scientists and science. Santorum said (as did you at first) that scientists are amoral. As in, the people. The human beings themselves, not the "human construct" of science, as you put it. I find this to be highly offensive. You cannot let a few bad people who happen to also be scientists paint the rest of us.

NeoDevin

Jan6-12, 01:00 PM

Google "santorum" and read the first result.

russ_watters

Jan6-12, 01:13 PM

Science isn't really amoral, biomedical research especially isn't considering it is done to better people's quality of life and to save lives. To say that scientists just go off and do whatever they want is utterly stupid, bioethics is a massive part of modern biology and biomedical research. I guess I would have thought "bioethics" was created to deal with moral issues surrounding research because the research itself is amoral.

So whether reseach results in inventions that betters lives or kills people doesn't mean the work contains moral considerations. Scientific discovery is about finding knowledge, regardless of where it might lead. Placing constraints on it for reasons of morality is unscientific at face value.

russ_watters

Jan6-12, 01:18 PM

There is a difference between scientists and science. Santorum said (as did you at first) that scientists are amoral. As in, the people. The human beings themselves, not the "human construct" of science, as you put it. I find this to be highly offensive.... I think you are making something out of nothing: I think Santorum was talking about the work, not the people and was just being sloppy with the wording.

D H

Jan6-12, 01:19 PM

Amoral ≠ immoral.

russ_watters

Jan6-12, 01:25 PM

Amoral ≠ immoral.
Not necessarily, but an amoral persom might do something a moral person finds immoral because they didn't consider the moral implications. Bioethics was created to keep scientists from crossing that line, for that reason.

You don't spend a lot of time in ethics classes examining cases where people acted ethically.

Ryan_m_b

Jan6-12, 05:31 PM

I guess I would have thought "bioethics" was created to deal with moral issues surrounding research because the research itself is amoral.

So whether reseach results in inventions that betters lives or kills people doesn't mean the work contains moral considerations. Scientific discovery is about finding knowledge, regardless of where it might lead. Placing constraints on it for reasons of morality is unscientific at face value.
Not necessarily, but an amoral persom might do something a moral person finds immoral because they didn't consider the moral implications. Bioethics was created to keep scientists from crossing that line, for that reason.

You don't spend a lot of time in ethics classes examining cases where people acted ethically.
I'm not sure I understand, the research always contains moral considerations. For example is it ethical to perform experiment X if the cost of it is to subject a number of animals to Y. I don't think it's entirely fair to say that bioethics as a field was created to keep scientists in line if only because that implies that scientists are unable to regulate themselves. Rather I think the field is a formalised/institutionalised version of what happens anyway.

Number Nine

Jan6-12, 05:40 PM

I think you are making something out of nothing: I think Santorum was talking about the work, not the people and was just being sloppy with the wording.

I doubt that he was thinking that hard about it. Santorum is attempting to court a demographic that by and large distrusts science for ideological reasons, and he saw an opportunity to say something vaguely consistent with those beliefs ("those people you disagree with are bad". There's nothing more to it.

ThomasT

Jan6-12, 11:48 PM

I doubt that he was thinking that hard about it. Santorum is attempting to court a demographic that by and large distrusts science for ideological reasons, and he saw an opportunity to say something vaguely consistent with those beliefs ("those people you disagree with are bad". There's nothing more to it.I basically agree with your assessment. But I do, currently anyway, think that Santorum has a real personal aversion to science. Which, for me, is reason number two (2) to not vote for him.

turbo

Jan6-12, 11:55 PM

Google "santorum" and read the first result.Santorum has some people working very hard to keep Savage's definitions out of the #1 slot in Google. It probably costs him a bundle.

Jack21222

Jan6-12, 11:57 PM

I think you are making something out of nothing: I think Santorum was talking about the work, not the people and was just being sloppy with the wording.

I can only go by what he said. I'm not a mind-reader like you, russ.

Number Nine

Jan6-12, 11:58 PM

I basically agree with your assessment. But I do, currently anyway, think that Santorum has a real personal aversion to science. Which, for me, is reason number two (2) to not vote for him.

I absolutely agree, I just think his aversion is mostly a dogmatic and emotional one; I don't think there's a thoroughly reasoned position behind it, and I don't think he intended to offer one with his statement.

ThomasT

Jan7-12, 12:01 AM

Google "santorum" and read the first result.I'll just say that that was interesting.

ThomasT

Jan7-12, 12:04 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

russ_watters

Jan7-12, 10:03 AM

I'm not sure I understand, the research always contains moral considerations. For example is it ethical to perform experiment X if the cost of it is to subject a number of animals to Y. I don't think it's entirely fair to say that bioethics as a field was created to keep scientists in line if only because that implies that scientists are unable to regulate themselves. Rather I think the field is a formalised/institutionalised version of what happens anyway. Why would the field need to be formalized? My engineering company does not employ an engineering ethicist.

...although along the same lines, my engineering field has a technical society that writes/sets standards. Why would we need a committee to write standards if engineers are capable of regulating themselves? Because we're all human, not all engineers will agree about what good engineering practice is, even if we assume that all engineers will attempt to follow what they believe is good engineering practice. Furthermore, a praciticing engineer does not have the time to spend writing a position paper on every engineering problem they have to solve, justifying why a certain choice is a good one. It is much easier to just follow the standard that the committe spent years researching and justifying. Similar logic, just not about ethics.

Surely you're not suggesting that LAS researchers don't have the same human failings as everyone else - that all LAS researchers always made all the same decisions regarding research ethics prior to formalization of the field? Or even that there has never been a bad apple in the research field?

MarcoD

Jan7-12, 10:39 AM

Why would the field need to be formalized?

I think he's stating that the current formalization (bioethics) is a morality which follows scientific advances. Which would be a bit lousy since 1% of the world's population are sociopaths who wouldn't care about experimenting on children, except for the fact that it may make them look bad. So I guess at the moment we're just following the sociopaths.

Number Nine

Jan7-12, 11:12 AM

I think he's stating that the current formalization (bioethics) is a morality which follows scientific advances. Which would be a bit lousy since 1% of the world's population are sociopaths who wouldn't care about experimenting on children, except for the fact that it may make them look bad. So I guess at the moment we're just following the sociopaths.

We do experiment on children. I ran a 7 year old through an experiment yesterday.

MarcoD

Jan7-12, 12:07 PM

We do experiment on children. I ran a 7 year old through an experiment yesterday.

Yeah, but we normally don't do it without ethical consideration. (At least, the we who are the 99% non-sociopaths.)

Char. Limit

Jan7-12, 11:50 PM

I'll be honest, here's my views: I can't vote for Santorum. His anti-gay (http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/01/07/Santorum_Says_Gay_Parents_Worse_Than_Convicts/), anti-abortion (http://jezebel.com/5873158/rick-santorums-anti+abortion-stance-would-have-killed-his-own-wife), rabid evangelical views are sure to turn me off even before I get to the fact that he urges the teaching of creationism in public schools (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html). There is no way I'd ever vote for someone like this.

Jack21222

Jan8-12, 08:36 AM

Santorum is acting like a contortionist twisting Obama's words on education.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/07/santorum-obamas-education-stance-is-snobbery/

Here is Obama's comment:
Obama has repeatedly said he wants the United States to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. Earlier this year, while announcing plans to reform "No Child Left Behind," Obama also said he intends for every student to graduate "career and college ready."

Here is Santorum's response:
"The hubris of this president to think that he knows what's best for you [...] This is the kind of snobbery that we see from those that think they know how to run our lives," the former Pennsylvania senator said in a forum at St. Anselm's New Hampshire Institute of Politics.

It goes on with Santorum claiming that Obama said he wants every child to GO to college. All Obama said is that he wants every child to be READY to go to college if they so choose, or a career if they so choose. In any case, Santorum believes that giving our kids a proper high school education is "snobbery."

Jimmy Snyder

Jan11-12, 04:41 PM

This is funny. Santorum's family back in the old country are communists.

Not that there's anything wrong with it. (http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-communist-clan-113600418.html)

ThomasT

Jan11-12, 10:03 PM

This is funny. Santorum's family back in the old country are communists.

Not that there's anything wrong with it. (http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-communist-clan-113600418.html)That is funny ... especially if true.

turbo

Jan11-12, 10:05 PM

Apparently, it is.

ThomasT

Jan12-12, 12:05 AM

Apparently, it is.Whatever. As far as I'm concerned, Santorum is an extremist religious geek who should be selling hamburgers at McDonalds. (Not that they filter for extremist religious geeks in their hiring practices, but I'm supposing that there's less chance of an extremist religious geek spitting on my hamburger than a wannabe gangsta.)

mathwonk

Jan13-12, 12:29 AM

Out and out bigots always have a good chance to win a few contests, but hopefully not the big one.

ThomasT

Jan13-12, 01:13 AM

Out and out bigots always have a good chance to win a few contests, but hopefully not the big one.I don't think that geeky extremist religious fanaticism implies out and out bigotry. Unless it does. In which case, that's what I think. But I'm not sure.

daveb

Jan13-12, 07:18 AM

I don't think that geeky extremist religious fanaticism implies out and out bigotry. Unless it does. In which case, that's what I think. But I'm not sure.

I would agree. Believe anything you want, but I don't consider it bigotry. Acting on it is bigotry (imo).

mathwonk

Jan16-12, 11:07 PM

Gee, I guess I already said this about rick santorum. but i am attracted here again today on MLK's birthday. I marched in montgomery with MLK and saw the confederate flag flying over the statehouse in montgomery alabama in 1965. I was threatened by bigoted scum in birmingham on my way home. I never forgot it.

Just few years ago we had another march here in Georgia when it was publicized that we had a county here which had not allowed black residents for about 100 years. The lady I rented from in Decatur in 1984 confided to me when we moved, and a black couple viewed the house, that she was afraid renting to them would upset the white people across the street. Today I am embarrassed that I did not inform the authorities, or at least the black couple, of that conversation.

to me rick santorum is an out and out total bigot, and it embarrasses and scares me that this kind of creepy person can be seriously considered as a candidate for president of the USA in 2012. There is nothing religious about denying rights to citizens. Jesus was not a bigot, he consorted with everyone, and sinners more than self righteous people.

By the way Herman Cain is about as bad as a candidate. The republican party is currently a ridiculous joke, reaching out for anyone, no matter how ludicrously unqualified, to be an opponent to the current democratic president.

I won't even discuss Newt.

russ_watters

Jan16-12, 11:14 PM

Can you say why you think he's a bigot?

Number Nine

Jan16-12, 11:34 PM

Can you say why you think he's a bigot?

I would imagine that mathwonk is referring to Santorum's open disgust with gay people, and his habit of attributing sensational danger to them as a social group (for instance, it's become fashionable among a number of figures within the religious right, and a number of candidates, to suggest that gays are in some way responsible for the current economic crisis).

Jimmy Snyder

Jan17-12, 08:07 AM

I'm not quoting this to criticize Santorum, but to criticize Yahoo.com which seems to be on a mission. Nearly double? Does this mean he's going to get nearly 200% of the votes? You can read the entire article in a few seconds. It shows an amazing lack of depth.

Santorum immediately enjoyed a small but significant boost in the prediction markets, nearly doubling his chance of winning the South Carolina Republican primary next Saturday from about 2.5 percent to almost 6 percent.

Yahoo.com (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/evangelical-leaders-endorse-santorum-romney-benefit-224555166.html)

ThomasT

Jan17-12, 02:23 PM

I'm not quoting this to criticize Santorum, but to criticize Yahoo.com which seems to be on a mission. Nearly double? Does this mean he's going to get nearly 200% of the votes? You can read the entire article in a few seconds. It shows an amazing lack of depth.

Yahoo.com (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/evangelical-leaders-endorse-santorum-romney-benefit-224555166.html)I agree with your assessment, except that I'd substitute something like 'ridiculous' for 'amazing' (wrt the lack of depth). Basically saying the same thing, but in a more pejorative way.

ThomasT

Jan17-12, 02:26 PM

I would imagine that mathwonk is referring to Santorum's open disgust with gay people, and his habit of attributing sensational danger to them as a social group (for instance, it's become fashionable among a number of figures within the religious right, and a number of candidates, to suggest that gays are in some way responsible for the current economic crisis).In that case then, yes, it would seem that geeky extremist religious fanaticism does imply out and out bigotry.

turbo

Jan24-12, 07:09 PM

Santorum wants to deny abortion rights in all cases. He says that rape-victims should just get over it and make the best of it. What a monster.

Greg Bernhardt

Jan24-12, 08:55 PM

Santorum wants to deny abortion rights in all cases. He says that rape-victims should just get over it and make the best of it. What a monster.

link?

Evo

Jan24-12, 09:12 PM

link?He's also against contraception and pre-marital sex.

Rick Santorum On Opposition To Abortion In Cases Of Rape: 'Make The Best Out Of A Bad Situation'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/rick-santorum-abortion-rape_n_1224624.html

turbo

Jan24-12, 11:15 PM

Thanks, Evo. I thought that would have been all over the net, but should have linked it.

Sorry, Greg. Rules are rules, and especially in the political vein, I should have been more meticulous.

russ_watters

Jan25-12, 12:01 PM

You still haven't substantiated the "just get over it" part.

And everyone is entitled to their opinion, but calling him a "monster" for saying people should make the best of a bad situation seems pretty far out there to me.

turbo

Jan25-12, 12:17 PM

Does this satisfy you?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2091170/Rick-Santorum-Rape-victims-gift-baby-pregnant.html

'And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I've always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created - in the sense of rape - but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you.
'As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life we have horrible things happen. I can't think of anything more horrible, but nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation and I would make the argument that that is making the best.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2091170/Rick-Santorum-Rape-victims-gift-baby-pregnant.html#ixzz1kUmBd1Ls

russ_watters

Jan25-12, 12:33 PM

No, it doesn't. He didn't say it, did he?

turbo

Jan25-12, 12:39 PM

Here your go: from a Christian site.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/santorum-rape-victims-should-make-best-of-a-bad-situation-and-choose-life-67816/

russ_watters

Jan25-12, 01:00 PM

Are you being purposely dense? You're completely ignoring what it is you need to substantiate. Again:

1. You: "He says...make the best of it."
Santorum: "make the best of a bad situation"
Conclusion: Close enough to an exact quote (you didn't use quotes - you paraphrased).

2. You: "He says...just get over it"
Santorum: .....?
Conclusion: You need to substantiate that Santorum said something approaching "just get over it".

Re-linking the first quote over and over again does not substantiate the second one!

Jimmy Snyder

Jan25-12, 04:06 PM

Mighty thin if you ask me.

ThomasT

Jan25-12, 06:25 PM

Santorum is, clearly enough, imho, a geeky extremist religious fanatic bigot. Which, minus the geekiness, is, afaik, and wrt my personal experience, pretty much the norm in some regions of the US.

I grew up in a time and place where extremist religious fanatical bigotry was the status quo. It was what laws were based on.

It makes me a bit sad that the US still produces Rick Santorums by the millions. But I wouldn't call them monsters. Just victims of a certain socialization. That is, I think that people, like Santorum, who hold extremist religious fanatical bigoted views, aren't, just because they hold those views, psychopaths or sociopaths or in any way bad people.

But because Santorum holds the views that he does he can't, imho, be considered a serious contender for the highest administrative office in the country.

lisab

Jan25-12, 09:31 PM

Evo

Jan25-12, 09:46 PM

But forced pregnancies are as appalling as forced abortions - I put both of those actions in the "monstrous" category.AFAIK, no pregnant women are being abducted and given abortions against their will.

ThomasT

Jan25-12, 09:52 PM

AFAIK, no pregnant women are being abducted and given abortions against their will.Afaik, I think you're right. But I think that lisab was just making a point. Wrt which I agree ... except for the "monstrous" characterization. I think that 'misguided' or 'ignorant' or some such characterization would be more correct. Religious zealots, bigots, etc., aren't, imho, monsters. They're just ignorant, somewhat backward. There's no crime wrt that. They are, as are we all, simply products of their socialization. Some of us have been fortunate enough to have had a wider range of influences than others, and therefore have a wider, and maybe deeper, view of things.

Evo

Jan25-12, 09:54 PM

Afaik, I think you're right. But I think that lisab was just making a point. Wrt which I agree.Me too. Just wanted to make sure no one got the impression that abortions were forced.

lisab

Jan25-12, 09:59 PM

AFAIK, no pregnant women are being abducted and given abortions against their will.

True, forced abortions don't happen in the West.

But my point is, by outlawing abortion, society is forcing women to go through with the pregnancy, i.e., a forced pregnancy. And forced pregnancies are the flip side of forced abortions. Both are abhorrent in a civilized society, IMO.

Evo

Jan25-12, 10:15 PM

ThomasT

Jan25-12, 10:21 PM

True, forced abortions don't happen in the West.

But my point is, by outlawing abortion, society is forcing women to go through with the pregnancy, i.e., a forced pregnancy. And forced pregnancies are the flip side of forced abortions. Both are abhorrent in a civilized society, IMO.I don't think that abortions will be outlawed, ie., that pregnancies will be forced. Roe vs Wade was a landmark wrt the progression of civilization. And it doesn't seem likely that Western civilization would outlaw certain pregnancies, thus forcing abortion in certain circumstances. Your points are taken, and it seems to me that any freely thinking person, not constrained by the archaic doctrines of traditional theistic religions, would agree with the position that whether to abort or not is decision best left to the prospective mother, and not a matter for politicians to decide.

turbo

Jan25-12, 11:22 PM

Yes, and outlawing abortion, means women will be forced to seek dangerous, illegal abortions, except for the rich will simply send their daughters abroad to where abortions are legal.The wealthy will be able to afford this option. The poor will not, which would set us back several decades, at least.

ThomasT

Jan26-12, 07:19 PM

The wealthy will be able to afford this option. The poor will not, which would set us back several decades, at least.So, a good reason, imho, to not vote for Santorum (and his ilk) ... for any public office.

Greg Bernhardt

Jan26-12, 07:20 PM

So, a good reason, imho, to not vote for Santorum (and his ilk) ... for any public office. Beside the fact that the dude is just so ... dickish.

Let's stick to constructive arguments rather than name calling. This thread is full of it.

ThomasT

Jan26-12, 07:39 PM

Let's stick to constructive arguments rather than name calling. This thread is full of it.Done (I deleted the offending statement.). However, I do think that categorical characterizations can be economically useful.

jduster

Jan31-12, 05:05 PM

I'm not a Republican, but I personally favor Santorum over the more extreme candidates like Obama, Newt, and RonPaul.

Evo

Jan31-12, 05:13 PM

I'm not a Republican, but I personally favor Santorum over the more extreme candidates like Obama, Newt, and RonPaul.You don't think Santorum has extreme views? You agree with his views on rape victims, against contraception of any kind, including condoms, against pre-marital sex, etc...?

jduster

Jan31-12, 06:03 PM

You don't think Santorum has extreme views? You agree with his views on rape victims, against contraception of any kind, including condoms, against pre-marital sex, etc...?

Well, rape does not change the moral dilemma abortion, pro-life or pro-choice. If the fetus is not a life, it's not a life. But if it is a life, then aborting it solely on the ground that its father was a rapist, is murder. But its inconsistent to say, if the fetus is a life, that its killing an innocent life, but its not killing an innocent life if it was procreated by rape.

While, I'm not against contraception or pre-marital sex, those are just his personal beliefs - not ideas he is actually proposing to make law.

Evo

Jan31-12, 06:29 PM

turbo

Jan31-12, 07:04 PM

You think he wouldn't appoint supreme court judges that would vote his way?People who vote for presidential candidates without considering their capacity for judicial appointments are ignorant, and are endangering the rest of us. Some powers are best left entrusted to people with a bit of intelligence.

Angry Citizen

Jan31-12, 09:00 PM

I'm not a Republican, but I personally favor Santorum over the more extreme candidates like Obama, Newt, and RonPaul.

Obama is about as 'extreme' as the sport of golf. He is sadly centrist, even on the American political spectrum. Just because he's to the left of Hitler doesn't mean he's akin to Stalin...

jduster

Jan31-12, 09:02 PM

Obama is about as 'extreme' as the sport of golf. He is sadly centrist, even on the American political spectrum. Just because he's to the left of Hitler doesn't mean he's akin to Stalin...

I guess it is all relative.

Obama certainly is not communist. And he's to the right of many anarchists/socialists/OWS, but he's too far to the left for ME.

What views set the polar ends are more agreed upon than what views establish the center.

Angry Citizen

Jan31-12, 09:13 PM

I guess it is all relative.

Obama certainly is not communist. And he's to the right of many anarchists/socialists/OWS, but he's too far to the left for ME.

What views set the polar ends are more agreed upon than what views establish the center.

In what way is he too far to the left for you? I mean, if you believe Santorum is a moderate... *shrug* I think there's some misconceptions you have about politics in general. I'd sure like to correct them.

ThomasT

Feb6-12, 01:33 AM

Santorum is apparently in favor of the, considered by some to be, exorbitant prices charged by big pharma. Definitely a basically status quo guy, imo, and a self-avowed religious fanatic as well. Imo, we would see no positive changes under the direction of somebody like Santorum.

SHISHKABOB

Feb6-12, 04:31 AM

hmm, I guess that's how I feel too. He seems like he is too much under the sway of his religion.

Ryan_m_b

Feb6-12, 07:13 AM

Well, rape does not change the moral dilemma abortion, pro-life or pro-choice. If the fetus is not a life, it's not a life. But if it is a life, then aborting it solely on the ground that its father was a rapist, is murder. But its inconsistent to say, if the fetus is a life, that its killing an innocent life, but its not killing an innocent life if it was procreated by rape.
The controversy is not whether or not an embryo or a foetus is alive (it evidently is just like skin cells, gametes etc) the question is whether or not it is a person. Abortion is only wrong if you think that an embryo or foetus is deserving of person hood and where ever you want to argue that point you're going to need evidence to back up the claim. "Personhood begins at conception because that's when an intangible, immaterial, unverifiable, unevidenced soul attaches to it" is not a valid argument but it's the one that many pro-life groups use.

WhoWee

Feb8-12, 08:09 AM

People who vote for presidential candidates without considering their capacity for judicial appointments are ignorant, and are endangering the rest of us. Some powers are best left entrusted to people with a bit of intelligence.

What are you suggesting as an alternative to our process?

turbo

Feb8-12, 08:22 AM

What are you suggesting as an alternative to our process?We don't need an alternative. We need to have informed voters that will understand that their vote could put somebody in the white house who will appoint extremists to the supreme court. Santorum opposes all abortion, even in the case of rape or incest (familial abuse), so what would be his "litmus test" for Federal judges? Voters need to consider what kinds of appointments a President might make before pulling that lever. The power to appoint Federal judges for life-terms is not one to be taken lightly.

WhoWee

Feb8-12, 08:25 AM

We don't need an alternative. We need to have informed voters that will understand that their vote could put somebody in the white house who will appoint extremists to the supreme court. Santorum opposes all abortion, even in the case of rape or incest (familial abuse), so what would be his "litmus test" for Federal judges? Voters need to consider what kinds of appointments a President might make before pulling that lever. The power to appoint Federal judges for life-terms is not one to be taken lightly.

I'm certain there are Conservatives who fear appointments favoring the Left accordingly.

mheslep

Feb8-12, 03:43 PM

In some jurisdictions "personhood" doesn't begin even after birth. A human (?) breathing on its own can be killed and the killer walk, if sufficient sympathy can be generated for the killer.

Infanticide conviction nets Alberta woman suspended sentence (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/09/edmonton-effert-infanticide-suspended-sentence.html)

WhoWee

Feb8-12, 07:58 PM

Santorum is picking up momentum.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/politics/gop-tuesday-contests/index.html

"Santorum jolts GOP presidential race with 3-state sweep"

Jack21222

Feb8-12, 11:15 PM

While, I'm not against contraception or pre-marital sex, those are just his personal beliefs - not ideas he is actually proposing to make law.

Are you certain of that? Here is the actual Rick Santorum quote:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

His first sentence seems to indicate that he'd talk about contraception as president in some sort of official capacity.

And then, here is a note from a Washington Post article:
In his Missouri victory speech Tuesday night, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum devoted a substantial chunk of his remarks to the Obama administration’s decision to mandate birth control coverage with very limited exceptions for Catholic employers.

This would be a case where his personal opposition to birth control would spill into public policy.

Ryan_m_b

Feb9-12, 03:19 AM

While, I'm not against contraception or pre-marital sex, those are just his personal beliefs - not ideas he is actually proposing to make law.
Are you certain of that? Here is the actual Rick Santorum quote:
“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”His first sentence seems to indicate that he'd talk about contraception as president in some sort of official capacity.

And then, here is a note from a Washington Post article:
In his Missouri victory speech Tuesday night, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum devoted a substantial chunk of his remarks to the Obama administration’s decision to mandate birth control coverage with very limited exceptions for Catholic employers.
This would be a case where his personal opposition to birth control would spill into public policy.
Supposing he did get in even if he didn't try or didn't succeed in pushing through laws against the sale of contraceptions or having pre-martial sex there's a lot he could do to damage contraceptive use and abortion in the US such as scrapping sex-ed, defunding planned parenthood etc.

WhoWee

Feb9-12, 07:37 AM

Are you certain of that? Here is the actual Rick Santorum quote:

His first sentence seems to indicate that he'd talk about contraception as president in some sort of official capacity.

And then, here is a note from a Washington Post article:

This would be a case where his personal opposition to birth control would spill into public policy.

Are we going to analyze every word a candidate has ever spoken in this election - and regardless of when and where statements were made?

Ryan_m_b

Feb9-12, 07:39 AM

Are we going to analyze every word a candidate has ever spoken in this election - and regardless of when and where statements were made?
:uhh: No but looking at the words the candidates say regarding specific issues when those issues are brought up for discussion seems logical.

WhoWee

Feb9-12, 07:47 AM

:uhh: No but looking at the words the candidates say regarding specific issues when those issues are brought up for discussion seems logical.

I just wanted to check - because I'm in favor of analyzing every word Senator, candidate, President-elect, and President Obama has ever spoken.

mheslep

Feb9-12, 11:18 AM

... in the US such as scrapping sex-ed,Aside from funding, how is the federal government going to have any control over sex-ed (or music or gym or social studies) in local school systems?

defunding planned parenthood etc.As it should be. There's obviously a big social divide in the country on abortion. The natural resolution was arrived at years ago: abortion will be legal, but those who disagree don't have to pay for it through taxes. Planned Parenthood is a flagrant federally funded abuse of that deal.

Char. Limit

Feb9-12, 11:20 AM

Aside from funding, how is the federal government going to have any control over sex-ed (or music or gym or social studies) in the local school system?

I find this statement funny. "Aside from the main method the federal government controls education, how will the federal government control education?"

As it should be. There's obviously a big social divide in the country on abortion. The natural resolution was arrived at years ago: abortion will be legal, but those who disagree don't have to pay for it through taxes. Planned Parenthood is a flagrant federally funded abuse of that deal.

Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortions, and none of their federal funding goes to abortion. Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

Ryan_m_b

Feb9-12, 11:26 AM

Aside from funding, how is the federal government going to have any control over sex-ed (or music or gym or social studies) in local school systems?
I defer to Char's answer for that.
As it should be. There's obviously a big social divide in the country on abortion. The natural resolution was arrived at years ago: abortion will be legal, but those who disagree don't have to pay for it through taxes. Planned Parenthood is a flagrant federally funded abuse of that deal.
So if someone disagrees with an issue they should be allowed to decide not to have their taxes go towards it? By that logic pacifists could withdraw their tax fund the military, greenpeace members could withdraw their tax for any non-green energy etc. Why one rule for one issue and another rule for everything else? I also defer to Char's for this one.

daveb

Feb9-12, 12:52 PM

Planned Parenthood is a flagrant federally funded abuse of that deal.

That's a statement that demands a source if I ever saw one!

lisab

Feb9-12, 01:07 PM

That's a statement that demands a source if I ever saw one!

Seconded.

mheslep

Feb9-12, 02:45 PM

I find this statement funny. "Aside from the main method the federal government controls education, how will the federal government control education?"Then it should be easy to show where the federal govt. has shut down some other primary education offerings in the past? The feds account for ~10% of education spending in the US, unlike highway spending and the like.

Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortions, and none of their federal funding goes to abortion. Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/No, FC points out the law, it does not say the reality is that no fed funding goes to abortion.

Here are the facts:
1. Federal law states since the 1976 Hyde amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment) that federal money may not used for abortions
2. PP received $363.2 million (by admission) in 2009 from government (federal and state), a third of its total funds.
3. PP performed 329,445 abortion procedures in 2010 (by admission (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf)), or about 40% of all US abortions recorded by the CDC. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/s713a1f1.gif)

Federal law also says, for example, that the Senate shall do a budget each year, but it has not for the last three.

Ryan_m_b

Feb9-12, 02:51 PM

1. Federal law states since the 1976 Hyde amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment) that federal money may not used for abortions
That wiki link doesn't say that all tax spending cannot be used for abortion where people don't want it, it's not even a permanent law. Where specifically is your evidence that funding of planned parenthood comes under this agreement? I'm not saying there isn't any but this isn't enough.

2. PP received $363.2 million (by admission) in 2009 from government (federal and state), a third of its total funds.
3. PP performed *329,445 abortion procedures in 2010 (by admission (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf)), or about 40% of all US abortions recorded by the CDC. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/s713a1f1.gif).
And in response to this...
Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortions, and none of their federal funding goes to abortion. Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/
So what if 1/3 of funding comes from the government? If the 3% of PP budget that goes to abortion doesn't come from this third then what does it matter?

mheslep

Feb9-12, 02:57 PM

... So if someone disagrees with an issue they should be allowed to decide not to have their taxes go towards it? By that logic pacifists could withdraw their tax fund the military, greenpeace members could withdraw their tax for any non-green energy etc. Why one rule for one issue and another rule for everything else? I did not say someone. I asserted such a resolution where there is a "major social divide in the country", in this case with split opinion for decades. Then, in such a situation, I suggested a legislative, lawful, i.e. democratic, resolution on government spending, not civil disobedience on tax payment.

turbo

Feb9-12, 03:20 PM

Sex-education, contraception, and abortion (within limits) has been the law of the land for quite a while. Santorum would like to erase all that and send us back to the 50s. Women deserve better from our chief executive. Many on the right seem to want to send women back to the civil servitude that they had been in 50+ years ago. It may play well with their base in the primaries, but it will kill them in the general election. If Santorum gets the nod, he doesn't stand a chance against Obama.

Even the serial-cheater Gingrich and his trophy-Barbi would have a better shot.

mheslep

Feb9-12, 03:24 PM

That wiki link doesn't say that all tax spending cannot be used for abortion where people don't want it, it's not even a permanent law.Right, it is not permanent but as you must have seen Hyde is routinely written into spending bills every year.
Where specifically is your evidence that funding of planned parenthood comes under this agreement? I'm not saying there isn't any but this isn't enough.PP is a title X (http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/positions/title-x-americas-family-planning-program-855.htm) family planning clinic, funded out of the HHS (http://www.hhs.gov/opa/title-x-family-planning/)budget (H/T FC):
By law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.
And in response to this...

So what if 1/3 of funding comes from the government? If the 3% of PP budget that goes to abortion doesn't come from this third then what does it matter?I find PP's figure of 3% highly dubious (it is not Fact Check's figure). I don't accept that the money is, or can be, fire walled off like that inside the same organization.

Ryan_m_b

Feb9-12, 03:26 PM

I find PP's figure of 3% highly dubious (it is not Fact Check's figure). I don't accept that the money is, or can be, fire walled off like that inside the same organization.
Assuming that are right on this why don't you think it has been challenged?

WhoWee

Feb9-12, 03:30 PM

mheslep

Feb9-12, 03:52 PM

Assuming that are right on this why don't you think it has been challenged?:confused: Challenged by whom? FC suggested 10%. PP has been under investigation by the a Congressional Oversight and Investigations subcommittee (http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/letterplanedparenthoodinvestivation.pdf) since Sept 15, "relating to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion". Kansas PP garnered multiple felony indictments (http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/09/3256411/kansas-judge-dismisses-felony.html) for falsifying pregnancy reports until the charges were dismissed because the paperwork disappeared in the Kansas AG's office.

turbo

Feb9-12, 03:54 PM

I'll assume this post is your opinion?You can safely assume that, WhoWee, but if you will search Santorum's statements, you will find how radical he is.

WhoWee

Feb9-12, 04:11 PM

You can safely assume that, WhoWee, but if you will search Santorum's statements, you will find how radical he is.

Why don't we all read through his voting record in Congress - to be fair?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/S000059/votes/

turbo

Feb9-12, 04:12 PM

Why don't you summarize this fairly -to be fair?

Char. Limit

Feb9-12, 04:13 PM

I find PP's figure of 3% highly dubious (it is not Fact Check's figure). I don't accept that the money is, or can be, fire walled off like that inside the same organization.

If you find it so dubious, surely you can find an equally reliable source stating otherwise.

WhoWee

Feb9-12, 04:16 PM

Why don't you summarize this fairly -to be fair?

You'd like me to summarize his voting record?

turbo

Feb9-12, 04:24 PM

You'd like me to summarize his voting record?Yes, and his opinions, too. Please don't omit right-wing stuff.

Jasongreat

Feb9-12, 05:14 PM

Evo

Feb9-12, 05:24 PM

:confused: Challenged by whom? FC suggested 10%. PP has been under investigation by the a Congressional Oversight and Investigations subcommittee (http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/letterplanedparenthoodinvestivation.pdf) since Sept 15, "relating to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion". The investigation is nothing more than a bogus witch hunt, IMO which was brought about by an anti-abortion religious activist group with such insane accusations as PP is involved in sex trafficking!

Planned Parenthood Investigation Is An Abuse Of Government Resources

WASHINGTON -- Ranking Democrats on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sharply criticized Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) on Tuesday over his call for a far-reaching investigation into Planned Parenthood and its handling of federal funding.

After Republican lawmakers tried and failed to defund Planned Parenthood during federal budget negotiations in February, the anti-abortion activist group Americans United for Life released a 30-page report that accused the family planning provider of misusing federal funds, failing to report child sex abuse, assisting sex traffickers and a host of other illegal activities, though similar accusations were made against Planned Parenthood and debunked earlier this year. The purpose of AUL's report was to convince Congress to investigate Planned Parenthood and revoke its taxpayer funds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/planned-parenthood-investigation-government-resources_n_984002.html

WhoWee

Feb9-12, 05:47 PM

Yes, and his opinions, too. Please don't omit right-wing stuff.

This is a log of his key votes - according to the Washington Post.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/S000059/key-votes/page1/

He typically voted with Republicans.

Char. Limit

Feb9-12, 11:34 PM

It seems that the same groups that are arguing that money in planned parenthood can be specifically allocated, were adament that the chamber of commerce could not keep its foreign funds separated from domestic funds, during the last election. That statement also works if you switch the chamber and PP.

I think it is semantics, if the chamber uses foreign funds to pay domestic bills, it frees up domestic money that would not have otherwise been available. So even though the foreign money did not specifically go to the campaign adds, more funds were available because of foreign money. The same can be said for planned parenthood, all money going to planned parenthood pay for abortions, might not be direct funding, but it makes the amount spent on abortions available for use.

So, let me get this straight, cause I want to make sure I have you correctly. Even though PP uses only 3% of its money on abortions, ALL money going to planned parenthood is paying for abortions? And for the record, I've never made the argument that the CoC couldn't keep foreign and domestic funds separate. I think as long as you're careful, of course you can. And I don't see the difference here.

ThomasT

Feb10-12, 12:06 AM

I wonder if Santorum has heard about the new Abortionplex. I can't link to it because it's in The Onion and they sometimes use bad words.

Jasongreat

Feb10-12, 01:25 AM

So, let me get this straight, cause I want to make sure I have you correctly. Even though PP uses only 3% of its money on abortions, ALL money going to planned parenthood is paying for abortions? And for the record, I've never made the argument that the CoC couldn't keep foreign and domestic funds separate. I think as long as you're careful, of course you can. And I don't see the difference here.

Not that ALL money going to PP is paying for abortions, but that ALL the money going to PP makes paying for abortions easier.

Char. Limit

Feb10-12, 02:14 AM

Not that ALL money going to PP is paying for abortions, but that ALL the money going to PP makes paying for abortions easier.

But you can't make that argument unless you make the claim that it's impossible to segregate money within an organization, a claim that I disagree with.

Jasongreat

Feb10-12, 03:07 AM

But you can't make that argument unless you make the claim that it's impossible to segregate money within an organization, a claim that I disagree with.

I think I can make that argument. :) You may disagree, which you have a right to do so, and I hope you do. Without dissent how can we come to truth?

I agree that corporations can segregate monies. However, there is no need to, so why would they? I can put 30% federal money into my charity, I can use it to pay overhead, advertising and any number of things. Then I can take the money that I dont have to use for those purposes, and invest in abortions. I can still claim with immunity as far as abortion funding goes that not one cent of the 30% federal funding goes to abortions. It is even easier to prove that only 3% of that funding goes to abortion.

AlephZero

Feb10-12, 07:53 AM

But you can't make that argument unless you make the claim that it's impossible to segregate money within an organization.

It might be possible to do that in theory, but the main point of "money" is that it is fungible. When you give somebody or some organization a dollar bill, you can't attach a label to it saying "it's illegal to spend this particaular dollar bill on anything except XYZ".

WhoWee

Feb10-12, 07:56 AM

daveb

Feb10-12, 08:03 AM

From the posts in this thread I have to wonder if a race between Santorum vs Obama wouldn't become the pro-religion candidate Santorum vs the anti-religion candidate Obama - given the current controversy with the Catholic madate - seems to be shaping up that way - doesn't it?

I find it ironic that Obama is now being labeled anti-religion by some on the right when he was labeled a radical Christian back in the Reverend Wright days, then a Muslim. I wonder what's next.

WhoWee

Feb10-12, 08:11 AM

I find it ironic that Obama is now being labeled anti-religion by some on the right when he was labeled a radical Christian back in the Reverend Wright days, then a Muslim. I wonder what's next.

There's an old saying - 'you are what you eat' - if he joins another church like Rev Wright's, or makes more speeches about the US not being a Christian country/one of the largest Muslim countries, or it becomes known he attended another school similar to the Muslim one, or if his participation at a prayer breakfast is dismissed as insincere, or he squares off with the Catholics or another group again - then the new thing might become an issue - IMO of course.

lisab

Feb10-12, 09:45 AM

I find it ironic that Obama is now being labeled anti-religion by some on the right when he was labeled a radical Christian back in the Reverend Wright days, then a Muslim. I wonder what's next.

:rofl: Well to some on the fringe who see a boogie man behind every blade of grass, Obama seems to be the embodiment of their apparitions, and whatever it is they're afraid of changes all the time: Obama is a Muslim/socialist/foreign/fear-of-the-week-goes-here! Really interesting...it says a whole lot about the collective psyche of those who are on the fringe. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

IMveryHO, of course :biggrin:.

WhoWee

Feb10-12, 10:01 AM

:rofl: Well to some on the fringe who see a boogie man behind every blade of grass, Obama seems to be the embodiment of their apparitions, and whatever it is they're afraid of changes all the time: Obama is a Muslim/socialist/foreign/fear-of-the-week-goes-here! Really interesting...it says a whole lot about the collective psyche of those who are on the fringe. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

IMveryHO, of course :biggrin:.

How fitting in a Santorum thread - IMO of course. Does anyone want to talk about Santorum's experience in Congress or his depth of knowledge regarding foreign affairs or peraps his debate skills - or are we only concerned with his stand on social issues?

Char. Limit

Feb10-12, 10:25 AM

How fitting in a Santorum thread - IMO of course. Does anyone want to talk about Santorum's experience in Congress or his depth of knowledge regarding foreign affairs or peraps his debate skills - or are we only concerned with his stand on social issues?

I for one would never vote for the man, solely BECAUSE of his stance on social issues. The man's anti-science, after all.

WhoWee

Feb10-12, 10:34 AM

I for one would never vote for the man, solely BECAUSE of his stance on social issues. The man's anti-science, after all.

Are you referring to post 8?

Char. Limit

Feb10-12, 10:35 AM

Are you referring to post 8?

Just looked, and no. I'm referring to his stances on global warming and creationism, both of which I consider to be anti-science stances (although the latter considerably more so).

WhoWee

Feb10-12, 10:45 AM

Just looked, and no. I'm referring to his stances on global warming and creationism, both of which I consider to be anti-science stances (although the latter considerably more so).

What is his stance on global warming? I seem to recall he's against Cap and Trade?

Char. Limit

Feb10-12, 10:50 AM

What is his stance on global warming? I seem to recall he's against Cap and Trade?

Yes, and a little bit more - he seems to believe that global warming itself is a hoax, apparently (and this is opinion) believing that scientists have nothing better to do than to craft stories about climate to make the population spend money.

Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/santorum-i-never-believed-global-warming-hoax-113739.html

"Speaker Gingrich has supported cap and trade for more than a dozen years. Now, he wants business incentives to go along with cap and trade, but he supported cap and trade, and sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi and said that global warming had to be addressed by Congress," Santorum said. "Who is he or who's Governor Romney to be able to go after President Obama? I've never supported even the hoax of global warming."

WhoWee

Feb10-12, 11:30 AM

Yes, and a little bit more - he seems to believe that global warming itself is a hoax, apparently (and this is opinion) believing that scientists have nothing better to do than to craft stories about climate to make the population spend money.

Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/santorum-i-never-believed-global-warming-hoax-113739.html

Are we permitted to discuss this topic?

Char. Limit

Feb10-12, 11:31 AM

Are we permitted to discuss this topic?

I'm not sure. It might be better to let it slide... I don't want to get banned after all! :biggrin:

I will still categorically refuse to support any candidate who endorses creationism, though, no matter how much he agrees with my view otherwise. Such a stance is indefensible.

Greg Bernhardt

Feb10-12, 01:44 PM

turbo

Feb10-12, 01:51 PM

Santorum scared of women's emotions in combat. I personally know a few outdoorish hunter women who are just as "tough" as any man.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/02/10/sot-santorum-women-in-combat.cnnMe, too Greg. One of my wife's closest friends calls herself one-shot Shaw, because she prides herself on shooting deer with a kill-shot and not blazing away at them. I'm the same way, and only hunt with a Ruger Model 1 (single-shot) unless it is wet outside. Then I'll take one of my antique Winchester .30-30s out of the safe and hunt with that. I'd gladly have "one-shot Shaw" watching my back.

Ryan_m_b

Feb10-12, 01:52 PM

Yes, and a little bit more - he seems to believe that global warming itself is a hoax
Are we permitted to discuss this topic?
I'm not sure. It might be better to let it slide... I don't want to get banned after all! :biggrin:
Rules are rules and apply to all the forum.

SHISHKABOB

Feb10-12, 02:02 PM

Char. Limit

Feb10-12, 02:47 PM

is santorum worried about women in the army for the same reason why some people were worried about gay people in the army? Fear that they'd be "distractions"? If so I think that's fairly insulting to the armed forces.

From what I get, he's worried because women are apparently too emotional to serve on the front line. Which is of course a crock, but that's what he believes.

Oltz

Feb10-12, 02:51 PM

is santorum worried about women in the army for the same reason why some people were worried about gay people in the army? Fear that they'd be "distractions"? If so I think that's fairly insulting to the armed forces.

You are taking Distraction the wrong way. Having been in the army and having fought in Iraq please let me explain.

Women in combat are a distraction because the men are morried about protecting the women then they are about themselves or the mission. Right or not it leads to more mistakes and more bad choices. I have seen it. Women are fine in the military and are fine in non combat MOS's ie medic, supply, intel whatever.

Sorry for OT

turbo

Feb10-12, 02:56 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/rick-santorum-women-military-combat-roles_n_1267851.html

Santorum has walked that back and said that it's the men who could emotional if they see a woman in harm's way. He should be managing a Waffle House.

Ryan_m_b

Feb10-12, 03:48 PM

Santorum claims that without faith the US is heading towards a French Revolution :confused:
ZWqls5KE5d8
Women in combat are a distraction because the men are morried about protecting the women then they are about themselves or the mission. Right or not it leads to more mistakes and more bad choices. I have seen it. Women are fine in the military and are fine in non combat MOS's ie medic, supply, intel whatever.
Sorry but I don't buy that this is a necessary thing that can't be removed without proper training. Whilst I've never been in the army I did Judo at university with a mixed class and let me tell you if we were ever out and in trouble I wouldn't worry about protecting the women especially. In fact I would probably rely on many of those women to help stop the fight and take care of those less able to defend themselves.

Jasongreat

Feb10-12, 07:57 PM

Here (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/rick-santorums-full-speech-cpac-2012-15556100) is Santorums CPAC speech, there was quite abit of fawning over it going on, on a certain channel today, but I havent had a chance to watch it yet.

MarcoD

Feb11-12, 05:12 AM

I always forget the US is such a religious place.

WhoWee

Feb11-12, 08:48 AM

I always forget the US is such a religious place.

In the industrial northern cities - it seems there's a church on every corner - the south is known as the biblebelt - like it or not religion is part of our culture.

SHISHKABOB

Feb11-12, 03:39 PM

In the industrial northern cities - it seems there's a church on every corner - the south is known as the biblebelt - like it or not religion is part of our culture.

maybe yours, not mine : /

WhoWee

Feb11-12, 03:59 PM

maybe yours, not mine : /

What northern industrial city are you suggesting doesn't have a lot of churches?

phoenix:\\

Feb11-12, 04:29 PM

Religion is more a sub-culture in America, it isn't really apart of it in the sense that Americans base their principles around religion. The principles we do have are more along the lines of common human good rather than some religious fervor of old. Even the religious are finding it harder and harder to completely accept the Bible as something to live their lives by as it contradicts with the American principles of how we ought to treat other humans or how one would want to live his/her life.

A few Bible verses from the New Testament:

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

Sexual immorality by the Bible's standard:

You have heard how it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say this to you, if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Yup, and...

Shun lewd conduct. Every other sin a man commits is outside his body, but the fornicator sins against his own body.

It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable

With that all said... Read this:

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/digital-issue/53?page=66

Where is the disowning of these heretics?

and in Rick Santorum's words, "I Wish I Made As Much Money As Mitt Romney"

there is something about envy as well and not following worldly possessions, isn't there? No surprise I don't envy Mitt Romney, I believe making too much money and hoarding it to be completely wrong, but that is just me and I'm not christian or religious for that matter. So, him saying "taking faith and crushing it" is what?

SHISHKABOB

Feb11-12, 04:32 PM

What northern industrial city are you suggesting doesn't have a lot of churches?

just because there are five churches in my town doesn't mean church is a part of *my* culture

WhoWee

Feb11-12, 04:53 PM

WhoWee

Feb11-12, 04:56 PM

just because there are five churches in my town doesn't mean church is a part of *my* culture

I could be wrong, label it IMO - but my guess is the majority of Americans get married/buried in church/temple/mosque ceremonies - that is a cultural aspect of the majority.

SHISHKABOB

Feb11-12, 05:03 PM

I could be wrong, label it IMO - but my guess is the majority of Americans get married/buried in church/temple/mosque ceremonies - that is a cultural aspect of the majority.

yeah I totally agree that it's a big part of most people's lives in america, and I don't doubt that I'm gonna get married in a church and get buried at one too. But I stopped going to church and thinking about life in a religious way several years ago when my church sort of fell apart. Though now that I think about it, the only reason why I went to church was because I was friends with all the kids in the youth group there, not so much because I felt that religion was a deep part of my life.

Which makes it a bit of a problem for me here in the USA because so many people base their lives on their faith and vote according to their religion, etc. but I don't do that at all. It's important for a lot of people, but not ALL people.

WhoWee

Feb11-12, 05:11 PM

yeah I totally agree that it's a big part of most people's lives in america, and I don't doubt that I'm gonna get married in a church and get buried at one too. But I stopped going to church and thinking about life in a religious way several years ago when my church sort of fell apart. Though now that I think about it, the only reason why I went to church was because I was friends with all the kids in the youth group there, not so much because I felt that religion was a deep part of my life.

Which makes it a bit of a problem for me here in the USA because so many people base their lives on their faith and vote according to their religion, etc. but I don't do that at all. It's important for a lot of people, but not ALL people.

If you think about it, the youth groups are cultural as well. I really don't think a majority of people vote based on religious beliefs. However, if a candidate chooses to take an anti-religion position in a serious way - I think people will defend their religious rights and vote accordingly.

ThomasT

Feb12-12, 07:13 PM

I really don't think a majority of people vote based on religious beliefs.This raises an interesting question. What part does a candidate's theistic religious (or not) orientation/affiliation play in most peoples' minds? How much does it affect their vote?

However, if a candidate chooses to take an anti-religion position in a serious way - I think people will defend their religious rights and vote accordingly.This seems to assume that most people are pro-religion in some important sense. An assumption which the extant public evidence seems to support.

Apparently, American society is oriented toward the idea that some theistic religion is better than no theistic religion at all, and that a certain religion, namely Christianity, is preferable to, say, Judaism or Islam (the main competitors to Christianity, afaik).

Apparently, a majority of Americans vote based on whether or not a candidate is an avowed Christian or not.

I therefore agree with your opinion that if a candidate were to profess, say, atheism, then that candidate would have virtually no chance of being elected. That is, American freedom of religion doesn't, in practice, include the freedom to choose to not believe in some theistic religious mythology. And, fapp, imo, it doesn't include the freedom to choose to not believe in the Christian religious mythology.

In other words, wrt running for public office, as long as one is a Christian of some sort, then America is a haven of religious freedom.

I think that "if a candidate [chose] to take an anti-religion position in a serious way", then the opposition to that stance, reflected in the vote, wouldn't be due to people defending the right to believe as one sees fit, but rather would be due to people defending a particular religious bias.

To connect this to the OP. Santorum is, I think, as a sort of fanatical Christian, not really in favor of freedom of belief. But then who is?

lisab

Feb12-12, 08:16 PM

If you think about it, the youth groups are cultural as well. I really don't think a majority of people vote based on religious beliefs. However, if a candidate chooses to take an anti-religion position in a serious way - I think people will defend their religious rights and vote accordingly.

Bolded: I'll believe that when an openly atheist candidate is elected president.

Btw, atheist <> anti-religion. But that's probably way off-topic.

ThomasT

Feb12-12, 08:36 PM

Bolded: I'll believe that when an openly atheist candidate is elected president.Yes, you made the point I was trying to make in much fewer, and probably more effective, words.

Btw, atheist <> anti-religion. But that's probably way off-topic.What does "<>" mean?

lisab

Feb12-12, 08:38 PM

Yes, you made the point I was trying to make in much fewer, and probably more effective, words.

What does "<>" mean?

Oh sorry...it was used in programming years ago. Guess that shows my age :redface:. It means, does not equal.

ThomasT

Feb12-12, 08:47 PM

Oh sorry...it was used in programming years ago. Guess that shows my age :redface:. It means, does not equal.That's what I thought you meant, but I wasn't sure. In which case, I would say that atheism connotes anti-theistic religion. But yes, this is a bit off topic.

Then again, Santorum is a self-avowed theistic religious fanatic. So maybe at least some discussion of this is appropriate for this thread. I don't know, and defer to the moderators.

WhoWee

Feb12-12, 11:57 PM

Bolded: I'll believe that when an openly atheist candidate is elected president.

Label this post IMO. It's very possible we've already had an atheist President - just kept it a secret. If religion isn't made an issue, I'm not certain anyone would care.

However, to your point about an openly atheist candidate, if they chose to attack Christianity specifically - I don't think they'd have a chance of being elected. If the said they just don't belong to a church or subscribe to a religion - and didn't try to sell their philosophy - I think they would be electable based on issues.

As for the person who goes to church for weddings, funerals and the occassional special event - it's not likely they'll vote for someone because the church made an endorsement. However, if that religion is attacked by a candidate I would anticipate they would defend their religion in the same fashion a nationality, or a fraternity, or a school/neighborhood bond might be defended.

SixNein

Feb13-12, 12:47 AM

You are taking Distraction the wrong way. Having been in the army and having fought in Iraq please let me explain.

Women in combat are a distraction because the men are morried about protecting the women then they are about themselves or the mission. Right or not it leads to more mistakes and more bad choices. I have seen it. Women are fine in the military and are fine in non combat MOS's ie medic, supply, intel whatever.

Sorry for OT

If I recall from Spartan history, they use to assign soldier lovers to students of military. The idea was that they would better protect each other. And quite frankly, Spartans bull dozed armies for a very long time in the ancient world. So I don't buy this stuff.

SixNein

Feb13-12, 01:06 AM

Which makes it a bit of a problem for me here in the USA because so many people base their lives on their faith and vote according to their religion, etc. but I don't do that at all. It's important for a lot of people, but not ALL people.

In my opinion, people not only vote according to their religion, but they think of government in a religious fashion. Facts, analysis, and reasoning just simply don't matter that much. Just look at some of the attacks on science. And many of these political ideologies have become a religion to most people. In the south where I live, there even seems to be some kind of anti-educaiton culture. I've had so many people warn me about taking science because those evil professors will turn me against God. I've never had a professor encourage atheism.

At any rate, I think America is so religious because our distribution model is severely flawed. Our production keeps increasing, but you don't see improvement in much of the population; instead, it seems to be concentrated towards the top. So when a comparison is made between America and other industrialized nations, America is an outlier on religion, and it appears to be more inline with developing nations. In my opinion, this is a result of high inequality in America.

MarcoD

Feb21-12, 12:04 AM

Oooh! I always thought the Dutch are completely irrelevant (internationally)? Now this (http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/20/santorum-who-will-protect-you-from-crazed-euthanizing-dutch-doctors/)? :eek:

Hobin

Feb21-12, 10:35 AM

I'm Dutch, and I laughed out loud when I read about that in the newspaper.

...Then I realized that guy might become president. :cry:

Also, the Dutch aren't *that* irrelevant. I think. Right? A little relevant? Maybe? *hides behind his cheese, herring and tulips*

turbo

Feb21-12, 10:39 AM

I haz no herring or tulips! What do I do!?

Hobin

Feb21-12, 11:03 AM

I haz no herring or tulips! What do I do!?

Quick! Hide behind that windmill over there!

MarcoD

Feb21-12, 05:00 PM

Also, the Dutch aren't *that* irrelevant. I think. Right? A little relevant? Maybe? *hides behind his cheese, herring and tulips*

I always substitute 'Finland,' a country I almost know nothing about, when 'grand' claims are made. Most people from the rest of the world are clueless, don't know where the Netherlands is situated, don't know much about the people, don't know we're a monarchy, don't have any clue why they should notice, might think we're a brand of German, etc.

I'ld say we're largely unknown, and almost utterly irrelevant except in our small corner of the world.

Alfi

Feb21-12, 07:25 PM

I always substitute 'Finland,' a country I almost know nothing about, when 'grand' claims are made. Most people from the rest of the world are clueless, don't know where the Netherlands is situated, don't know much about the people, don't know we're a monarchy, don't have any clue why they should notice, might think we're a brand of German, etc.

I'ld say we're largely unknown, and almost utterly irrelevant except in our small corner of the world.

lol - thanks
nice post .

nothing to do with Rick Santorum ... but thanks.

MarcoD

Feb21-12, 07:53 PM

Ah well. It's not that I don't like my little country, I absolutely adore it. But "A beacon of light?" Or something close to that? I mean, get real.

Gokul43201

Feb21-12, 10:36 PM

Women in combat are a distraction because the men are morried about protecting the women then they are about themselves or the mission. Right or not it leads to more mistakes and more bad choices. I have seen it. Women are fine in the military and are fine in non combat MOS's ie medic, supply, intel whatever.So women should be disallowed from serving in the front lines because men lack the discipline to stick to the mission?

ThomasT

Feb21-12, 11:06 PM

So women should be disallowed from serving in the front lines because men lack the discipline to stick to the mission?Good point. I've known a number of women who I think are stronger than me emotionally and intellectually, and can physically do what might be required of them in combat. But some people want to exclude willing female candidates for combat because of obsolete historical views about women.

Santorum's views are, at least in part, imo, impaired by his adherence to obsolete historical and mythological perspectives. Given his current orientation he isn't, in my view, fit to be the chief executive of the most powerful country in the world. Compared to Santorum, Obama and the current GOP contenders seem much more sophisticated, much wiser, imho.

Char. Limit

Feb21-12, 11:12 PM

Good point. I've known a number of women who I think are stronger than me emotionally and intellectually, and can physically do what might be required of them in combat. But some people want to exclude willing female candidates for combat because of obsolete historical views about women.

Santorum's views are, at least in part, imo, impaired by his adherence to obsolete historical and mythological perspectives. Given his current orientation he isn't, in my view, fit to be the chief executive of the most powerful country in the world. Compared to Santorum, Obama and the current GOP contenders seem much more sophisticated, much wiser, imho.

I dunno how you see it, but the way I see it, Santorum IS one of the current GOP contenders. Unless you mean the others, but Gingrich and Paul aren't exactly better.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 12:37 AM

Char. Limit

Feb22-12, 12:59 AM

ThomasT

Feb22-12, 01:03 AM

I dunno how you see it, but the way I see it, Santorum IS one of the current GOP contenders. Unless you mean the others, but Gingrich and Paul aren't exactly better.Yes, I meant the others. Imho, Gingrich and Paul are better than Santorum wrt certain criteria. Among them are Santorum's apparent male chauvinism (ok, maybe this doesn't separate him from Gingrich), and Santorum's adherence to ancient mythological (ie., fundamental Christian) views (ok, maybe this doesn't separate him from Paul either).

I guess I should just sum it up as Santorum coming across as, to me, a simple-minded religious fanatic.

But of course I could be quite wrong wrt my impression of Santorum. I hope so, considering that he might very well emerge as the GOP nominee.

ThomasT

Feb22-12, 01:06 AM

Are you certain that he just doesn't want to see American women tortured/raped by animals?Or women in general? No, I'm not certain of that. But I don't think that's the case. Santorum is, as far as I can tell, a rather simple minded religious fanatic. Not fit for public office.

Hobin

Feb22-12, 02:00 AM

But of course I could be quite wrong wrt my impression of Santorum. I hope so, considering that he might very well emerge as the GOP nominee.

As far as I can see (using my clouded West-European vision :wink:), Romney, Gingrich and Paul are campaigning along the lines of "Yes, religion is very important, and it should definitely have an impact on our laws. Especially christianity. MY brand of christianity."

Santorum, on the other hand, seems to me to be more the kind of person who's all "ZOMG People are pagans, sinners and unholy beings in general! You will all BURN for your sins! We, the christians of faith, are a minority and have the right to actively fight everything unholy in this world. DIE DIE DIE!"

...But maybe that's just me.

ThomasT

Feb22-12, 02:45 AM

As far as I can see (using my clouded West-European vision :wink:), Romney, Gingrich and Paul are campaigning along the lines of "Yes, religion is very important, and it should definitely have an impact on our laws. Especially christianity. MY brand of christianity."

Santorum, on the other hand, seems to me to be more the kind of person who's all "ZOMG People are pagans, sinners and unholy beings in general! You will all BURN for your sins! We, the christians of faith, are a minority and have the right to actively fight everything unholy in this world. DIE DIE DIE!"

...But maybe that's just me.I don't think it's just you. It's always good to get the perspective of somebody who doesn't live in the US. Where are you?

Hobin

Feb22-12, 04:06 AM

I don't think it's just you. It's always good to get the perspective of somebody who doesn't live in the US. Where are you?

The Netherlands. I think you could see it in my profile.

Admittedly, I might hold a rather skewed view of politics in the USA, given that I'm not actively involved, so most of the things I've seen are the 'top-rated' stories (and thus the stories that make people think your presidential candidates are idiots). When I try to get a broader view of a candidate's political positions, I check Wikipedia - which I think might not be the most reliable source, given the (almost by definition) controversial nature of politics.

In other words, don't take my opinion too seriously. :wink:

CAC1001

Feb22-12, 05:48 AM

The Israelis tried putting women in combat back in the 1960s and it didn't work. Men are biologically programmed to be protective of women. If you don't think that, then tell me what you'd think of the following situation:

A man and a woman are at home sleeping in bed. A thug starts trying to break in. So the man grabs the children and hides in the closet, leaving his woman to go handle the thug. Now imagine the man trying to explain that to a television news person interviewing them on what happened. People would wonder what on Earth was wrong with that man. It doesn't matter how brave the woman is, that's just the reality of it. And I don't care what anybody says, an injured women crying out in pain has a mental affect on a man different than the same happening to a fellow man.

The other problems with women in combat are simply physical. Women do not have the physical strength for being a combat soldier. There is a large, significant, strength and size differential between men and women.

We have separate men's and women's sports teams. Try making women play on men's hockey teams and soccer teams and so forth. You'd wipe all women out of the sports.

We have separate physical fitness standards for male and female police.
We have separate physical fitness standards for male and female firefighters.
We have separate physical fitness standards for men and women in the military. Why? Because if you made women adhere to the same standards as the men, you'd disqualify a massive number of women from military service.

I am 5'10, 144 lbs, which is pretty thin by man standards and not tall. Maybe slightly above-average in terms of height. Now despite that, I am still stronger than 95% of the women out there. The only women who would be stronger than me are serious athletes who do a lot of strength training. 5'10, 144 lbs is nothing special for a man, but a 5'10, 144 lb woman is pretty big for a woman. That's a real long, tall Sally, if you will. Most women are shorter than 5'10 and if fit, around 100 - 130 lbs.

This creates some major problems when you're talking a job like infantry, where the standard combat load for an 82nd Airborne Division infantryman in Iraq was 130 lbs. Carrying all that weight does hell on a man's body, let alone a woman's:

http://www.vva1036.org/_/rsrc/1309111959257/pictures/soldier%20kneeling.jpg?height=304&width=400

And that's just standard infantry. To be in something like Special Operations (SEALs, Rangers, Special Forces, etc...), the requirements for marching distance and so forth are much higher.

Now one could say that they should only let women in who could meet the standard, but that wouldn't happen. You'd have so many women fail, that sexism would be cried, and they'd have to push a certain number through. They do this already at Airborne School, which is one of the easiest schools in the military. There's a one pullup requirement. If you can't accomplish one pullup, you're supposed to be disqualified. Do they disqualify all the girls who can't do one pullup though? NOPE, because they'd fail most of them then. It only really applies if you're a guy. To join the Marine Corps, men have to be able to do pullups. The Marine Corps PFT (Physical Fitness Test) is pullups, situps, and a three-mile run. But what is the upper-body test for a woman? A flexed-arm hang. Why? Because requiring girls to do pullups in order to join the Marine Corps would disqualify a whole lot of them. In the Army, the PFT is pushups, situps, and a two-mile run. For the 18-24 year-old men, the minimum number of pushups to pass is 40 in two minutes. What is it for the women? Managing 40 pushups in two minutes is maxing the pushups portion of the PT test for a female.

And even then, the PFTs are misleading. A woman might be capable of acing the men's PFTs for both the Army and Marine Corps, but that just means she can do lots of calisthenics and running. Load her up with a heavy amount of gear, turning her into a pack mule, and then see how far she can march. The PFTs don't really reflect the fitness needed for a combat soldier, they're just physical fitness tests created to have a base standard of PT in the military branches.

Then there's the hygiene issue. Having a vagina creates some serious hygiene problems for women if they are unable to keep that area clean constantly, an issue that men do not have. I think bravery and intelligence-wise, women are equal to men and can do things like fly helicopters and fighter planes just the same, but combat, that is trying to deny millions of years of evolution in terms of programmed behavior and physical capability.

MarcoD

Feb22-12, 06:34 AM

As far as I can see (using my clouded West-European vision :wink:), Romney, Gingrich and Paul are campaigning along the lines of "Yes, religion is very important, and it should definitely have an impact on our laws. Especially christianity. MY brand of christianity."

Santorum, on the other hand, seems to me to be more the kind of person who's all "ZOMG People are pagans, sinners and unholy beings in general! You will all BURN for your sins! We, the christians of faith, are a minority and have the right to actively fight everything unholy in this world. DIE DIE DIE!"

...But maybe that's just me.

Well, I should say we shouldn't discuss this stuff. You might just have offended a lot of people with that comment. Btw, I am Dutch too. Seriously, you have no idea what you are getting involved in; US culture is substantially different from northern Europe, and the US is a religious place. You'll just end up insulting a lot of people if you project popular Dutch opinion on the US.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 07:30 AM

Well that's out there. Got any sources to show that's even remotely possible? Because... well, that's out there.

It seems to me the country is still squirmish over the Jessica Lynch story. If you google her - you'll find more stories that she wasn't tortured and raped than those that claim she was - again - seems squirmish to me.

Office_Shredder

Feb22-12, 09:50 AM

The Israelis tried putting women in combat back in the 1960s and it didn't work

Source? When I look for women in the Israeli army I find that they're currently eligible to serve in combat positions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Women
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion

lisab

Feb22-12, 10:34 AM

Are you certain that he just doesn't want to see American women tortured/raped by animals?

Wow. Most out-there straw man, *ever*.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 11:05 AM

Wow. Most out-there straw man, *ever*.

Why is that a strawman? Wasn't the country holding it's breath when Jessica Lynch was missing?

Greg Bernhardt

Feb22-12, 11:10 AM

In his remarks Monday, Santorum went beyond his usual discussion of the importance of increasing domestic energy production to deliver a blistering attack on environmental activists. He said global warming claims are based on "phony studies," and that climate change science is little more than "political science."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57381369-503544/santorum-democrats-are-anti-science-not-me/

CAC1001

Feb22-12, 11:46 AM

Source? When I look for women in the Israeli army I find that they're currently eligible to serve in combat positions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Women
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion

Not infantry though from what I understand (from what I've read the Caracal battalion isn't real infantry). Also, even if infantry, Israel doesn't have the same level of PC issues like we have in America simply due to their situation. I think I made a mistake on the 1960s, I should have said the 1948 war; Israel tried using women in combat there for about three weeks, but it was very distracting to the men and then they ended it when a group of women got ambushed and was slaughtered.

lisab

Feb22-12, 12:42 PM

Why is that a strawman? Wasn't the country holding it's breath when Jessica Lynch was missing?

Sure, but not because we were all worried what animal is raping her!

Ah well, this is the Santorum thread, isn't it....:rolleyes:

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 01:20 PM

Sure, but not because we were all worried what animal is raping her!

Ah well, this is the Santorum thread, isn't it....:rolleyes:

Is it mandatory under PC protocol to label my post - IMO - when calling an alleged rapist an animal?

Char. Limit

Feb22-12, 01:22 PM

Is it mandatory under PC protocol to label my post - IMO - when calling an alleged rapist an animal?

But I don't see how we can prove that this is any sort of endemic problem. THAT is what's out there. It almost seems to me an assumption of "a lot of army people would probably rape women if they were around, so we shouldn't have women in the army". I don't know how you see it, but that's how I see your argument.

turbo

Feb22-12, 01:28 PM

Is it mandatory under PC protocol to label my post - IMO - when calling an alleged rapist an animal?It might just be me, but I think it is a bit over-the-line to label front-line soldiers as animals. It is true that the military has slackened standards and has recruited some people that might not have been accepted 5-10 years ago, but that doesn't make them "animals" either.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 01:30 PM

But I don't see how we can prove that this is any sort of endemic problem. THAT is what's out there. It almost seems to me an assumption of "a lot of army people would probably rape women if they were around, so we shouldn't have women in the army". I don't know how you see it, but that's how I see your argument.

The issue isn't sex in the barracks. I'm referring to the treatment of female soldiers at the hands of their captors.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 01:30 PM

It might just be me, but I think it is a bit over-the-line to label front-line soldiers as animals. It is true that the military has slackened standards and has recruited some people that might not have been accepted 5-10 years ago, but that doesn't make them "animals" either.

An enemy soldier that rapes his captive is an animal - IMO.

turbo

Feb22-12, 01:31 PM

The issue isn't sex in the barracks. I'm referring to the treatment of female soldiers at the hands of their captors.There go the goal-posts!!

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 01:32 PM

There go the goal-posts!!

Jessica Lynch was captured - read the posts before accusing me of moving the goal posts - please.

Char. Limit

Feb22-12, 01:32 PM

The issue isn't sex in the barracks. I'm referring to the treatment of female soldiers at the hands of their captors.

Okay, that's a different argument. I still don't agree with it, but it's a reasonable argument. It's my opinion that captive rape is a form of torture, and thus we should punish anyone who does it as a most severe war crime, but I do not think we should prevent women from joining the front line because of that. You might disagree, and on THAT specific issue, I see your point, but that's my opinion.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 01:38 PM

Okay, that's a different argument. I still don't agree with it, but it's a reasonable argument. It's my opinion that captive rape is a form of torture, and thus we should punish anyone who does it as a most severe war crime, but I do not think we should prevent women from joining the front line because of that. You might disagree, and on THAT specific issue, I see your point, but that's my opinion.

I think a woman has the right to make that choice. However, based on the Jessica Lynch event, I don't think the country is prepared for the consequences - hence my squirmish comment.

turbo

Feb22-12, 01:39 PM

Iraqi men were sexually abused and humiliated by our own troops. The idea that only females can be abused sexually is narrow-minded at best. My cousin's daughter was scheduled for deployment to that nasty prison, until she tested positive for pregnancy. The US will deploy women in a war-zone, but not pregnant women.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 01:41 PM

Evo

Feb22-12, 01:42 PM

Santorum showing his real colors.

Rick Santorum on Tuesday stood by comments he made in 2008 about Satan attacking the United States, telling reporters here that he is going to “stay on message” and continue to talk about jobs, security, and “taking on forces around this world who want to do harm to America.”

The three-year-old speech is getting renewed scrutiny after several Web-based publications circulated audio and text of his remarks over the holiday weekend. Speaking to a group at Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., Santorum said, “This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war at all. This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies, Satan, would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country: the United States of America.”bolding mine

He just gets scarier and scarier, IMO. He's going to decide who's good and evil based on his overly zealous religious beliefs?When reporters asked about the comments at a rally on Tuesday evening, Santorum said, “I believe in good and evil. I think if somehow or another, because you’re a person of faith, you believe in good and evil [and it’s] a disqualifier for president, we’re going to have a very small pool of candidates who can run for president.”

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-satan-comments-2008-not-relevant-today-232700385.html

turbo

Feb22-12, 01:43 PM

What is the point of your argument?There is no argument. The US will deploy male and female combat troops to the front. Santorum is against that, so if you like him so much, you have to make his arguments.

turbo

Feb22-12, 01:50 PM

Santorum showing his real colors.

He just gets scarier and scarier, IMO. He's going to decide who's good and evil based on his overly zealous religious beliefs?

We have scare-mongers on the right warning against the establishment of "Sharia Law" in the US, but some of them appear to want to establish fundamentalist theology as a foundation of our government. I have problems with that.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 02:00 PM

There is no argument. The US will deploy male and female combat troops to the front. Santorum is against that, so if you like him so much, you have to make his arguments.

You weren't trying to argue a point (?)- my mistake.

jreelawg

Feb22-12, 03:38 PM

If you were Satan, who would you attack, in this day and age? There is no one else to go after, other than, the united states. And that's been the case for now, almost 200 years.
...

Rick Santorum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ahBion0eU

I'm thinking that this statement doesn't help the Catholic Churches excuse for their sex abuse scandals; That they are under attack from Satan.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 03:58 PM

Santorum showing his real colors.

bolding mine

He just gets scarier and scarier, IMO. He's going to decide who's good and evil based on his overly zealous religious beliefs?

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-satan-comments-2008-not-relevant-today-232700385.html

Just remember the Rev Wright is still out there with his roosters comming home to roost (stuff) - if you want to revisit speeches made in the pulpit from 2008. President Obama worshiped at the Rev Wright's church for about 20 years - if I recall correctly?

jreelawg

Feb22-12, 04:00 PM

Just remember the Rev Wright is still out there with his roosters comming home to roost (stuff) - if you want to revisit speeches made in the pulpit from 2008. President Obama worshiped at the Rev Wright's church for about 20 years - if I recall correctly?

Sure, but this is Santorum himself speaking. This is what he believes.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 04:07 PM

Sure, but this is Santorum himself speaking. This is what he believes.

It's obvious to me (my opinion) that anyone who sits in a church for 20 years probably believes what they are hearing from the preacher - or they would go somewhere else - again, my opinion.

SHISHKABOB

Feb22-12, 04:15 PM

It's obvious to me (my opinion) that anyone who sits in a church for 20 years probably believes what they are hearing from the preacher - or they would go somewhere else - again, my opinion.

After going to church for something like 15 years of my life, I actually came out in the opposite direction. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I think that it's pretty easy to just go and sit in a building and pretend to be listening, but not actually care about or believe in what the person is saying to you.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 04:20 PM

After going to church for something like 15 years of my life, I actually came out in the opposite direction. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I think that it's pretty easy to just go and sit in a building and pretend to be listening, but not actually care about or believe in what the person is saying to you.

I recall a few recent compliance classes that fit nicely into your description.

SHISHKABOB

Feb22-12, 04:21 PM

I recall a few recent compliance classes that fit nicely into your description.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

jreelawg

Feb22-12, 04:21 PM

It's obvious to me (my opinion) that anyone who sits in a church for 20 years probably believes what they are hearing from the preacher - or they would go somewhere else - again, my opinion.

Obama may or may not have been there when Wright said the controversial things he did. The clips of Wright though, represent a few moments, out of the 20 years Obama had attended. If Wright condemned America for the KKK every sermon, then there would be a whole lot more than the few clips your talking about.

I wonder what Santorum's position is on the US history of slavory? According to him, those times were part of the period prior to the almost 200 years Satan had his sights only on America, and before Satan was successful at corroding the christian foundations of America.

jreelawg

Feb22-12, 05:00 PM

It seams as thought Santorum is saying that the entire world except the US, has completely fallen to Satan. And, that all US institutions have also fallen, except US politics, of which there is now a spiritual war fighting over.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 05:04 PM

Obama may or may not have been there when Wright said the controversial things he did. The clips of Wright though, represent a few moments, out of the 20 years Obama had attended. If Wright condemned America for the KKK every sermon, then there would be a whole lot more than the few clips your talking about.

I wonder what Santorum's position is on the US history of slavory? According to him, those times were part of the period prior to the almost 200 years Satan had his sights only on America, and before Satan was successful at corroding the christian foundations of America.

Unless Wright was televised weekly, it might be hard to find evidence either way.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 05:06 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

It was a joke. I've been attending some very boring lectures lately - having to do with HIPPA/MIPPA compliance.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 05:09 PM

Obama may or may not have been there when Wright said the controversial things he did. The clips of Wright though, represent a few moments, out of the 20 years Obama had attended. If Wright condemned America for the KKK every sermon, then there would be a whole lot more than the few clips your talking about.

I wonder what Santorum's position is on the US history of slavory? According to him, those times were part of the period prior to the almost 200 years Satan had his sights only on America, and before Satan was successful at corroding the christian foundations of America.

The slavery thing sounds like a strawman emerging - but as you pointed out about Wright - if there's more than one comment it should be easy to source (on Santorum) - no reason to speculate.

lisab

Feb22-12, 05:16 PM

Sure, but this is Santorum himself speaking. This is what he believes.

A very important distinction...critical, in fact.

Evo

Feb22-12, 05:22 PM

Unless Wright was televised weekly, it might be hard to find evidence either way.Last I looked, Wright wasn't running for President, so I suggest you stop the red herring tactic.

Moonbear

Feb22-12, 05:26 PM

So women should be disallowed from serving in the front lines because men lack the discipline to stick to the mission?

This is a pattern I notice quite often, not just with respect to women in the military, but many other excuses for denying women equal rights. It leaves me wondering whether those coming up with these excuses are really misogynistic, or actually misandristic? (However that ought to be spelled.) It seems the issue they worry about isn't that women aren't strong enough to serve in the roles, but that men are too weak and easily distracted to serve with them.

jreelawg

Feb22-12, 06:18 PM

The way I see it, Santorum thinks that America was almost perfect, and now in modern times is being taken over by Satan.

Where as Obama, in my opinion thinks that those times in the past, when black people and women were suppressed etc, were actually bad, and that modern times, when people are free, can get an education and be hopeful to the future etc, is good.

They are practically opposite views. Also, the way that they each conduct themselves in regards to their religion is very different. Obama, has focused on helping his community, he is concerned with the plight of the poor, and middle class, and seams to be a charitable guy by nature. These values make sense if he is a christian, as they are the type of values that Jesus supposedly held.

In contrast, Santorum, a wealthy man, has pretty much no history of charity, and in fact rants against it. He has stated he is not concerned with the poor. These are values which seam to go against his own religion.

Personally, I think that people can for the most part make whatever they will out of their faith. There is so much fighting over who is and who isn't an authentic christian.

To me, the type of Christian who seams to focus on good will towards others, and hope and all that stuff, don't scare me.

It's the ones who try to rally angry mobs with angry speeches about apocalyptic spiritual battles who scare me.

CAC1001

Feb22-12, 06:46 PM

We have scare-mongers on the right warning against the establishment of "Sharia Law" in the US, but some of them appear to want to establish fundamentalist theology as a foundation of our government. I have problems with that.

I agree with the threat regarding Sharia law. There are some very radicalized Muslims in the European nations trying to do this right now. I partially agree regarding the fundamentalist theology. While you do have some people who want to force their theology onto people's lives, you don't have the threat of radical Christians forming areas of the country where the police won't even go into because they're so radicalized (as there are in Germany and France for example wrt radical Muslims), of such Christian radicals saying that they want to create "Christian law" zones of major cities, where their "Christian law" will dominate (in London for example, some radical Muslims want to create Sharia law-controlled areas). And some could say such acts are just of some radicals who shouldn't be taken seriously, but if a group of radical Christians decided to put up posters in neighborhoods of major American cities declaring them "(insert radical Christian theology) zones" it would probably be all over the news.

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 06:52 PM

We have scare-mongers on the right warning against the establishment of "Sharia Law" in the US, but some of them appear to want to establish fundamentalist theology as a foundation of our government. I have problems with that.

Has Santorum (topic of thread) indicated that he wants "to establish fundamentalist theology as a foundation of our government" - or are you referring to comments made by someone else?

jreelawg

Feb22-12, 08:40 PM

Santorum- "I didn't say black people".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnjEYcT6n-s&feature=related

Santorum - Black people comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dUqYnbS6m4&feature=related

WhoWee

Feb22-12, 08:58 PM

Santorum- "I didn't say black people".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnjEYcT6n-s&feature=related

Santorum - Black people comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dUqYnbS6m4&feature=related

It sounded like he said "blind people" - either way - what is the problem his policy?

jreelawg

Feb22-12, 09:11 PM

It's just funny watching him try to lie about it.

Alfi

Feb23-12, 07:58 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=F0XkXRoT558
Re: a date night with Obama.

I wondered if Santorum knew how much praise he was heaping on Obama ... then

oh ya oh ya ... but this is a waste of money ... use yer local bar eh pres.
Impress the country or impress your date ... ? hehehe

when the Prez does a date ... why hold back.

( personaly ... I hope the prez is a 'mile high' club member on AirForce1 ... I would be. :) )

Office_Shredder

Feb24-12, 08:24 AM

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57384204-503544/santorum-obama-wants-to-indoctrinate-students-by-boosting-college-enrollment/?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.4

On the president's efforts to boost college attendance, Santorum said, "I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely ... The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country."

The man's a loon.

Hobin

Feb24-12, 08:56 AM

ThomasT

Feb24-12, 08:56 PM

I'm not an American, but for the sake of that (and my own) country, I sincerely hope this guy doesn't get elected.I don't think he will, but then I didn't think that G.W. Bush would get elected either. Of course in the first election he didn't actually get elected. Maybe the same sort of thing could happen with Santorum or ... Romney. Considering this, maybe I will vote for Obama.

MarcoD

Feb24-12, 08:58 PM

Ah, well, we're just kids in a sandbox for grown-ups.

http://www.angryduck.com/pictures/2011_10/Exorcist.jpg

(I am the one most to the left.)

WhoWee

Feb24-12, 09:29 PM

Does anyone want to discuss Santorum's voting record or comments about the economy (very pro-manufacturing) or foreign policy (very tough on Iran)?

ThomasT

Feb24-12, 09:32 PM

Does anyone want to discuss Santorum's voting record or comments about the economy (very pro-manufacturing) or foreign policy (very tough on Iran)?I'd prefer to focus on his religious fanaticism. But if you have something to offer in favor of Santorum, then what is it?

WhoWee

Feb24-12, 09:37 PM

I'd prefer to focus on his religious fanaticism. But if you have something to offer in favor of Santorum, then what is it?

Has he ever given a religious speech on the floor of the US Senate?

ThomasT

Feb24-12, 09:43 PM

Has he ever given a religious speech on the floor of the US Senate?I don't know. I only watch C-Span intermittently. It would be cool, imho, but I don't think he's that stupid. Then again, I'm just waiting for some sort of quote like "God told me to ... " whatever. I just hope it doesn't happen while he's president. But I don't really think there's much chance of that happening.

WhoWee

Feb24-12, 09:48 PM

I don't know. I only watch C-Span intermittently. It would be cool, imho, but I don't think he's that stupid. Then again, I'm just waiting for some sort of quote like "God told me to ... " whatever. I just hope it doesn't happen while he's president. But I don't really think there's much chance of that happening.

I've watched Santorum for a long time - he's all business. This emphasis on social policy has been media driven - IMO.

ThomasT

Feb24-12, 10:05 PM

I've watched Santorum for a long time - he's all business. This emphasis on social policy has been media driven - IMO.So, you don't think he's a religious fanatic? What, just a good actor appealing to the religious right base?

Evo

Feb24-12, 10:20 PM

Does anyone if this forum seriously think they'll vote for him?

Santorum is not merely engaged in a culture war, but “a spiritual war,” as he called it four years ago. “The Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country — the United States of America,” he told students at Ave Maria University in Florida. He added that mainline Protestantism in this country “is in shambles. It is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

Satan strikes, a Catholic exorcist told me, when there are “soul wounds.” Santorum, who is considered “too Catholic” even by my über-Catholic brothers, clearly believes that America’s soul wounds include men and women having sex for reasons other than procreation, people involved in same-sex relationships, women using contraception or having prenatal testing, environmentalists who elevate “the Earth above man,” women working outside the home, “anachronistic” public schools, Mormonism (which he said is considered “a dangerous cult” by some Christians), and President Obama (whom he obliquely and oddly compared to Hitler and accused of having “some phony theology”).Bolding mine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/dowd-ricks-religious-fanaticism.html?_r=1

ThomasT

Feb24-12, 10:35 PM

Does anyone if this forum seriously think they'll vote for him?He's a strange person ... to me. But, apparently, not so strange to, maybe, about half of America. Scary? Maybe. But then I remember the environement I grew up in. For example, African Americans were prohibited by law from being within the town limits after 6 pm. The evangelical Baptist church reigned supreme, even in a town which was predominantly Catholic.

As far as I can tell, it isn't a whole lot different today. I'm just glad I left. But the point is that a large part of America is in tune with Santorum and other Christian religious zealots. Better than fundamentalist Muslims I guess. At least I know what I'm dealing with. But sort of sad, imho, nonetheless.

WhoWee

Feb25-12, 09:54 AM

ThomasT

Feb25-12, 10:32 AM

Since Santorum's religious statements are the only topic of discussion - when he said (from the above posted New York Times Opinion Page) "“Satan has his sights on the United States of America,” " - wasn't he trying metaphorically to say the US is a "good place" - and if we're not careful - it will become a bad place?It could be taken that way. But he, like other devout Christians I've known, seems to believe that there actually is a supernatural being, Satan, with extended human-like traits, and who is the precipitator of evil in the world.

I don't think he takes the mythological constructs of Christianity as metaphors. I think he's operating from a literalist understanding of the Christian bible.

I don't want to think he's that ... backward. But he did after all say it the way he said it.

WhoWee

Feb25-12, 10:40 AM

From the link in post #193 - my bold - he's his own worst enemy. my color change

"PHOENIX--Rick Santorum on Tuesday stood by comments he made in 2008 about Satan attacking the United States, telling reporters here that he is going to “stay on message” and continue to talk about jobs, security, and “taking on forces around this world who want to do harm to America.”

The three-year-old speech is getting renewed scrutiny after several Web-based publications circulated audio and text of his remarks over the holiday weekend. Speaking to a group at Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., Santorum said, “This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war at all. This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies, Satan, would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country: the United States of America.”

When reporters asked about the comments at a rally on Tuesday evening, Santorum said, “I believe in good and evil. I think if somehow or another, because you’re a person of faith, you believe in good and evil [and it’s] a disqualifier for president, we’re going to have a very small pool of candidates who can run for president.”
Asked whether he still thinks that Satan is attacking the United States, Santorum called the inquiry “not relevant to what’s being discussed in America today.”

“If they want to dig up old speeches of me talking to religious groups, they can go ahead and do so, but I’m going to stay on message and I’m going to talk about things that Americans want to talk about,” Santorum said, “which is creating jobs, making our country more secure, and, yeah, taking on the forces around his world who want to do harm to America, and you bet I will take them on.”

Earlier, he pledged to “defend everything I say” after noting that people might worry about his statements because he isn’t “robotic” like some of the more “commoditized candidates.”"

ThomasT

Feb25-12, 10:59 AM

... he's his own worst enemy. ... Only wrt people who don't believe as he does. The problem is that there are lots of people who do believe as he does.

mege

Feb25-12, 11:13 AM

Only wrt people who don't believe as he does. The problem is that there are lots of people who do believe as he does.

Isn't that the point of an election?

WhoWee

Feb25-12, 11:16 AM

Only wrt people who don't believe as he does. The problem is that there are lots of people who do believe as he does.

Isn't the whole point of campaigning to attract a larger base? If he stops commenting - it will go away. Let's not forget, there will be two people (along with their running mates) in the general election. If old comments are fair game for one candidate - they will be fair game for the other. IMO - everyone would prefer to focus on the present and future given the economy, the national debt, the Middle East, etc.

ThomasT

Feb25-12, 11:23 AM

Isn't that the point of an election?WhoWee suggested that Santorum is his own worst enemy. I suggested that, wrt about half of America, he isn't. Wrt the Christian Right we could say that Obama is his own worst enemy. And so on.

ThomasT

Feb25-12, 11:37 AM

Isn't the whole point of campaigning to attract a larger base?Of course. I just commented on your "he's his own worst enemy" comment. Wrt who is he his own worst enemy? Obviously, imo, not wrt extreme Christians.

If he stops commenting - it will go away.His fundamental base? Yes, I agree. But you seemed to suggest that his comments were hurting him. And I agree that his comments hurt him wrt people outside his fundamental extremist Christian base.

IMO - everyone would prefer to focus on the present and future given the economy, the national debt, the Middle East, etc.When a candidate's opinions/policies are based on a belief in the canons of ancient mythology, then I think this affects his fitness wrt the responsibilities of the chief executive. That is, the single most important thing to consider about Santorum is, imo, the fact that he's a theistic religious fanatic. This apparent fact is, by itself, enough for me to exclude him from consideration. And, this apparent fact is, by itself, enough for many Americans, maybe about half eventually, to consider him the only acceptable candidate.

WhoWee

Feb25-12, 11:42 AM

WhoWee suggested that Santorum is his own worst enemy. I suggested that, wrt about half of America, he isn't. Wrt the Christian Right we could say that Obama is his own worst enemy. And so on.

Please stay focused on Santorum - comments about Obama are off topic.

WhoWee

Feb25-12, 11:47 AM

Of course. I just commented on your "he's his own worst enemy" comment. Wrt who is he his own worst enemy? Obviously, imo, not wrt extreme Christians.

His fundamental base? Yes, I agree. But you seemed to suggest that his comments were hurting him. And I agree that his comments hurt him wrt people outside his fundamental extremist Christian base.

When a candidate's opinions/policies are based on a belief in the canons of ancient mythology, then I think this affects his fitness wrt the responsibilities of the chief executive. That is, the single most important thing to consider about Santorum is, imo, the fact that he's a theistic religious fanatic. This apparent fact is, by itself, enough for me to exclude him from consideration. And, this apparent fact is, by itself, enough for many Americans, maybe about half eventually, to consider him the only acceptable candidate.

I don't think the general public is so one dimensional in their thinking that only social issues or religious beliefs will determine the fate of the candidate - unless the other issues (economy, foreign affairs, pending legislation, recently enacted legislation, court appointments, budget/failure to budget, taxes, deicits) are not equally considered.

WhoWee

Feb25-12, 11:56 AM

If we can advance this - I think Santorum was his own worst enemy (with his base including the TEA Party) when he called politics a team sport in the AZ debate.

ThomasT

Feb25-12, 11:57 AM

Please stay focused on Santorum - comments about Obama are off topic.It's not off topic if it helps to illustrate a point about the topic. :smile:

ThomasT

Feb25-12, 12:00 PM

I don't think the general public is so one dimensional in their thinking that only social issues or religious beliefs will determine the fate of the candidate - unless the other issues (economy, foreign affairs, pending legislation, recently enacted legislation, court appointments, budget/failure to budget, taxes, deicits) are not equally considered.I don't that the other issues are equally considered. That is, I don't think they're as important to Santorum's base, or those outside his base, as his religiosity.

WhoWee

Feb25-12, 12:01 PM

It's not off topic if it helps to illustrate a point about the topic. :smile:

I'm not certain that is correct.

ThomasT

Feb25-12, 12:02 PM

If we can advance this - I think Santorum was his own worst enemy (with his base including the TEA Party) when he called politics a team sport in the AZ debate.Ok, that might well be the case. Do you happen to have a link for that handy. If not, I'll Google it.

ThomasT

Feb25-12, 12:03 PM

I'm not certain that is correct.Apparently it isn't, at least as far as you're concerned. :smile: Anyway, your points are taken.

WhoWee

Feb25-12, 12:04 PM

I don't that the other issues are equally considered. That is, I don't think they're as important to Santorum's base, or those outside his base, as his religiosity.

You don't think the economy, deficits, and foreign affairs (for instance) are as important to Santorum's base as his "religiosity"?

ThomasT

Feb25-12, 12:09 PM

You don't think the economy, deficits, and foreign affairs (for instance) are as important to Santorum's base as his "religiosity"?No. That's my current opinion.

WhoWee

Feb25-12, 12:10 PM

Ok, that might well be the case. Do you happen to have a link for that handy. If not, I'll Google it.

Sure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/santorum-politics-is-a-team-sport-126/2012/02/23/gIQArff4VR_video.html

"Santorum: 'Politics is a team sport' (1:26)
Feb. 23, 2012 - When discussing his support of the No Child Left Behind policy at the Republican debate on Wednesday night, Rick Santorum said he took 'one for the team' to support a policy that was a priority to President George W. Bush. (Feb. 23) (/Courtesy of CNN) "

He was booed. Even Rush Limbaugh commented:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73223.html

"Rush Limbaugh said he “cringed” when Rick Santorum blurted out during Wednesday night’s Republican debate that “politics is a team sport” to explain his voting record – a line that his opponents have quickly seized on to paint the GOP candidate as a clear-cut Washington insider.

“Santorum is getting creamed. I cringed when I heard him say this. Santorum is getting creamed for the team player comment,” Limbaugh said on his radio show Thursday. “I heard it, I looked at [my wife] Kathryn, and I said, ‘There’s going to be hell to pay for that one,’ because I knew that Santorum opponents, both from the left and right, were going to harp on it.”"

ThomasT

Feb25-12, 12:28 PM

Sure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/santorum-politics-is-a-team-sport-126/2012/02/23/gIQArff4VR_video.html

"Santorum: 'Politics is a team sport' (1:26)
Feb. 23, 2012 - When discussing his support of the No Child Left Behind policy at the Republican debate on Wednesday night, Rick Santorum said he took 'one for the team' to support a policy that was a priority to President George W. Bush. (Feb. 23) (/Courtesy of CNN) "

He was booed. Even Rush Limbaugh commented:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73223.html

"Rush Limbaugh said he “cringed” when Rick Santorum blurted out during Wednesday night’s Republican debate that “politics is a team sport” to explain his voting record – a line that his opponents have quickly seized on to paint the GOP candidate as a clear-cut Washington insider.

“Santorum is getting creamed. I cringed when I heard him say this. Santorum is getting creamed for the team player comment,” Limbaugh said on his radio show Thursday. “I heard it, I looked at [my wife] Kathryn, and I said, ‘There’s going to be hell to pay for that one,’ because I knew that Santorum opponents, both from the left and right, were going to harp on it.”"Yeah, he came off as a bit weak on that one in the sense that he did something against his principles. I'm not sure what principle he violated. Surely not testing. Spending?

lisab

Feb25-12, 01:11 PM

Yeah, he came off as a bit weak on that one in the sense that he did something against his principles. I'm not sure what principle he violated. Surely not testing. Spending?

He told the truth...? :tongue2:

Pythagorean

Feb25-12, 01:33 PM

I'm not certain that is correct.

I agree with ThomasT. Sometimes we have to bring up the other candidates because that's the pertinent factor: how this candidate compares to other candidates. If there was only one candidate, candidacy wouldn't be an issue.

jreelawg

Feb25-12, 01:51 PM

You don't think the economy, deficits, and foreign affairs (for instance) are as important to Santorum's base as his "religiosity"?

It's not that simple. A good deal of his stances on what should be non-religious issues, are based on his biblical interpretations, and his beliefs of what is and isn't the work of Satan.

For example, he thinks that academia has fallen to Satan, and strongly believes that government should have nothing to do with education. He thinks all schools should be private schools. This in my opinion is a big issue. How will America stay competitive without an education system?

Also, his foreign policy stance is based on the bible. He seams to think we are in a spiritual war. Sure good and evil, but good and evil as he defines it, which includes having the wrong religion, using condoms, raising taxes, environmentalism etc. If you take his Satan speech literally, he thinks the entire world except the US is evil, and Ruled by Satan. I think this view he seams to hold coincides with his very aggressive views on the use of America Military force abroad.

His business side, as I have seen it, is his support of ending environmental regulations, and lowering taxes for the rich. Of this, his reasoning for ending environmental regulations, is that they are inconsistent with his interpretation of the bible.

If war, environmental regulation, and education are not important issues, then I don't know what are.

WhoWee

Feb25-12, 01:53 PM

I agree with ThomasT. Sometimes we have to bring up the other candidates because that's the pertinent factor: how this candidate compares to other candidates. If there was only one candidate, candidacy wouldn't be an issue.

Your belief doesn't seem consistent with my experience in this thread - I've found it's best not to attempt a direct contrast between candidates as it may de-rail/move the debate off-topic - it's best to stay focused strictly on the subject candidate.

WhoWee

Feb25-12, 01:55 PM

It's not that simple. A good deal of his stances on what should be non-religious issues, are based on his biblical interpretations, and his beliefs of what is and isn't the work of Satan.

For example, he thinks that academia has fallen to Satan, and strongly believes that government should have nothing to do with education. He thinks all schools should be private schools. This in my opinion is a big issue. How will America stay competitive without an education system?

Let's start with this - do you have specific quotes to support your comment - then we can analyze.

jreelawg

Feb25-12, 02:06 PM

Let's start with this - do you have specific quotes to support your comment - then we can analyze.

I didn't post them because they have already been posted in this forum. In his, "Satan has his sights on America", speech, he states that academia was the first to fall to Satan in America. In the quote by evo a few posts back he calls college an indoctrination mill.

“Never before and never again after their years of mass education will any person live and work in such a radically narrow, age-segregated environment,” Santorum wrote. “It’s amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/rick-santorum-kids-get-weird-socialization-in-public-schools_n_1294390.html

"We didn't have government-run schools for a long time in this country, for the majority of the time in this country," he said. "We had private education. We had local education. Parents actually controlled the education of their children. What a great idea that is."

"Just call them what they are," he said. "Public schools? That's a nice way of putting it. These are government-run schools."
...
Santorum called "mass education" an "aberration."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57378842-503544/rick-santorum-suggests-opposition-to-public-schooling/

WhoWee

Feb25-12, 02:12 PM

I didn't post them because they have already been posted in this forum. In his, "Satan has his sights on America", speech, he states that academia was the first to fall to Satan in America. In the quote by evo a few posts back he calls college an indoctrination mill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/rick-santorum-kids-get-weird-socialization-in-public-schools_n_1294390.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57378842-503544/rick-santorum-suggests-opposition-to-public-schooling/

Those quotes don't support your post specifically though - do they?

You posted:
"For example, he thinks that academia has fallen to Satan, and strongly believes that government should have nothing to do with education. He thinks all schools should be private schools."

It seems to me you've over-stated his position a bit - perhaps I'm wrong?

jreelawg

Feb25-12, 02:26 PM

Those quotes don't support your post specifically though - do they?

You posted:
"For example, he thinks that academia has fallen to Satan, and strongly believes that government should have nothing to do with education. He thinks all schools should be private schools."

It seems to me you've over-stated his position a bit - perhaps I'm wrong?

Well for the first part, he explicitly states that he thinks academia is controlled by Satan, so that is entirely unambiguous.

Now for the second part, as to wether he strongly thinks government should have nothing to do with education; He explicitly stated that he thinks the idea of schools being only local, or private is a great idea. That is somewhat ambiguous. But then he goes on to say that public schools are an aberration. This is also ambiguous. He could be using the definition, "departure from truth or morality", or "abnormal", I don't know for sure.

Also, he could have changed his mind, so it is possible he no longer thinks what he did a few years ago.

In my opinion his own statements speak for themselves.

iceworm

Feb25-12, 02:37 PM

Interestingly, there are a number posting here that appear to be from single issue voters. Primary issues are religion and abortion. This view appears to me to be extreemly narrow minded and short-sighted.

Even so, I certainly can't fault anyone for being a single issue voter - I am. My vote for any elected official is entirely dependent on her second ammendent stand. I may not like some of Santorum's positions, but I could never vote for someone, such as Obama, actively engaged in decimating my right to keep and bear arms.

Luckily, a lot of Americans agree with me.

ice

Gokul43201

Feb25-12, 02:46 PM

Academia has fallen to Satan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4jopm7hYFk&feature=player_detailpage

Transcript:

He was successful. He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions. The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first successful was in academia. He understood pride of smart people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were, in fact, smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different. Pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it because they're smart. And so academia, a long time ago, fell.

And you say "what could be the impact of academia falling?" Well, I would have the argument that the other structures that I'm going to talk about here had root of their destruction because of academia. Because what academia does is educate the elites in our society, educates the leaders in our society, particularly at the college level. And they were the first to fall.

And so what we saw this domino effect, once the colleges fell and those who were being education in our institutions, the next was the church. Now you’d say, ‘wait, the Catholic Church’? No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it. So they attacked mainline Protestantism, they attacked the Church, and what better way to go after smart people who also believe they’re pious to use both vanity and pride to also go after the Church.

Government should have nothing to do with schools; all schools should be private:
For the majority of time in this country, there were no government-run schools. We had private education. We had local education. Parents actually controlled the education of their children. What a great idea that is.

http://sites.ewu.edu/easterneronline/2012/02/24/private-education-key-for-santorum/

Edit: Started this post a while ago, but had to walk away. Just got back and hit 'submit' - much of it is probably redundant at this point.

Pythagorean

Feb25-12, 02:50 PM

Your belief doesn't seem consistent with my experience in this thread - I've found it's best not to attempt a direct contrast between candidates as it may de-rail/move the debate off-topic - it's best to stay focused strictly on the subject candidate.

Unfortunately, by tunneling on one candidate, you run the risk of taking things out of context. Candidate X may do something bad, but if all the other candidates have a "worse" position than candidate X's bad is a good with respect to candidacy (the lesser evil).

Likewise, if candidate X's good behavior is reported on, his candidacy merit is only raised with respect to other candidates.

I suppose one could avoid using names and try to generalize "other candidates". This becomes difficult if candidate X is in between other candidates; you can no longer say that the person's candidacy is supreme with respect to all other candidates. Especially now, where the incumbent's candidacy will be affected by who wins the republican primaries. To further complicate things, the republican candidates will have a different candidate merit when compared to their republican competitors vs. when they're compared to their final competitor.

Candidacy is defined by relativity: where candidates stand in relation to other candidates. I agree that idea can be practiced without using actual names, but removing comparison to other candidates defeats the purpose of candidacy. It allows for easier misrepresentation by taking things out of context.

Gokul43201

Feb25-12, 02:59 PM

...I could never vote for someone, such as Obama, actively engaged in decimating my right to keep and bear arms.How exactly has he done that?

Wait, we know the answer to that. NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre explains it pretty well. According to LaPierre Obama has done absolutely nothing to hurt anyone's right to bear arms. In fact, he's even signed bills into law that expand gun rights. And he's disregarded calls from within the Dem party to renew the Clinton assault weapons ban. But clearly, this is all part of a big conspiracy to lull gun owners into a false sense of security so Obama can engage in "decimating my right to keep and bear arms" when he gets re-elected in 2012!

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/nra-claims-massive-obama-conspiracy-not-to-ban-guns/
[see video]

Sheesh!

PS: As often happens, this is better explained by Jon Stewart: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-29-2011/wayne-s-world

Astronuc

Feb25-12, 03:49 PM

Attributed to Santorum from ewu.edu
“For the majority of time in this country, there were no government-run schools. We had private education. We had local education,” he said. “Parents actually controlled the education of their children. What a great idea that is.”

Now interestingly - The first public school in America was established by Puritan settlers in 1635 in the home of Schoolmaster Philemon Pormont and was later moved to School Street. Boys from various socio-economic backgrounds attended Boston Latin School until 1972 when girls were also accepted.

A portrait statue of Benjamin Franklin overlooks the former site of Boston Latin School which Franklin, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock once attended. Franklin's place of birth was just one block away on Milk Street, across from the Old South Meeting House.

The Boston Latin School is now located in Boston's Fenway neighborhood.
http://www.cityofboston.gov/freedomtrail/firstpublic.asp
http://www.thefreedomtrail.org/visitor/boston-latin.html

In 1785, the Continental Congress mandates a survey of the Northwest Territory. The survey is to create townships, with a portion of each one reserved for a school. These land grants came to be the system of public land grant universities in the years 1862 to 1890. These universities include many of those named “University of <state name>” or “<state name> State University,” such as University of Vermont and Pennsylvania State University.

In 1790, the state constitution in Pennsylvania required free public education for children in families that could not afford to pay for an education. Also concerned about the education of poor children, the New York Public School Society in 1805 set up schools that had a school master to teach the older children with a system in place for the older children to teach those who were younger.

In 1820, Boston is the site of the first public U.S. high school. And in 1827, a Massachusetts law makes all grades of public school free to all. Massachusetts innovation continues with the state’s first Board of Education formed in 1837, headed by Horace Mann. And in 1851, Massachusetts makes education compulsory.
. . . . http://www.educationbug.org/a/history-of-public-schools.html

1698 February 12 The first public school in the America Colonies was established at Philadelphia, and a corporation created, entitled "The Overseers of the Publick Schoole founded in Philadelphia." In this school it was ordered by the governor and Council: "All children and servants, male and female, whose parents, guardians and masters be willing to subject ym to the rules and orders of the said schoole, shall from time to time, with the approbaon of the overseers thereof for the time being, be received or admitted, taught or instructed; the rich at reasonable rates, and the poor to be maintained and schooled for nothing." The first school house was built on the east side of Fourth Street below Chestnut Street. Inoch Flower was the first Schoolmaster. http://www.ushistory.org/philadelphia/philadelphiafirsts.html

Santorum has quite an imagination!

turbo

Feb25-12, 04:52 PM

Santorum has quite an imagination!It seems that anti-intellectualism plays well to the Republican base. He's the man to beat right now.

Hobin

Feb25-12, 06:43 PM

But I will take this opportunity to inform others - others that are still open to listening.

Given Santorum's extremely dubious ethical and political views, prefering him over Obama because of gun control is just irresponsible.

EDIT: Wait, iceworm's post suddenly disappeared? Hm. I'll leave this here. Just in case.

WhoWee

Feb25-12, 08:01 PM

WhoWee

Feb25-12, 08:04 PM

Unfortunately, by tunneling on one candidate, you run the risk of taking things out of context. Candidate X may do something bad, but if all the other candidates have a "worse" position than candidate X's bad is a good with respect to candidacy (the lesser evil).

Likewise, if candidate X's good behavior is reported on, his candidacy merit is only raised with respect to other candidates.

I suppose one could avoid using names and try to generalize "other candidates". This becomes difficult if candidate X is in between other candidates; you can no longer say that the person's candidacy is supreme with respect to all other candidates. Especially now, where the incumbent's candidacy will be affected by who wins the republican primaries. To further complicate things, the republican candidates will have a different candidate merit when compared to their republican competitors vs. when they're compared to their final competitor.

Candidacy is defined by relativity: where candidates stand in relation to other candidates. I agree that idea can be practiced without using actual names, but removing comparison to other candidates defeats the purpose of candidacy. It allows for easier misrepresentation by taking things out of context.

I couldn't agree more and find it frustrating not to make comparisons. Regardless, we can still measure the evolution of a single candidates comments and record over time through comparison.

ThomasT

Feb26-12, 12:46 AM

He told the truth...? :tongue2::smile: I hadn't thought of it like that. Good one.

ThomasT

Feb26-12, 12:56 AM

Santorum has quite an imagination!Apparently.

SixNein

Feb26-12, 01:14 AM

It seems that anti-intellectualism plays well to the Republican base. He's the man to beat right now.

Why do you think anti-intellectualism plays to the base of the republican party?

turbo

Feb26-12, 01:31 AM

Why do you think anti-intellectualism plays to the base of the republican party?I have no idea. It seems like a trend that is well-established and is bound to continue as long as it bears fruit. Does some segment of the voting public want candidates that are no more educated and skilled than themselves? I have a hard time understanding why, because I would love to have candidates that are so smart and skilled that I would love to have a chance to vote for them. A candidate that has a hard time elucidating policy issues or has to resort to jeans-and-flannel-shirt photo-ops with "oh-shucks" ads has no business running for high office.

SixNein

Feb26-12, 01:50 AM

I have no idea. It seems like a trend that is well-established and is bound to continue as long as it bears fruit. Does some segment of the voting public want candidates that are no more educated and skilled than themselves? I have a hard time understanding why, because I would love to have candidates that are so smart and skilled that I would love to have a chance to vote for them. A candidate that has a hard time elucidating policy issues or has to resort to jeans-and-flannel-shirt photo-ops with "oh-shucks" ads has no business running for high office.

I've often wondered if conservatives have a high need for closure. The world is very complicated, and it has a great deal of uncertainty. But the conservative message offers a very simplistic view of the world. So the message that it's all Satan's fault may provide closure to people afraid of the continuously changing world.

ThomasT

Feb26-12, 01:51 AM

Why do you think anti-intellectualism plays to the base of the republican party?I sense the same thing (ie., that the base of the Republican party is essentialy anti-intellectual) from my experience. Maybe it's not generally the case. I don't know.

WhoWee

Feb26-12, 11:24 AM

Attributed to Santorum from ewu.edu

Now interestingly - http://www.cityofboston.gov/freedomtrail/firstpublic.asp
http://www.thefreedomtrail.org/visitor/boston-latin.html

http://www.educationbug.org/a/history-of-public-schools.html

http://www.ushistory.org/philadelphia/philadelphiafirsts.html

Santorum has quite an imagination!

Santorum took a few minutes to explain his recent comments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/us/politics/santorum-criticizes-education-system-and-obama.html?_r=1

"At one appearance here, he said the idea of schools run by the federal government or by state governments was “anachronistic.” Mr. Santorum did not say public schools were a bad idea, and he said that there was a role for government help in education.

But it was the latest in a series of comments by the former Pennsylvania senator — who is tied in polls in the critical Ohio and Michigan primary contests — suggesting that he takes a dim view of public schooling. He and his wife home-schooled their children.

For the first 150 years, most presidents home-schooled their children at the White House, he said. “Where did they come up that public education and bigger education bureaucracies was the rule in America? Parents educated their children, because it’s their responsibility to educate their children.”

“Yes the government can help,” Mr. Santorum added. “But the idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly much less that the state government should be running schools, is anachronistic. It goes back to the time of industrialization of America when people came off the farms where they did home-school or have the little neighborhood school, and into these big factories, so we built equal factories called public schools. And while those factories as we all know in Ohio and Pennsylvania have fundamentally changed, the factory school has not.”

Historically, state and local governments have been responsible for public schooling. According to the Department of Education, the federal government contributes almost 11 percent of the cost of elementary and secondary education, financing intended to compel districts to enforce standards to help disadvantaged children and ensure students with disabilities receive equal education. This year, Republican candidates have called for a cutback in this formula, which has had bipartisan support for decades, saying they would give block grants to states and local districts while repealing federal requirements. "

WhoWee

Feb26-12, 11:29 AM

It seems that anti-intellectualism plays well to the Republican base. He's the man to beat right now.

I'm a bit confused about Santorum's supposed "anti-intellectualism" and it's appeal to the base of the Republican Party. Can you please define this base further and explain how wanting to keep the Federal Government out of the local school system (Santorum's position) is "anti-intellectualism"?

SixNein

Feb26-12, 11:37 AM

I'm a bit confused about Santorum's supposed "anti-intellectualism" and it's appeal to the base of the Republican Party. Can you please define this base further and explain how wanting to keep the Federal Government out of the local school system (Santorum's position) is "anti-intellectualism"?

Santorum made an argument that Academia is under the influence of Satanism, and it was responsible for destroying society.

I don't know how much more anti-intellectual you can get then that.

WhoWee

Feb26-12, 11:51 AM

Santorum made an argument that Academia is under the influence of Satanism, and it was responsible for destroying society.

I don't know how much more anti-intellectual you can get then that.

I'd like to hear from the person that made the comment.

However, why don't we stick to his exact quote - from Gokul's post - Santorum making some type of philosophical argument (I'll assume related to teaching evolution?).

"He was successful. He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions. The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first successful was in academia. He understood pride of smart people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were, in fact, smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different. Pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it because they're smart. And so academia, a long time ago, fell."

Perhaps it would be intellectually honest to keep his comments in context - who was he speaking to, what was the format/setting, what was the topic of discussion - rather than jump to a conclusion?

Office_Shredder

Feb26-12, 01:07 PM

http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/author/newseditor/

OK I admit that the website itself is clearly biased but it has santorum's exact quote (including in a video). He never mentions evolution, and immediately after the quote you posted says (emphasis mine)

And you say “what could be the impact of academia falling?” Well, I would have the argument that the other structures that I’m going to talk about here had root of their destruction because of academia. Because what academia does is educate the elites in our society, educates the leaders in our society, particularly at the college level. And they were the first to fall.
And so what we saw this domino effect, once the colleges fell and those who were being education in our institutions, the next was the church

He's not just talking about arguing about evolution, he's talking about how the arrogance of academics was the fatal flaw that is destroying the very ethos of America

BobG

Feb26-12, 01:08 PM

I've often wondered if conservatives have a high need for closure. The world is very complicated, and it has a great deal of uncertainty. But the conservative message offers a very simplistic view of the world. So the message that it's all Satan's fault may provide closure to people afraid of the continuously changing world.

It would be more accurate to say a segment of the conservative population have a high need for closure - specifically religious conservatives. The Protestant movement was, among other things, a product of the printing press that made Bibles common enough that a person could read and interpret for themselves what the Bible meant (as opposed to the Catholic religion, which is much more hierarchial, relying on interpretations made by the church leadership). Printed words that can't change are much more static than interpretations which can change over time as new leaders take control.

There's another, larger segment of the population as a whole that feels a little uncomfortable with the idea of 'truths' constantly changing over time as more is learned (granted, the 'truths' are really just the current state of understanding).

You could say the same thing about opponents of the death penalty (usually liberals) as you do about conservatives, since one of the arguments about the death penalty is that people are convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt with scientific evidence, only to have the science disproven and/or changed.

That really has more to do with the imperfect relationship between science and the legal system. In the legal system, proven scientific evidence really means the science was admitted in at least one court case; not that the science was really sound or that the evidence properly applied the science (Compositional analysis of bullet lead (http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~kayed/pubs/evid/06-cabl.pdf), Hurst report on arson forensic evidence (http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Willingham_Hurst_Report.pdf)). As more research is done, the science behind a lot of forensic evidence changes and there's no guarantee investigation procedures change in a timely manner to accomodate changes, some forensic evidence is admitted with the limitations in the current state of the science ignored, and some "science" admitted in court is simple crack-pottery that at least one lawyer managed to get admitted.

You could also say the same thing about the abortion debate - in fact both sides choose arbitrary dividing lines simply because it's too hard to define any kind of defining dividing line between life and human consciousness based on current science. In fact, when change is gradual, as in a developing embryo, any dividing line winds up being kind of arbitrary when the differences on either side of the line are so small. (In my personal opinion, you could establish a dividing line that's safely before the development of human consciousness without taking it to the point of abolishing birth control or early term abortions, but that's just me.)

Whenever you make the jump from pure research to applied science in almost any area affecting personal lives, the uncertainty leaves many people either wishing for simpler answers or proclaiming no definitive answer is ever possible - not just conservatives.

mheslep

Feb26-12, 01:09 PM

Office_Shredder

Feb26-12, 01:29 PM

Academia is far from the beginning and end of intellectualism.

Yes but when the argument is that academia fell because smart people are too prideful and hence more vulnerable to Satan than your average American...

MarcoD

Feb26-12, 01:53 PM

He's a politician. Whatever he says doesn't need to be true as long as it generates sufficient noise and identifies him as 'one of us' to a large enough part of the public.

I am not sure even debating the arguments make sense therefor. (Should be read as: I gave up in my country.)

I see it a lot in my country these days, I don't like it, but it is how it is.

Astronuc

Feb26-12, 02:21 PM

For the first 150 years, most presidents home-schooled their children at the White House, he said. “Where did they come up that public education and bigger education bureaucracies was the rule in America? Parents educated their children, because it’s their responsibility to educate their children.” Did Santorum really say that about the first 150 of the nation and presidents. Because I seriously doubt that. I think Santorum is just making stuff up, which is problematic for someone who wants to be the leader of a nation.

If we look at Presidents and various statistics like the dates of birth, age at assumption of presidency, marriage (and date), then we find that most of the presidents were probably older than 40, and had been married for some time, and the kids were probably near or in adulthood by they time these men became president.

Period: 1790-1940 (White House completed around 1800).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194051.html

Presidents without children
Washington
Madison
Jackson
Polk
Buchanan
Harding

Age of president at assumption of office
Adams - 61 yrs, 125 days
Jefferson - 57 yrs, 325 days
Monroe - 58 yrs, 310 days
Adams, JQ - 57 yrs, 236 days
Van Buren - 54 yrs, 89 days
Harrison - 68 yrs, 23 days
Tyler - 51 yrs, 6 days
Taylor - 64 yrs, 100 days
Fillmore - 50 years, 183 days
Piece - 48 yrs, 101 days
Lincoln - 52 yrs, 20 days
Johnson - 56 yrs, 107 days
Grant - 46 yrs, 311 days
Hayes - 54 yrs, 151 days
Garfield - 59 yrs, 105 days
Arthur - 51 yrs, 349 days
Cleveland - 47 yrs, 351 days
Harrison - 55 yrs, 196 days
McKinely - 54 yrs, 34 days
Roosevelt (T) - 42 yrs, 322 days
Taft - 51 yrs, 34 days
Wilson - 56 yrs, 66 days
Coolidge - 51 yrs, 29 days
Hoover - 54 yrs, 206 days
Roosevelt (F) - 51 yrs, 33 days
Truman - 60 yrs, 339 days
Eisenhower - 62 yrs, 98 days

President 1st Inaug. 2nd Inaug. Marr'd*
George Washington Apr 30, 1789 Mar 4, 1793 1759 30 no kids
John Adams Mar 4, 1797 1764 33
Thomas Jefferson Mar 4, 1801 Mar 4, 1805 1772 29
James Madison Mar 4, 1809 Mar 4, 1813 1794 15 no kids
James Monroe Mar 4, 1817 Mar 5, 1821 1786 31
John Quincy Adams Mar 4, 1825 1797 28
Andrew Jackson Mar 4, 1829 Mar 4, 1833 1791 38 no kids
Martin Van Buren Mar 4, 1837 1807 30
William H. Harrison Mar 4, 1841 1795 46
John Tyler Apr 6, 1841 1813 28 1844 -3
James Knox Polk Mar 4, 1845 1824 21 no kids
Zachary Taylor Mar 5, 1849 1810 39
Millard Fillmore Jul 10, 1850 1826 24 1858 -8
Franklin Pierce Mar 4, 1853 1834 19
James Buchanan Mar 4, 1857 - no kids
Abraham Lincoln Mar 4, 1861 Mar 4, 1865 1842 19
Andrew Johnson Apr 15, 1865 1827 38
Ulysses S. Grant Mar 4, 1869 Mar 4, 1873 1848 21
Rutherford B. Hayes Mar 5, 1877 1852 25
James A. Garfield Mar 4, 1881 1858 23
Chester Arthur Sep 20, 1881 1869 12
Grover Cleveland Mar 4, 1885 Mar 4, 1893 1886 -1
Benjamin Harrison Mar 4, 1889 1853 36 1896 -7
William McKinley Mar 4, 1897 Mar 04, 1901 1871 26
Theodore Roosevelt Sep 14, 1901 Mar 04, 1905 1880 21 1886 15
William Howard Taft Mar 04, 1909 1886 23
Woodrow Wilson Mar 04, 1913 Mar 05, 1917 1885 28 1915 -2
Warren G. Harding Mar 04, 1921 1891 30 no kids
Calvin Coolidge Aug 03, 1923 Mar 04, 1925 1905 18
Herbert Hoover Mar 04, 1929 1899 30
F. D. Roosevelt Mar 04, 1933 Jan 20, 1937 1905 28
Harry S. Truman Apr 12, 1945 Jan 20, 1949 1919 26
Dwight D. Eisenhower Jan 20, 1953 Jan 21, 1957 1916 37
* Year of marriage, followed by years between marriage and first inaug.

Galteeth

Feb26-12, 02:34 PM

It would be more accurate to say a segment of the conservative population have a high need for closure - specifically religious conservatives. The Protestant movement was, among other things, a product of the printing press that made Bibles common enough that a person could read and interpret for themselves what the Bible meant (as opposed to the Catholic religion, which is much more hierarchial, relying on interpretations made by the church leadership). Printed words that can't change are much more static than interpretations which can change over time as new leaders take control.

There's another, larger segment of the population as a whole that feels a little uncomfortable with the idea of 'truths' constantly changing over time as more is learned (granted, the 'truths' are really just the current state of understanding).

You could say the same thing about opponents of the death penalty (usually liberals) as you do about conservatives, since one of the arguments about the death penalty is that people are convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt with scientific evidence, only to have the science disproven and/or changed.

That really has more to do with the imperfect relationship between science and the legal system. In the legal system, proven scientific evidence really means the science was admitted in at least one court case; not that the science was really sound or that the evidence properly applied the science (Compositional analysis of bullet lead (http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~kayed/pubs/evid/06-cabl.pdf), Hurst report on arson forensic evidence (http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Willingham_Hurst_Report.pdf)). As more research is done, the science beyond a lot of forensic evidence changes and there's no guarantee investigation procedures change in a timely manner to accomodate changes, some forensic evidence is admitted with the limitations in the current state of the science ignored, and some "science" admitted in court is simple crack-pottery that at least one lawyer managed to get admitted.

You could also say the same thing about the abortion debate - in fact both sides choose arbitrary dividing lines simply because it's too hard to define any kind of defining dividing line between life and human consciousness based on current science. In fact, when change is gradual, as in a developing embryo, any dividing line winds up being kind of arbitrary when the differences on either side of the line are so small. (In my personal opinion, you could establish a dividing line that's safely before the development of human consciousness without taking it to the point of abolishing birth control or early term abortions, but that's just me.)

Whenever you make the jump from pure research to applied science in almost any area affecting personal lives, the uncertainty leaves many people either wishing for simpler answers or proclaiming no definitive answer is ever possible - not just conservatives.

It seems to me pretty absurd to base moral positions on "scientific evidence." Morality is always based on a notion of the way things should be, not the way they are The fact that murder has existed for as long as humanity doesn't mean that murder isn't immoral. With the death penalty, it seems like its only morally consistent to say the state has the right to execute people or not. How much crime it statistically does or does not prevent doesn't have any bearing on the morality of the act.

WhoWee

Feb26-12, 02:34 PM

Did Santorum really say that about the first 150 of the nation and presidents. Because I seriously doubt that. I think Santorum is just making stuff up, which is problematic for someone who wants to be the leader of a nation.

If we look at Presidents and various statistics like the dates of birth, age at assumption of presidency, marriage (and date), then we find that most of the presidents were probably older than 40, and had been married for some time, and the kids were probably near or in adulthood by they time these men became president.

Period: 1790-1940 (White House completed around 1800).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194051.html

Presidents without children
Washington
Madison
Jackson
Polk
Buchanan
Harding

Age of president at assumption of office
Adams - 61 yrs, 125 days
Jefferson - 57 yrs, 325 days
Monroe - 58 yrs, 310 days
Adams, JQ - 57 yrs, 236 days
Van Buren - 54 yrs, 89 days
Harrison - 68 yrs, 23 days
Tyler - 51 yrs, 6 days
Taylor - 64 yrs, 100 days
Fillmore - 50 years, 183 days
Piece - 48 yrs, 101 days
Lincoln - 52 yrs, 20 days
Johnson - 56 yrs, 107 days
Grant - 46 yrs, 311 days
Hayes - 54 yrs, 151 days
Garfield - 59 yrs, 105 days
Arthur - 51 yrs, 349 days
Cleveland - 47 yrs, 351 days
Harrison - 55 yrs, 196 days
McKinely - 54 yrs, 34 days
Roosevelt (T) - 42 yrs, 322 days
Taft - 51 yrs, 34 days
Wilson - 56 yrs, 66 days
Coolidge - 51 yrs, 29 days
Hoover - 54 yrs, 206 days
Roosevelt (F) - 51 yrs, 33 days
Truman - 60 yrs, 339 days
Eisenhower - 62 yrs, 98 days

President 1st Inaug. 2nd Inaug. Marr'd*
George Washington Apr 30, 1789 Mar 4, 1793 1759 30 no kids
John Adams Mar 4, 1797 1764 33
Thomas Jefferson Mar 4, 1801 Mar 4, 1805 1772 29
James Madison Mar 4, 1809 Mar 4, 1813 1794 15 no kids
James Monroe Mar 4, 1817 Mar 5, 1821 1786 31
John Quincy Adams Mar 4, 1825 1797 28
Andrew Jackson Mar 4, 1829 Mar 4, 1833 1791 38 no kids
Martin Van Buren Mar 4, 1837 1807 30
William H. Harrison Mar 4, 1841 1795 46
John Tyler Apr 6, 1841 1813 28 1844 -3
James Knox Polk Mar 4, 1845 1824 21 no kids
Zachary Taylor Mar 5, 1849 1810 39
Millard Fillmore Jul 10, 1850 1826 24 1858 -8
Franklin Pierce Mar 4, 1853 1834 19
James Buchanan Mar 4, 1857 - no kids
Abraham Lincoln Mar 4, 1861 Mar 4, 1865 1842 19
Andrew Johnson Apr 15, 1865 1827 38
Ulysses S. Grant Mar 4, 1869 Mar 4, 1873 1848 21
Rutherford B. Hayes Mar 5, 1877 1852 25
James A. Garfield Mar 4, 1881 1858 23
Chester Arthur Sep 20, 1881 1869 12
Grover Cleveland Mar 4, 1885 Mar 4, 1893 1886 -1
Benjamin Harrison Mar 4, 1889 1853 36 1896 -7
William McKinley Mar 4, 1897 Mar 04, 1901 1871 26
Theodore Roosevelt Sep 14, 1901 Mar 04, 1905 1880 21 1886 15
William Howard Taft Mar 04, 1909 1886 23
Woodrow Wilson Mar 04, 1913 Mar 05, 1917 1885 28 1915 -2
Warren G. Harding Mar 04, 1921 1891 30 no kids
Calvin Coolidge Aug 03, 1923 Mar 04, 1925 1905 18
Herbert Hoover Mar 04, 1929 1899 30
F. D. Roosevelt Mar 04, 1933 Jan 20, 1937 1905 28
Harry S. Truman Apr 12, 1945 Jan 20, 1949 1919 26
Dwight D. Eisenhower Jan 20, 1953 Jan 21, 1957 1916 37
* Year of marriage, followed by years between marriage and first inaug.

The New York Times did not actually quote him -regarding 150 years - it's unclear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/us/politics/santorum-criticizes-education-system-and-obama.html?_r=1

Again, IMO - Santorum is his own worst enemy and basically unelectable.

BobG

Feb26-12, 03:08 PM

It seems to me pretty absurd to base moral positions on "scientific evidence." Morality is always based on a notion of the way things should be, not the way they are The fact that murder has existed for as long as humanity doesn't mean that murder isn't immoral. With the death penalty, it seems like its only morally consistent to say the state has the right to execute people or not. How much crime it statistically does or does not prevent doesn't have any bearing on the morality of the act.

This is true. But groups need to appeal to the undecided and/or neutral if they hope for their moral beliefs to become part of public policy. And, aside from the moral implications of the death penalty itself, one does have to address how many innocent deaths are acceptable in a policy of implementing the death penalty (and is that ratio the same as the number of acceptable convictions of innocent people in the legal system itself). Any absolute system based on morality alone would be virtually incapable of action if required to be error free.

Your point might be more valid on the issue of abortion/ceasing life support for vegetative patients, etc. By picking a moral value of "human life" instead of "human consciousness", one avoids the difficulties involved in defining the latter. It doesn't change the morality of the issue today, but the history of religious stances on abortion seems to suggest that churches shifted to a *moral value of "human life" simply because defining when "human consciousness" occurs is impossible for a church to officially decide. (*Technically, abortion has always been considered morally wrong by religions such as the Catholic church, but the severity of the wrong has varied a lot over time - from "wrong" but nowhere near the wrongness of murder to "wrong" as in equivalent to murder.)

But, even so, one would have to maintain a consistent moral stance (such as the Catholic church's opposition to abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty) or at least explain the differing stances - and the requirement to explain is almost always going to bring in other issues. Once you start slicing and dicing basic moral values and applying them to real life situations, the search for evidence to justify those dividing lines become almost inevitable.

Morality is always based on a notion of the way things should be, not the way they are .

This might be the one big problem I have with most religions. Is the way the world works the way God made them to work? And if it is, isn't that the way the world is supposed to work? And isn't finding a way to deal with the world as it actually does work an indication that it's the way one should act? (Except those questions might be more appropriate in the Philosophy forum.)

JDoolin

Feb26-12, 03:11 PM

BobG

Feb26-12, 03:24 PM

WhoWee

Feb26-12, 04:10 PM

I have no idea. It seems like a trend that is well-established and is bound to continue as long as it bears fruit. Does some segment of the voting public want candidates that are no more educated and skilled than themselves? I have a hard time understanding why, because I would love to have candidates that are so smart and skilled that I would love to have a chance to vote for them. A candidate that has a hard time elucidating policy issues or has to resort to jeans-and-flannel-shirt photo-ops with "oh-shucks" ads has no business running for high office.

The last time I looked, Santorum was sporting a sweater vest. Which candidate are you referring to now?

Galteeth

Feb26-12, 05:08 PM

This might be the one big problem I have with most religions. Is the way the world works the way God made them to work? And if it is, isn't that the way the world is supposed to work? And isn't finding a way to deal with the world as it actually does work an indication that it's the way one should act? (Except those questions might be more appropriate in the Philosophy forum.)

Well,that kind of reminds me of this novel I read where a character was contemplating the notion of destiny, and he was thinking if there was destiny, there was no point i doing anything since destiny would just make whatever happen anyway.

The fallacy there of course, is that by believing such, you are ensuring it is your destiny to do nothing.

This is is kind of how I see the issue of morality you addressed. Like, you could make an argument, well the murder of person X on the whole was a good thing, because person X would have gone on to father a dictator who killed millions.
Except in the real world, no one has access to this kind of information, and it's not even certain whether such information could actually exist. So you have to say, well, if murder is wrong, then the murder of person x was wrong, regardless of the ultimate consequences.

This is an interesting topic, but I agree it would be better to discuss on the philosophy forums.

To bring it back to politics, I do think it is difficult when most people don't think about the basis of their political opinions. There is often a hodge-podge of a priori moral positions and "practical" positions, without a consistent ontological basis that informs them.

SixNein

Feb26-12, 05:28 PM

It would be more accurate to say a segment of the conservative population have a high need for closure - specifically religious conservatives.

Isn't religion the glue of the conservative base?

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country,” said Santorum.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rick-santorum-jfks-1960-speech-made-me-want-to-throw-up/

mheslep

Feb26-12, 05:36 PM

Isn't religion the glue of the conservative base?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rick-santorum-jfks-1960-speech-made-me-want-to-throw-up/

Conservatism is glue of conservatives. The religious right (or left) is another matter.

lisab

Feb26-12, 06:10 PM

The last time I looked, Santorum was sporting a sweater vest. Which candidate are you referring to now?

I think a guy can sport a tuxedo, leather chaps, or a Stetson. But I don't think it's possible to sport a sweater vest.

JDoolin

Feb26-12, 07:49 PM

I think, what Republicans don't like is a top-down, bureaucratic, being-told-what-to-do by "experts." If I have a science teacher in high-school who wants to teach the possibility that the world was "created" rather than "evolved" (which I did, in high-school) it's not going to ruin me for life.

We still have some issues that are considered debatable by a large segment of the population, and I think there is some legitimate fear that "experts" might come along and take away the right of teachers to teach what they actually believe, and a legitimate fear that the schools are a place where teachers are required to teach things they don't believe.

This gives rise to what appears to be anti-intellectualism, but I think it is actually, more a reaction to being disrespected and marginalized.

I had a few teachers that had that same belief. At the time, that seemed like a perfectly rational sentiment (it was the way I was taught, after all). But how many other jobs where your employer owes you the right to do your job the way you want to do it, even if giving you that freedom eliminates any hope of standardization and compatibility between the products of different employees?

In other words, that's a stance for education(s) being many products created stand alone by independent craftsmen vs education being the product that rolls out at the end of an assembly line. But even if some freedom for free-lancing is given, the end product of each teacher still has to be compatible enough to fit in with the products students will pick up from other teachers.

Hmmmmm. :) I'm not sure how to parse that sentence I bold-faced. But my point is that Republicans tend to see the schools as a top-down bureaucratic structure which they have no input on. And these bureaucratic "experts" are deciding what your children will learn, whether you agree with them or not.

Meanwhile, Democrats feel exactly the same way. The only difference is that Democrats actually trust the top-down bureaucratic structure to make the right choices of how to educate their children. The Democrat thinks "okay, those people are experts. They've devoted their whole life to studying this. I should trust them on what they're experts in, and I'll worry about what I'm expert in."

The Republican thinks "What do I care what some money-grubbing Washington bureaucrat thinks about how to raise my kids?"

WhoWee

Feb26-12, 09:00 PM

I think a guy can sport a tuxedo, leather chaps, or a Stetson. But I don't think it's possible to sport a sweater vest.

Given the excitement surrounding his - I'd say he's sporting it.:wink:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/fashion/2012/02/santorum_s_sweater_vest_what_does_it_mean_that_the _gop_candidate_always_wears_one_.html

ThomasT

Feb26-12, 10:35 PM

Isn't religion the glue of the conservative base?It might not be the most important thing that all present day Republicans have in common, but, in my experience, it's a contender. When I was growing up, it was Democrats who seemed most theistically religious. Now it seems to be Republicans.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rick-santorum-jfks-1960-speech-made-me-want-to-throw-up/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/26/santorum-church-and-state_n_1302246.html

I think that Santorum's comments betray a misunderstanding of the meaning and intent of "separation of church and state". But then, what else is he going to say, what other position could he take, assuming that more or less fanatical Christian catholics and protestants are his fundamental base?

One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to be based on any sort of appeal to any theistic religious dogma or mythology. Of course that's historically not been the case. There are still many many laws based on Christian doctrine, and it's still the case that a professed non-Christian has little chance of being elected to public office.

ThomasT

Feb26-12, 10:45 PM

The problem with Santorum's advocacy of home and private schooling, in my current opinion, is that tens of millions of Americans have neither the time for home schooling nor the money for private schooling. Maybe it would be better if everyone could do home or private schooling, but I would submit that probably most people can't do that. So, if that assumption is correct, then Santorum would seem to be a bit out of touch with the general American condition.

BobG

Feb26-12, 11:01 PM

One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to be based on any sort of appeal to any theistic religious dogma or mythology. Of course that's historically not been the case. There are still many many laws based on Christian doctrine, and it's still the case that a professed non-Christian has little chance of being elected to public office.

One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to based on religious dogma, but, historically that hasn't been the case? Isn't that the same as saying the American form of government has historically been based on religious dogma, but you wish it wasn't?

In any event, the first sentence isn't really correct. Most states in the United States had a state religion. The problem is that they didn't all have the same state religion and a few state constitutions even mandated separation of church and state. When it came to creating a federal government for all 13 states, there was no possibility of having a national religion that all 13 could agree on, hence a seperation of church and state for the federal government - which isn't the same as saying the American form government was based on separation of church and state, since all 13 states were part of America whether you mean the country or the continent.

None the less, the problems the federal government had when it came to religion is even more relevant today. You couldn't come up with even one state so homogenous in its religious beliefs that a state could survive linking its state government to a church.

ThomasT

Feb26-12, 11:24 PM

One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to based on religious dogma, but, historically that hasn't been the case? Isn't that the same as saying the American form of government has historically been based on religious dogma, but you wish it wasn't?I think it says that politicians have a tendency to say one thing and do another. The fundamental law of the land, the constitution, specifies, wrt my understanding, pretty clearly that no theistic religious dogma should be the basis for the enactment of laws or the establishment of government agencies.

In any event, the first sentence isn't really correct. Most states in the United States had a state religion. The problem is that they didn't all have the same state religion and a few state constitutions even mandated separation of church and state. When it came to creating a federal government for all 13 states, there was no possibility of having a national religion that all 13 could agree on, hence a seperation of church and state for the federal government - which isn't the same as saying the American form government was based on separation of church and state, since all 13 states were part of America whether you mean the country or the continent. If no particular religion is to be favored, then doesn't that entail that no law can be based on any particular religion's doctrines? If so, then it seems that we have, historically, tended to break our own rules on a massive scale. No surprise there. But Santorum seems to be advocating a continuance of that sort of disregard for the fundamental law.

None the less, the problems the federal government had when it came to religion is even more relevant today. You couldn't come up with even one state so homogenous in its religious beliefs that a state could survive linking its state government to a church.Agreed. At least not overtly/obviously. But it seems to me that that's exactly what Santorum is advocating. Ie., the enactment of laws and establishment of government agencies based primarily on Christian doctrine.

Galteeth

Feb27-12, 01:19 AM

Hmmmmm. :) I'm not sure how to parse that sentence I bold-faced. But my point is that Republicans tend to see the schools as a top-down bureaucratic structure which they have no input on. And these bureaucratic "experts" are deciding what your children will learn, whether you agree with them or not.

Meanwhile, Democrats feel exactly the same way. The only difference is that Democrats actually trust the top-down bureaucratic structure to make the right choices of how to educate their children. The Democrat thinks "okay, those people are experts. They've devoted their whole life to studying this. I should trust them on what they're experts in, and I'll worry about what I'm expert in."

The Republican thinks "What do I care what some money-grubbing Washington bureaucrat thinks about how to raise my kids?"

I don't think this is a fair summation of the argument. While what you have said is part of the debate, another important aspect is the degree to which local control versus state or federal control produces the best outcomes. For example, with federally mandated tests determining funding, teachers "teach to the test" and in some cases (like at my old high school) teachers allow cheating to boost scores. A lot of the debate does have to do with the bureaucratic nature of these things, and the question as to whether one size fits all policies actually work.

CAC1001

Feb27-12, 01:20 AM

CAC1001

Feb27-12, 01:26 AM

Why do you think anti-intellectualism plays to the base of the republican party?

If by "anti-intellectualism" you mean suspicion of intellectuals, probably because intellectuals have a rather poor history regarding believing in things like Marxism, planned societies, that the U.S. is the source of all the world's major problems, etc...if you mean just a disdain for logic and reason on issues, well both bases of the parties are anti-intellectual in that sense, it's just that the anti-intellectualism kicks in on different issues.

I've often wondered if conservatives have a high need for closure. The world is very complicated, and it has a great deal of uncertainty. But the conservative message offers a very simplistic view of the world. So the message that it's all Satan's fault may provide closure to people afraid of the continuously changing world.

Partisans of both sides have overly-simplistic views of the world.

daveb

Feb27-12, 07:36 AM

I don't think the general public is so one dimensional in their thinking that only social issues or religious beliefs will determine the fate of the candidate - unless the other issues (economy, foreign affairs, pending legislation, recently enacted legislation, court appointments, budget/failure to budget, taxes, deicits) are not equally considered.

I know numerous people who will/will not vote for a candidate solely on the basis of his or her stance on the abortion issue (I know this because the've said this is the only reason for their support/opposition of that candidate).

daveb

Feb27-12, 07:38 AM

If we can advance this - I think Santorum was his own worst enemy (with his base including the TEA Party) when he called politics a team sport in the AZ debate.

You may be right about that (considering the number of "boos" I heard in the background), but I have to give him kudos for speaking the turth in that regard (because, sometimes, compromise is necessary, which was his point).

mheslep

Feb27-12, 09:17 AM

...
One of the basic tenets of the American form of government is that public policies are not supposed to be based on any sort of appeal to any theistic religious dogma or mythology. ...The term 'theistic' is your interpretation, and not used in the 1st amendment.

ThomasT

Feb27-12, 09:21 AM

The term 'theistic' is your interpretation, and not used in the 1st amendment.Yes, I think you're correct about that. But I do think that the intention was to establish a secular government.

Wrt Santorum, I think he would like to see, and would do whatever he could to establish, a Christian theocracy.

WhoWee

Feb27-12, 09:41 AM

Yes, I think you're correct about that. But I do think that the intention was to establish a secular government.

Wrt Santorum, I think he would like to see, and would do whatever he could to establish, a Christian theocracy.

Has he ever suggested anything of this type on the floor of the US Senate or introduced any such effort into a Bill?

ThomasT

Feb27-12, 10:19 AM

Has he ever suggested anything of this type on the floor of the US Senate or introduced any such effort into a Bill?I don't know. I'm just assuming that it's a future possibility (probability?) from his current rhetoric, and the apparent fact that he's a fanatical Christian.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong here. I have a couple, very close, fanatical Christian friends who I love and trust. But I wouldn't want them to be the chief executive.

WhoWee

Feb27-12, 10:33 AM

I don't know. I'm just assuming that it's a future possibility (probability?) from his current rhetoric, and the apparent fact that he's a fanatical Christian.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong here. I have a couple, very close, fanatical Christian friends who I love and trust. But I wouldn't want them to be the chief executive.

I had no idea the President has that type of power? Moving forward, we'd better consider the religious comments made by every candidate as well as members of their Administrations - shouldn't we? Is there anything else we should be concerned about specifically with Santorum - other than his religious beliefs?

ThomasT

Feb27-12, 10:41 AM

I had no idea the President has that type of power?Well, aren't we being sarcastic now. But of course you're correct. The president actually doesn't have that sort of direct power. But he does have a lot of influence. And for that reason I see a Santorum presidency as a negative thing.

Moving forward, we'd better consider the religious comments made by every candidate as well as members of their Administrations - shouldn't we? Is there anything else we should be concerned about specifically with Santorum - other than his religious beliefs?As far as I'm concerned Santorum's extreme religiosity is reason enough not to vote for him.

WhoWee

Feb27-12, 10:53 AM

Well, aren't we being sarcastic now. But of course you're correct. The president actually doesn't have that sort of direct power. But he does have a lot of influence. And for that reason I see a Santorum presidency as a negative thing.

As far as I'm concerned Santorum's extreme religiosity is reason enough not to vote for him.

Thus far, it sounds as the only reason anyone has to not vote for him are his stated religious beliefs? I think it's best to let him wear those beliefs on his sleeve - if he starts to head down that road - there's a quick pull handle to get him back on track (for opponents) isn't there? IMO - it would be much worse to find that he harbored strong religious/philosophical beliefs that we were unaware of - wouldn't it?

ThomasT

Feb27-12, 11:03 AM

Thus far, it sounds as the only reason anyone has to not vote for him are his stated religious beliefs?I don't know about anyone, but that's my main reason to not vote for him.

I think it's best to let him wear those beliefs on his sleeve ... Do we have a choice? I mean, isn't that part of his campaign strategy?

... - if he starts to head down that road - there's a quick pull handle to get him back on track (for opponents) isn't there?He's already "down that road" as far as I can tell. And the solution is to not vote for him.

IMO - it would be much worse to find that he harbored strong religious/philosophical beliefs that we were unaware of - wouldn't it?Like maybe he's in league with Satan? Yeah, that would be worse.

WhoWee

Feb27-12, 11:17 AM

ThomasT

Feb27-12, 11:21 AM

My point is that vetting is good - would you rather know his beliefs now or later? Rather than your Satan scenario - if Santorum ever tried to promote a religious agenda from the Oval Office - it would be very easy for opponents to counter.What's the point? That he's honest about being a fanatical Christian? Ok. That means I don't vote for him. But of course about half the country disagrees with me.

daveb

Feb27-12, 11:51 AM

Again, does anyone have any reason other than religious beliefs not to vote for Santorum?

Most of the economic policies he would promote and/or support.
Most of the social policies he would promote and/or support.
The potential judges for SCOTUS (and other courts) he would appoint (because despite all appearances, all of the judges are influenced by their political philosophies - I happen to prefer progressive policies rather than consevrative ones.)

How's that for reasons not to vote for hi.

One other - I'm registered Green Party, so can't vote in the primary anyway.

WhoWee

Feb27-12, 12:49 PM

Most of the economic policies he would promote and/or support.
Most of the social policies he would promote and/or support.
The potential judges for SCOTUS (and other courts) he would appoint (because despite all appearances, all of the judges are influenced by their political philosophies - I happen to prefer progressive policies rather than consevrative ones.)

How's that for reasons not to vote for hi.

One other - I'm registered Green Party, so can't vote in the primary anyway.

Which policies (other than religious speculation)?

Hobin

Feb27-12, 12:49 PM

Such as?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/santorum-says-he-would-bomb-irans-nuclear-plants/

http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-06-24-rick-santorum-glenn-beck-global-warming-skeptic-hoax/

You can also check his own site and his 'accomplishments', to get a general idea of the kinds of things he'd like to see.

There's plenty of stuff.

WhoWee

Feb27-12, 12:52 PM

I don't know. But the point is that he's a religious nutcase. So, there's no telling what he might do. I'm not willing to take the chance. Obama has performed according to the status quo, so at least I know what to expect from him. Santorum is a question mark. We know that he's a Christian zealot. Who knows what strange and damaging directives might emanate from a Santorum administration?

Nutcase and zealot (?) - again - has he ever promoted a religious ideology on the floor of the Senate - wouldn't someone fitting these extreme descriptions have some type of a legislative record?

Pythagorean

Feb27-12, 12:54 PM

here's one:

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, well, that’s OK, contraception is OK. It’s not OK. It’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage. They’re supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen.

More:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/03/396516/santorum-states-should-have-the-right-to-outlaw-birth-control/?mobile=nc

turbo

Feb27-12, 12:55 PM

Such as?The president has a lot of power over the administrative departments. Some of his statements make me fear for the integrity of Education, DHHS, and other favorite whipping-boys of the right. If he can find a way to gut or hobble the Education department, he may well do so. His pronouncements about contraception and abortion make women wary about what might happen to reproductive health issues if he is elected. My sisters and their daughters are not wealthy, and they have tried to limit the sizes of their families. Santorum is not too comforting to them in regard to these issues. My sisters are now past child-bearing age, but their daughters and daughters in-law are not, and when we talk on the phone, the issue of reproductive health under Santorum comes up regularly. IMO, if the GOP nominates Santorum, there will be an impressive flood of women voters to Obama. Quite the gift for a sitting president in a crappy economy with rising energy prices.

WhoWee

Feb27-12, 12:58 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/santorum-says-he-would-bomb-irans-nuclear-plants/

http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-06-24-rick-santorum-glenn-beck-global-warming-skeptic-hoax/

You can also check his own site and his 'accomplishments', to get a general idea of the kinds of things he'd like to see.

There's plenty of stuff.

Is grist.org an approved source on PF?

If you want to discuss his political views about Iran - that's a good start - IMO.

Your link specifies:

"Rick Santorum said today that he would be in favor of launching airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

“We will degrade those facilities through airstrikes, and make it very public that we are doing that,” Santorum said on “Meet the Press.”"

He clearly doesn't want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and would be willing to take action if necessary. Do you think he would be wrong to threaten to bomb the Iranian facilities if sanctions don't work - then follow through with the pledge if necessary? I think Iran would take Santorum seriously.

Pythagorean

Feb27-12, 12:59 PM

and this one is popular:

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

and of course, he's well know for his position against same-sex marriage.

The interesting question to me is: How can you not see Santorum's religious agenda.

WhoWee

Feb27-12, 01:00 PM

The president has a lot of power over the administrative departments. Some of his statements make me fear for the integrity of Education, DHHS, and other favorite whipping-boys of the right. If he can find a way to gut or hobble the Education department, he may well do so. His pronouncements about contraception and abortion make women wary about what might happen to reproductive health issues if he is elected. My sisters and their daughters are not wealthy, and they have tried to limit the sizes of their families. Santorum is not too comforting to them in regard to these issues. My sisters are now past child-bearing age, but their daughters and daughters in-law are not, and when we talk on the phone, the issue of reproductive health under Santorum comes up regularly. IMO, if the GOP nominates Santorum, there will be an impressive flood of women voters to Obama. Quite the gift for a sitting president in a crappy economy with rising energy prices.

The Obama comments don't belong in this thread. Aside from a fear that Santorum will make birth control unavailable for your family members - are there any other specific concerns?

WhoWee

Feb27-12, 01:01 PM

lisab

Feb27-12, 01:02 PM

The Obama comments don't belong in this thread. Aside from a fear that Santorum will make birth control unavailable for your family members - are there any other specific concerns?

You are sounding very troll-ish: "Apart from the fact that he's way off on the fringe, what's not to like about the guy?"

WhoWee

Feb27-12, 01:05 PM

here's one:

More:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/03/396516/santorum-states-should-have-the-right-to-outlaw-birth-control/?mobile=nc

Campaign talk is one thing - is there anything in his legislative record?

WhoWee

Feb27-12, 01:05 PM

You are sounding very troll-ish: "Apart from the fact that he's way off on the fringe, what's not to like about the guy?"

I am not permitted to discuss other candidates in this thread. I'm asking a very simple question - other than religion - what do you not like about Santorum - that's not a troll.

Number Nine

Feb27-12, 01:12 PM

I am not permitted to discuss other candidates in this thread. I'm asking a very simple question - other than religion - what do you not like about Santorum - that's not a troll.

No one here has argued against Santorum on the basis of his religion; they have argued that his religious convictions will lead him to make specific policy decisions that they disagree with. His open contempt towards gay people and his stated aim to put an end to gay marriage are one such example. Everyone has made their objections very clear.

On a somewhat related note: Given that Santorum's entire campaign has centred around his religiosity (and the non-religiosity of his opponents), I don't understand the problem with "opposing him on the basis of his religion". His religion is his entire identity.

WhoWee

Feb27-12, 01:17 PM

His religion is his entire identity.

Does everyone (except me) agree with this statement?

Evo

Feb27-12, 01:24 PM

I am not permitted to discuss other candidates in this thread. I'm asking a very simple question - other than religion - what do you not like about Santorum - that's not a troll.
I don't like his tax cuts for the rich and large businesses. I don't like his proposal to triple the IRS tax deduction per child. I don't like his proposal to take away standardized proper education and allow parents, not educators, to determine what is acceptable to be taught in schools.

I disagree with all of this.

Executive Orders, Rulemaking and other Executive Branch Actions

Repeal Clinton-era Title X family planning regulations, and will direct HHS to restore the separation of Title X family planning from abortion practices and restore a ban on referrals for abortion

Reinstitute the Mexico City Policy to stop tax-payer funding or promotion of abortion overseas

Ban federal funding for embryonic stem cell research

Restore conscience clause protections for health care workers
Defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court

Ban military chaplains from performing same sex marriage ceremonies on military bases or other Federal properties

Repeal Obamacare mandate for contraceptive services in healthcare plans
Re-direct funds within HHS so it can create a public/private partnership with state &local communities, not-for-profit organizations, and faith-based organizations for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood

Veto any bill or budget that funds abortion or funds any organization that performs abortions including Planned Parenthood

Congressional Directives

Call on Congress to abolish the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Advocate for a Personhood Amendment to the Constitution

Call on Congress to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Advocate for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution

Call on Congress to reinstitute Don't Ask/Don't Tell

Call on Congress to pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Call on Congress to reinstitute 2008-level funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education program

Advocate for a federal law permitting schools to allow prayer at graduations, football games and other school functions

Named by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential evangelical leaders
IMO, he's a dangerous man that wishes to reverse the freedoms and social advances this country has made in the last 100 years that go against his personal religious beliefs.

http://www.ricksantorum.com/faith-family-and-freedom-tour

Jimmy Snyder

Feb27-12, 01:30 PM

If you are pro-choice and vote against Santorum because he is pro-life, are you voting against him for religious reasons?

WhoWee

Feb27-12, 01:30 PM

I don't like his tax cuts for the rich and large businesses. I don't like his proposal to triple the IRS tax deduction per child. I don't like his proposal to take away standardized proper education and allow parents, not educators, to determine what is acceptable to be taught in schools.

I disagree with all of this.

IMO, he's a dangerous man that wishes to reverse the freedoms and social advances this country has made in the last 100 years that go against his personal religious beliefs.

http://www.ricksantorum.com/faith-family-and-freedom-tour

I think his pro-manufacturing plan is more political than realistic. IMO - it's intended to appeal to the heavy industry (and heavy union) Great Lakes states >PA, OH, MI, IL, NY,IN. I think it actually helped him initially in MI.

I haven't read through his new plan (apparently released today).

JDoolin

Feb27-12, 01:49 PM

I don't think this is a fair summation of the argument. While what you have said is part of the debate, another important aspect is the degree to which local control versus state or federal control produces the best outcomes. For example, with federally mandated tests determining funding, teachers "teach to the test" and in some cases (like at my old high school) teachers allow cheating to boost scores. A lot of the debate does have to do with the bureaucratic nature of these things, and the question as to whether one size fits all policies actually work.

That's very well said. But are any of the Republican candidates publicly making that argument? Probably, in local elections, but what about nationally?

Pythagorean

Feb27-12, 01:58 PM

his religious convictions will lead him to make specific policy decisions that they disagree with.

yep, this is what it comes down to. If you call that "because he's religious" then YES, that's the reason.

Char. Limit

Feb27-12, 02:01 PM

Again, does anyone have any reason other than religious beliefs not to vote for Santorum?

This is much like Jimmy's question above, but I do not support Santorum because he claims evolution to be "only a theory". People like that, I don't want in office. Is that non-religious, though?

WhoWee

Feb27-12, 02:07 PM

Hobin

Feb27-12, 03:15 PM

This is much like Jimmy's question above, but I do not support Santorum because he claims evolution to be "only a theory". People like that, I don't want in office. Is that non-religious, though?

I don't think it's religious. At least, I suspect you don't want him in office not because of his disbelief in evolution per se, but more because this shows a.) lack of rational thought, and b.) that he's most likely a fundamentalist.

That's reason enough not to want someone in office, methinks.

Pythagorean

Feb27-12, 03:20 PM

We can't truly say whether his irrational thought processes are due to religion; we just assume they are since:

1) they're congruent with fundamentalist Christian ideals
2) his campaign talk has a lot of Christian reference.
3) he has specifically stated that church and state shouldn't be completely separate

Galteeth

Feb27-12, 03:40 PM

I don't think it's religious. At least, I suspect you don't want him in office not because of his disbelief in evolution per se, but more because this shows a.) lack of rational thought, and b.) that he's most likely a fundamentalist.

That's reason enough not to want someone in office, methinks.

I'm not so sure a a lot of isn't posturing. Much has been made of the fact that earlier in his career, Santorum was considerably more moderate. It calls into question how much of his own rhetoric he actually believes.

Hobin

Feb27-12, 03:57 PM

I'm not so sure a a lot of isn't posturing. Much has been made of the fact that earlier in his career, Santorum was considerably more moderate. It calls into question how much of his own rhetoric he actually believes.

That's possible, of course. On the other hand, I doubt I'd vote for someone "just in case he doesn't believe his own rhetoric." :wink:

SixNein

Feb27-12, 09:37 PM

Pythagorean

Feb27-12, 09:55 PM

yeah, I will actually bother voting if Santorum wins the primaries.

turbo

Feb27-12, 10:04 PM

yeah, I will actually bother voting if Santorum wins the primaries.All the women in my extended family will join you Pyth. We are not normally a politically-united family, but this time there is unity.

jreelawg

Feb27-12, 11:51 PM

Santorum's recent comments about college.

Over the weekend, Santorum said “President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob. There are good decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor to try to indoctrinate them. Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college he wants to remake you in his image.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-pushes-back-on-santorum-snob-remark-and-his-incorrect-underlying-charge/

Santorum, Feb. 26: You know the statistic that at least I was familiar with from a few years ago — I don't know if it still holds true but I suspect it may even be worse - that 62% of kids who enter college with some sort of faith commitment leave without it.
...
Santorum made the claim more forcefully at a Jan. 25 appearance in Naples, Fla., where he said "you know 62% of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it." He also encouraged people to not give money to colleges.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-27/fact-check-santorum-college-faith/53274624/1?csp=34news

And he had some things to say about JFK also.

Rick Santorum: JFK’s 1960 Speech Made Me Want to Throw Up

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country,” said Santorum.

Santorum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf7R6KSgvhM

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rick-santorum-jfks-1960-speech-made-me-want-to-throw-up/

JFK's speech: www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAvHHTt2czU

I can see how he would find it offensive.

Fredrik

Feb28-12, 03:27 AM

Santorum's recent comments about college.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-pushes-back-on-santorum-snob-remark-and-his-incorrect-underlying-charge/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-27/fact-check-santorum-college-faith/53274624/1?csp=34news

And he had some things to say about JFK also.

Santorum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf7R6KSgvhM

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rick-santorum-jfks-1960-speech-made-me-want-to-throw-up/

JFK's speech: www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAvHHTt2czU

I can see how he would find it offensive.
Based on yesterday's The daily show, it seems that Santorum didn't understand what he read. He was upset about the suggestion that a person of faith has no place in the public square, that only people of non-faith can come in the public square and make their case. The speech didn't actually say anything like that, but Santorum is clearly one of those guys who couldn't care less about the facts.

The comment about Obama being a snob because he wants everyone to go to college turned out to be just as misguided. When Santorum clarified his position, he said essentially the same thing that Obama did.

Santorum is quite scary, but I think I still want him to win against Romney, because he should have no chance against Obama in the actual election.

Jimmy Snyder

Feb28-12, 07:24 AM

Apparently, the Santorum campaign has been robocalling Democrats in order to encourage them to vote for Santorum. According to them, they are trying to reach out to Reagan Democrats, but according to me, they're going to reach a lot more Obama Democrats, only too happy to oblige. I think it's called taking one from the team

MarcoD

Feb28-12, 11:41 AM

Odd thing. I don't feel comfortable commenting on US politics, I am a rabid atheist, I can't vote in the US, the guy has made some unfavorable remarks about my country, about every religious statement he makes goes against what I believe, but I find myself warming up on the guy...

What kind of odd psychological trick is that? Branding?

Hobin

Feb28-12, 11:49 AM

What kind of odd psychological trick is that? Branding?

The closest thing I can think of would be Stockholm Syndrome. :tongue:

MarcoD

Feb28-12, 11:54 AM

Evo

Feb28-12, 12:06 PM

No. I think it's, among other things, the comment he made about the Netherlands. According to him, we would euthanize 10% of the elderly and elderly would wear bracelets to prevent that from happening.

Now that clearly isn't true, right? But that doesn't matter. The thing is that in case it would be true, he would be at the right side of the fence. So you end up with the idea: 'This is really a decent chap.'But he's nuts if he thinks people are going to be euthanized against their will, IMO.

MarcoD

Feb28-12, 12:10 PM

But he's nuts if he thinks people are going to be euthanized against their will, IMO.

Well, I agree on that. But personally I've started to believe that nothing is beyond doctors; but that's also because of some personal experiences, and I am starting to become a grumpy old fart. I really think in some professions doctors need to rethink their premises. So, I kind of sympathize with him there.

(To the most of you: you should write down my comments as 'a case of bad luck.' It has nothing to do with religion.)

lisab

Feb28-12, 12:53 PM

Well, I agree on that. But personally I've started to believe that nothing is beyond doctors; but that's also because of some personal experiences, and I am starting to become a grumpy old fart. I really think in some professions doctors need to rethink their premises. So, I kind of sympathize with him there.

Actually I think you're right on target. I feel he's the most sincere of all the candidates, and for that I give him begrudged respect. Begrudged because I really, strongly don't agree with him.

Galteeth

Feb28-12, 01:12 PM

Actually I think you're right on target. I feel he's the most sincere of all the candidates, and for that I give him begrudged respect. Begrudged because I really, strongly don't agree with him.

I disagree.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/rick-santorum-abortion_n_1291634.html

JDoolin

Feb28-12, 01:40 PM

I disagree.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/rick-santorum-abortion_n_1291634.html

Actually, I think what I see there in that link is a fairly standard Republican stance. They don't believe abortion should be illegal but rather, they believe there should be no tax-payer money involved supporting any abortion, or any organization that performs abortions.

Fredrik

Feb28-12, 05:52 PM

No. I think it's, among other things, the comment he made about the Netherlands. According to him, we would euthanize 10% of the elderly and elderly would wear bracelets to prevent that from happening.

Now that clearly isn't true, right? But that doesn't matter. The thing is that in case it would be true, he would be at the right side of the fence. So you end up with the idea: 'This is really a decent chap.'
I'm surprised that this type of rhetoric would work on a person who's clearly smart enough to know that this guy is either delusional or lying. (In my opinion, it's 80% delusion and 20% lying).

MarcoD

Feb28-12, 06:17 PM

Wouldn't know. He may be a shrewd politician, or someone might have fed him some baloney story. I really don't know enough about him to form any opinion, except for that I am a rabid atheist, so go figure.

Galteeth

Feb28-12, 08:47 PM

Actually, I think what I see there in that link is a fairly standard Republican stance. They don't believe abortion should be illegal but rather, they believe there should be no tax-payer money involved supporting any abortion, or any organization that performs abortions.

The point is he's taken a much harder line since his first run for congress. The article was a response to his supposed sincerity. It is evidence suggestive that perhaps he is more of a standard politician, saying what he thinks will gain him traction, rather then necessarily being a "true believer." I'm not sure myself. Neither option is particularly palatable to me. But certainly in the last debate, he explained his willingness to vote for things he didn't believe in for political purposes (see his response to his vote on No Child Left Behind.)

ThomasT

Feb29-12, 03:39 AM

If you are pro-choice and vote against Santorum because he is pro-life, are you voting against him for religious reasons?I think this is a somewhat interesting, and somewhat deep, question. My affinity for, and adherence to, a secular and scientific approach can be called a religion. What's the essential difference between this approach and Santorum's theistic religiosity? It isn't just that Santorum chooses to believe in, and act in accordance with, Christian mythology and doctrine. Although that's an indicator of the deeper, the essential, problem, imho, with people like Santorum.

Jimmy Snyder

Feb29-12, 04:50 AM

My affinity for, and adherence to, a secular and scientific approach can be called a religion.
If everything is religion, then the only reason for being against Santorum is religion.

MarcoD

Feb29-12, 06:30 AM

My affinity for, and adherence to, a secular and scientific approach can be called a religion.

Your adherence maybe, but that doesn't make science a religion. Hey, I am skeptical in everything, blind faith in scientists is a bad thing, IMO. But to substitute that for the believe that some ghost is meddling in the affairs of carbon based collections of molecules, and actually has an opinion on how these collections should interact? Baloney.

ThomasT

Feb29-12, 07:50 AM

If everything is religion, then the only reason for being against Santorum is religion.There's the religious adherence to a method of empirical inquiry and evaluation ... eg., science and standard logic. And then there's the religious adherence to a dogma based on mythology ... eg., Christianity, Islam, etc. What's the difference? Is the difference a matter of religion, or something else?

I'm opposed to people like Santorum. But not because they're, in the general sense, religious. I'm a religious adherent to the scientific method of inquiry and standard logic. What's the difference between the religiosity of a person like me and a person like Santorum, and why does Santorum's form of religiosity make him a bad candidate for president?

ThomasT

Feb29-12, 07:58 AM

Your adherence maybe, but that doesn't make science a religion.Oh I think it's a religion. Just not a religion based on unfalsifiable metaphysical constructs and ancient dogma.

Hey, I am skeptical in everything, blind faith in scientists is a bad thing, IMO. But to substitute that for the believe that some ghost is meddling in the affairs of carbon based collections of molecules, and actually has an opinion on how these collections should interact? Baloney.Ok, I agee. But to make the point, I think that, just as there are good assumptions and bad assumptions, good arguments and bad arguments, there are good religions and bad religions. So, why is science and logic a better religion than, say, Christianity?

MarcoD

Feb29-12, 08:07 AM

So, why is science and logic a better religion than, say, Christianity?

Science is not religion. If it works well, it's a bunch of skeptics constructing a 'building' of verifiable truths. Now you can doubt whether it works well, and you can also doubt whether some scientists don't want to turn it into a religion, but it remains science.

Whatever, given the recent Islamist debates in my country I tried to understand religion, studied it, and now don't give a hoots about it anymore. As far as I am concerned, any religion interferes with personal freedoms. You can adopt Christianity for some gay bashing, or Islam for free virginity tests for young females, I don't care. They're all sex-crazy.

Hobin

Feb29-12, 08:15 AM

Oh I think it's a religion. Just not a religion based on unfalsifiable metaphysical constructs and ancient dogma.

Doesn't that almost by definition not make it a religion? :wink: Eh, the definition of religion is vague enough as it is - some would argue, for example, that Buddhism isn't a religion but a philosophy because they don't worship a god. In that sense, science wouldn't be a religion. On the other hand, if we consider everything that has X amount of believers a religion, then it would be.

I have to agree that science is ultimately based on a few assumptions: we *assume* that the principle of induction works (for example). The difference with religion is that these assumptions are made for pragmatic reasons - inductive reasoning has given us some pretty impressive results so far, so there is little reason to presume that it is incorrect . Religion has no such excuse.

I'm a devout believer of science. But I don't believe it just because someone has taught me to, or because, well, just because. I believe in science because it works.

Jimmy Snyder

Feb29-12, 08:15 AM

There's the religious adherence to a method of empirical inquiry and evaluation ... eg., science and standard logic. And then there's the religious adherence to a dogma based on mythology ... eg., Christianity, Islam, etc. What's the difference? Is the difference a matter of religion, or something else?

I'm opposed to people like Santorum. But not because they're, in the general sense, religious. I'm a religious adherent to the scientific method of inquiry and standard logic. What's the difference between the religiosity of a person like me and a person like Santorum, and why does Santorum's form of religiosity make him a bad candidate for president?
There's your answer WhoWee. Yes, I think, unless it's no.

ThomasT

Feb29-12, 08:18 AM

Science is not religion. If it works well, it's a bunch of skeptics constructing a 'building' of verifiable truths. Now you can doubt whether it works well, and you can also doubt whether some scientists don't want to turn it into a religion, but it remains science.Science is a method of inquiry. If I religiously adhere to that method of inquiry, then am I being religious wrt the scientific method ... is science then my religion?

Whatever, given the recent Islamist debates in my country I tried to understand religion, studied it, and now don't give a hoots about it anymore. As far as I am concerned, any religion interferes with personal freedoms. You can adopt Christianity for some gay bashing, or Islam for free virginity tests for young females, I don't care. They're all sex-crazy.:smile: Ok, take it easy. Personally, I would like to see the eradication of theistic religion. But I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen in my lifetime. So, I'm just trying to be really cool and logical about why I think Santorum is a bad candidate for public office.

Gokul43201

Feb29-12, 08:22 AM

So, why is science and logic a better religion than, say, Christianity?It's not a better religion, because it's not a religion. We have some amount of faith in science because it has time and time again delivered on it's promises. You can can fall ill today and go to a doctor for treatment, or you can pray for a recovery. You can throw your computer out the window and use science to figure out when it will crash to the ground, or you can ask for divine inspiration. When your faith in something is not quite blind, but based on a proven track record of reliable results, that takes it out of the realm of a religion. But if you placed equal faith in a scientist calculating the current flowing through a resistor, and one calculating the chance of rain a week hence, then you are probably being religious with your faith in science.

Also, if you want to continue on this topic, I suggest you frame an OP that satisfies the Philo guidelines and start a thread there.

To the mods: Maybe the last few posts (incl this one) should be deleted?

ThomasT

Feb29-12, 08:23 AM

There's your answer WhoWee. Yes, I think, unless it's no.You are deep and inscrutable. Therefore I might no longer reply to your posts, unless I do.

ThomasT

Feb29-12, 08:35 AM

It's not a better religion, because it's not a religion.Here's one accepted definition of the word, religion. The way I was using the term.
"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." (from the Free Dictionary -- you can Google it.)

The principle is the scientific method. And I pursue it with zeal and conscientious devotion. So, I am, by definition, a religious zealot.

What's the difference between somebody like me and somebody like Santorum (also, self professed, a religious zealot).

When your faith in something is not quite blind, but based on a proven track record of reliable results, that takes it out of the realm of a religion.Not according to a conventional (see above) connotation/definition of the term.

Wrt deleting posts, keep in mind that Santorum is theistically religious and that this orientation is one of his main appeals to a certain portion of the American electorate.

I'm making a point here, so please don't go about deleting posts until you fully understand what the point is ... which I'm not sure you do yet.

Hobin

Feb29-12, 08:46 AM

Not according to a conventional (see above) connotation/definition of the term.

I think the problem here is that the definition of religion isn't all that clear-cut. When I did a quick search for religion, what I found was

Google:
"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

Merriam-Webster:
"a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices"

Dictionary.reference.com:
re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

The Free Dictionary:
re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

According to some of these definitions, science is a religion. In other definitions, it isn't. Since the definition of religion is so vague, let's just say that the difference between you and Santorum is that Santorum has a set of unalsifiable beliefs that cause him to make ridiculous decisions, whereas you base your decisions on the pragmatic assumptions made in science.

MarcoD

Feb29-12, 08:50 AM

So, I'm just trying to be really cool and logical about why I think Santorum is a bad candidate for public office.

I don't have an opinion on Santorum, except for that he seems to base his decisions on a load of nonsense. Seriously, have you ever read a Christian or Islamic explanation why the world should be what it is on the basis of scripture? I don't want to have to do anything with them. Or to quote an american comedian: "It's all BS folks. And it's bad for ya."

Fredrik

Feb29-12, 09:02 AM

I don't think anyone would agree with definition 4 from the free dictionary. According to that definition, almost everything is a religion.

I strongly disagree with the idea that it makes any kind of sense to describe science, or rational thinking in general as a religon, or a faith. Religion requires faith. Faith is the ability to continue to believe in things that have pretty much been proven false. Science is as far from religion as one can possibly get.

Gokul43201

Feb29-12, 09:22 AM

ThomasT: I hope you never discover www.free-online-neurosurgery.com (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3790718&postcount=373)

Easy 5-Step Guide to Performing your own Craniotomy

You will need:
-sharp kitchen knife
-sewing kit
-dremel tool
... :wink:

Back to Santorum: it's entirely possible he will get as many delegates out of MI as Romney does, and as of yesterday, was looking poised to do pretty well on Super Tuesday. The nail in Gingrich's coffin will be if Santorum wins Georgia.

ThomasT

Feb29-12, 09:25 AM

I don't think anyone would agree with definition 4 from the free dictionary.Why would you think that? Anyway, it isn't a matter of whether one agrees with a published definition. It's published because it's part of the conventional vernacular. It might not be the most common connotation of the word. But it is a connotation of the word. And it's something that theistic religious fanatics, like certain Christians and Muslims, use every now and then to equate their religiosity to, say, a zealous and conscientious adherence to standard logic and the scientific method.

So, what I'm asking is, how is Santorum's self professed zealous and conscientious adherence to Christian mythology/doctrine different from your or my zealous and conscientious adherence to standard logic and the scientific method? Why is one better than the other?

According to that definition, almost everything is a religion.

I strongly disagree with the idea that it makes any kind of sense to describe science, or rational thinking in general as a religon, or a faith. Religion requires faith. Faith is the ability to continue to believe in things that have pretty much been proven false. Science is as far from religion as one can possibly get.These are the sorts of statements that will cause you to lose arguments with fanatical Christians. They will laugh at you.

ThomasT

Feb29-12, 09:29 AM

ThomasT: I hope you never discover www.free-online-neurosurgery.com (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3790718&postcount=373) :smile: Apparently you don't really hope that.

MarcoD

Feb29-12, 09:34 AM

But it is a connotation of the world. And it's something that theistic religious fanatics, like certain Christians and Muslims, use every now and then to equate their religiosity to, say, a zealous and conscientious adherence to standard logic and the scientific method.

If you're a scientist you approach everything, even your own beliefs and methods, with a healthy dose of skepticism in the pursuit of truths. So, zealot? Maybe. But it beats taking things on blind faith, IMO.

ThomasT

Feb29-12, 09:36 AM

According to some of these definitions, science is a religion. In other definitions, it isn't. Since the definition of religion is so vague, let's just say that the difference between you and Santorum is that Santorum has a set of unalsifiable beliefs that cause him to make ridiculous decisions, whereas you base your decisions on the pragmatic assumptions made in science.Ok, thanks, now we're getting somewhere. Which of Santorum's decisions/actions are ridiculous, and why?

MarcoD

Feb29-12, 09:39 AM

Ok, thanks, now we're getting somewhere. Which of Santorum's decisions/actions are ridiculous, and why?

Nah, that's BS too. The fact that he is religious doesn't imply that he would be taking ridiculous decision. Irrational maybe. Based on nonsense maybe. Or based on emotion maybe. But of course it is possible to do everything right on an irrational basis. It's just that I personally believe doing stuff right on a rational basis.

But I am going to butt out of this discussion. It's up to US voters, not me.

Well, unless I see something very interesting, of course. :biggrin:

Number Nine

Feb29-12, 10:05 AM

Ok, thanks, now we're getting somewhere. Which of Santorum's decisions/actions are ridiculous, and why?

His belief that 10% of all deaths in the Netherlands are due to involuntary euthanasia is one example. His belief that gays are responsible for the economic crisis is another (actually, everything he believes about gays qualifies).

Fredrik

Feb29-12, 10:06 AM

Why would you think that?

Because that definition is nothing at all like any of the others, and because it would mean that almost everything is a religion. To download pornography can be an "activity pursued with zeal". To run a campaign to bring back Firefly can be a "cause pursued with conscientious devotion". According to that definition, these things are both religions. That's why it's an absurd definition.

Anyway, it isn't a matter of whether one agrees with a published definition. It's published because it's part of the conventional vernacular.

I doubt that you know anything about why this was published. I don't think anyone considers that definition "conventional".

It might not be the most common connotation of the word. But it is a connotation of the world. And it's something that theistic religious fanatics, like certain Christians and Muslims, use every now and then to equate their religiosity to, say, a zealous and conscientious adherence to standard logic and the scientific method.

Yes, religious nuts sometimes claim that the word should mean something like this, just so that they can make the absurdly false claim that science is just another religion. This is very similar to how they also claim that the big bang theory says that "first there was nothing, and then it exploded". They do these things to make other people seem as irrational as they are. They use these tactics not to win arguments, but to allow themselves to stay ignorant.

It makes no sense for us to adopt their crazy definitions.

So, what I'm asking is, how is Santorum's self professed zealous and conscientious adherence to Christian mythology/doctrine different from your or my zealous and conscientious adherence to standard logic and the scientific method? Why is one better than the other?

Do you really need me to tell you why knowledge obtained using scientific methods is more reliable than stuff we can read in a 2000-year-old book written by people with zero understanding of anything?

These are the sorts of statements that will cause you to lose arguments with fanatical Christians. They will laugh at you.
Of course they would. That's how they deal with uncomfortable truths.

ThomasT

Feb29-12, 10:14 AM

If you're a scientist you approach everything, even your own beliefs and methods, with a healthy dose of skepticism in the pursuit of truths. So, zealot? Maybe. But it beats taking things on blind faith, IMO.Of course I agree with you. I'm zealous in my skepticism. I'm zealous in my requirement of physical evidence. I'm quite religious in my adherence to standard logic and the scientific method in my quest to improve my understanding of the world. I'm a fanatic. :smile:

Hobin

Feb29-12, 10:20 AM

Of course I agree with you. I'm zealous in my skepticism. I'm zealous in my requirement of physical evidence. I'm quite religious in my adherence to standard logic and the scientific method in my quest to improve my understanding of the world. I'm a fanatic. :smile:

In other words, not all forms of fanaticism were created equal.

ThomasT

Feb29-12, 10:21 AM

@ Fredrik,
I suppose I should discontinue my involvement in this discussion. But you have to admit that it did get a few interesting replies.

The point is that Santorum and his ardent supporters are (for the most part, I'm assuming) theistic religious zealots. So, I'm wondering how best to deal with this, eg., wrt ad hoc conversations with various people, some of whom might be theistic religious zealots as well as Santorum supporters.

ThomasT

Feb29-12, 10:23 AM

In other words, not all forms of fanaticism were created equal.:smile: According to what criteria?

Hobin

Feb29-12, 10:38 AM

:smile: According to what criteria?

Pragmatism. Scientific hypotheses are falsifiable, whereas religious beliefs are not. When hypotheses turn out to be correct or incorrect, we've learned something valuable. In practice, everyone knows that, but in a heated debate people tend to forget.

Pythagorean

Feb29-12, 11:36 AM

ThomasT

Feb29-12, 12:30 PM

There's a widely accepted definition of religion. The attempt to homogenize the definition is not very useful or genuine. The whole last page was basically a pointless semantic argument in an attempt to justify comparing religion to science.Apparently you haven't argued with many clever, cunning, shrewd fanatical Christians. And I might say that semantic arguments/considerations are, always, very important. Anyway, it wasn't a matter of homogenizing the definition of religion. The fact of the matter is that if you're a conscientiously zealous adherent to the principles of standard logic and the scientific method, then, by definition, you're a religious adherent wrt those principles. It's just a word, and that's one of its conventional connotations.

Galteeth

Feb29-12, 03:14 PM

Apparently you haven't argued with many clever, cunning, shrewd fanatical Christians. And I might say that semantic arguments/considerations are, always, very important.

It's impossible to debate with someone who doesn't have a problem with tautological reasoning. No Venn intersection of reality.

Gokul43201

Feb29-12, 03:34 PM

Thomas:

A useful trait for a definition to have is that besides describing the thing it intends to describe, it shouldn't also describe everything else under the sun.

'A person that takes lives by intentionally swinging an axe at them' describes an axe-murderer, but also describes a woodcutter, or a class of hunter. Your preferred definition of religion is even broader than that. It's like defining an axe-murderer as a person that swings an implement to a calculated end.

The only defense I have for that definition is that it is perhaps referring to a metaphorical - almost idiomatic - use of the word 'religion'.

As in: 'Hockey is a religion in Canada'.

But in your defense, if you can not see a difference between Santorum's faith in the preachings of the Catholic Church, and your own faith in the scientific method, then perhaps you do treat science as a religion, and maybe you are indeed a religious fanatic, as you suspect.

Office_Shredder

Feb29-12, 03:49 PM

Apparently you haven't argued with many clever, cunning, shrewd fanatical Christians.

These are the sorts of statements that will cause you to lose arguments with fanatical Christians. They will laugh at you.

This is a bit ridiculous. Thomas won't even cop to his own argument, instead demanding you satisfy his proxy Christian evangelist.

SHISHKABOB

Feb29-12, 04:01 PM

doing something religousLY does not make doing that something into a religion

Number Nine

Feb29-12, 04:28 PM

doing something religousLY does not make doing that something into a religion

This is actually an extremely important point. Religious devotion has led to the idiom of sorts that a person who pursues something zealously is pursuing it "religiously", but this doesn't mean that the term "religion" actually applies to that pursuit.

jreelawg

Feb29-12, 04:47 PM

I don't think it is necessary to equate Santorums views with religion, although his religious beliefs certainly contribute to them.

For example, Santorum thinks that colleges are controlled by Satan. Where in the bible is it written that colleges are or would be controlled by Satan? This is his theory, which he puts into the context of his religious perspective, but is his own idea, not an idea which is represented by his religion.

Now there are plenty of people of the same religion, with very different views.

When he says though, that he thinks colleges are controlled by Satan, I take it that he hates colleges the same way that many U.S. churches used to say god hates black people.

I think some disturbed people incorporate there own views, dislikes, hatred, or whatever, into their religion. Then you end up with this addition to a religion being passed down as children learn from their parents etc.

The next thing you know, the religious tone has evolved in meaning according to some lunatics popularized hatred.

So when I look at Santorum, I don't really see him in terms of his religion so much as his character. I think he's just an angry little man.

Hobin

Feb29-12, 05:10 PM

So when I look at Santorum, I don't really see him in terms of his religion so much as his character. I think he's just an angry little man.

He's a little too popular for someone's who's just an angry little man, methinks.

lisab

Feb29-12, 05:21 PM

He's a little too popular for someone's who's just an angry little man, methinks.

Maybe "angry little man" is the Zeitgeist for the great recession.

Pythagorean

Feb29-12, 05:43 PM

This is a bit ridiculous. Thomas won't even cop to his own argument, instead demanding you satisfy his proxy Christian evangelist.

thus my lack of reply :)

Office_Shredder

Mar5-12, 06:15 PM

mheslep

Mar5-12, 06:46 PM

http://m.cbsnews.com/blogsfullstory.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=57390626&videofeed=36

No country that had ever form socialized medicine has stopped using it, and santorum states that this is a negative feature

I admit that it is difficult to give up, but I'm not sure about the no country claim. I thought the Dutch gave it up? Others have backed away at least a degree or two. The Canadians for instance used to outlaw private clinics in some provinces, but that law was since ruled illegal.

edit: yes

Until 2006, two thirds of the population was insured by public health insurance funds managed by nonprofit associations, with enrollees making an income-dependent contribution. People with incomes above a predefined threshold were privately insured and paid a full premium.
Although the Dutch system provided high-quality care at relatively low cost,1 many believed that the insurance system offered too little choice, spread the financial burden unevenly, and did little to control increasing health care expenditures. To address these problems, a new statutory health insurance system was introduced in January 2006. Under this system, the public health insurers have been privatized or have merged with private health insurers,...
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0707383

Anybody know of other cases?

MarcoD

Mar5-12, 07:00 PM

I thought the Dutch gave it up?

No, we definitely didn't. Some things changed/were liberalized, people were hoping that market effects would lower some of the involved costs. I don't think it did, but like I said, we have such an baroque system that only experts understand how it works.

mheslep

Mar5-12, 07:02 PM

No, we definitely didn't. Some things changed/were liberalized, people were hoping that market effects would lower some of the involved costs. I don't think it did, but like I said, we have such an baroque system that only experts understand how it works.Can you square that with the New England Journal of Medicine reference? Sounds like you may be referring to the stipend given to the poor

People with low incomes receive a subsidy for the basic insurance, and there is an option to purchase an additional package to cover nonvital extras.

But that's nothing close to the system in place before 2006 which was .... public healthcare

MarcoD

Mar5-12, 07:33 PM

No, I am referring to the whole system where the government is very active in what healthcare should be provided/be mandatory, how the insurers buy medical care, what guidelines there are for all actors, etc. It surely isn't a free market mechanism, and it's only understood by the actors.

Personally, I think it's just all overhead on a process where you don't want any market mechanism; i.e., neoliberal nonsense. I have the feeling that the whole system works at the moment despite the nonsense because most people in the field try their best to make it work no matter what. But that's just my unfounded opinion, and I guess it's a discussion I shouldn't even be involved in.

Anyway, cost are exploding. That's all I know.

ThomasT

Mar5-12, 07:38 PM

Maybe "angry little man" is the Zeitgeist for the great recession.It would seem to be for, say, the OWS people.

ThomasT

Mar5-12, 07:47 PM

This is actually an extremely important point. Religious devotion has led to the idiom of sorts that a person who pursues something zealously is pursuing it "religiously", but this doesn't mean that the term "religion" actually applies to that pursuit.Ok, so I guess we're all agreed that, wrt this thread, the term religion refers to the big three theistic religions, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? And of course I realize that that's generally how the term is used in ordinary language. But, like I said, it does have other meanings which have been used in arguments by religious (in the ordinary sense) zealots.

Anyway, in the agreed, and ordinary, sense, Santorum is, to me, an unnacceptably religious person. And for that reason, I will not vote for him.

ThomasT

Mar5-12, 07:53 PM

He's a little too popular for someone's who's just an angry little man, methinks.I agree with you in the sense that as far as I'm concerned he's too popular. But I don't see him as an angry little man. After all, he's rich, he's running for president, he's got a nice family. What's he got to be angry about? He'd probably make a great neighbor. I just don't want him to be president -- mostly because of the fact that he seems to be a bit too theistically religious for my ... sensibilities.

mheslep

Mar5-12, 08:03 PM

No, I am referring to the whole system where the government is very active in what healthcare should be provided/be mandatory, how the insurers buy medical care, what guidelines there are for all actors, etc. It surely isn't a free market mechanism, and it's only understood by the actors.
Ok, the Dutch have regulated healthcare by private insurers in a market. They use to have public insurance for 2/3 of the country, i.e. socialized healthcare, now they don't. I think that's a counter-example to Santorum's claim.

Gokul43201

Mar5-12, 10:50 PM

I think that's a counter-example to Santorum's claim.And there's plenty of counter examples to his second statement as well, that no country that's lost its freedom has ever regained it. Why would he even want to say something like that? It's all over folks - we've socialized medicine and lost our freedom, and there's no turning back. Might as well retire to your bunkers and wait for the apocalypse.

lisab

Mar5-12, 10:53 PM

And there's plenty of counter examples to his second statement as well, that no country that's lost its freedom has ever regained it. Why would he even want to say something like that? It's all over folks - we've socialized medicine and lost our freedom, and there's no turning back. Might as well retire to your bunkers and wait for the apocalypse.

:rofl: The ratcheting down of freedom.

That made me laugh :wink:.

SHISHKABOB

Mar6-12, 07:46 AM

I agree with you in the sense that as far as I'm concerned he's too popular. But I don't see him as an angry little man. After all, he's rich, he's running for president, he's got a nice family. What's he got to be angry about? He'd probably make a great neighbor. I just don't want him to be president -- mostly because of the fact that he seems to be a bit too theistically religious for my ... sensibilities.

he'd make a great neighbor

as long as you don't forget your front yard nativity scene dun dun dun

ThomasT

Mar6-12, 08:51 AM

he'd make a great neighbor

as long as you don't forget your front yard nativity scene dun dun dunI knew that was going to get some sort of sarcastic reply. Ok, it's funny. But seriously, I've known lots, and I mean lots, of pretty devout Catholic Christians. And, afaik, they're good people. Ok, not counting the priests. But really, the devout Catholics who haven't been proven weird seem ok.

SHISHKABOB

Mar6-12, 11:56 AM

I knew that was going to get some sort of sarcastic reply. Ok, it's funny. But seriously, I've known lots, and I mean lots, of pretty devout Catholic Christians. And, afaik, they're good people. Ok, not counting the priests. But really, the devout Catholics who haven't been proven weird seem ok.

yeah I agree, I've also known lots of great Christians. But I've also known lots of great people who were not Christian.

personally I think a good person will be a good person regardless of their faith, and vice versa. Therefore I think that Santorum is really just using his faith to win votes, which is gross IMO.

mheslep

Mar6-12, 02:14 PM

...Why would he even want to say something like that?
It's clear that socialized medicine is not an easy thing to reverse, even if it has happened in small countries.

It's all over folks - we've socialized medicine and lost our freedom, and there's no turning back. Might as well retire to your bunkers and wait for the apocalypse.Yes, he's c..r..a..z..y. C'mon.

Does this Jefferson sound apocalytic?

The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny

Gokul43201

Mar6-12, 07:24 PM

It's clear that socialized medicine is not an easy thing to reverse, even if it has happened in small countries.I think you misunderstood what I was referring to. I'm more amazed about the statement that no country that has lost its freedom has ever regained it. If you look at my post again, you'll see that it was this particular statement that I was questioning the judgment behind making.

Yes, he's c..r..a..z..y. C'mon. From a political point of view, yes, I think so. How is a message that it's too late to return to the glory days supposed to get the electorate to the polling station?

I suppose the argument might be that we're not quite past the point of no return just yet, but with 4 more years of Obama (or Romney?), we definitely will be? That logic is a little difficult to square with the view that things went to hell in a handbasket the moment O was sworn in.

Does this Jefferson sound apocalytic?

The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyrannyDoes either of that sound remotely close to: No country that has lost its freedom has ever regained it?

Jefferson is making careful observations on the nature of government, not throwing out off-hand statements that are blatantly erroneous.

Astronuc

Mar10-12, 02:50 PM

Looks like Santorum won the caucuses in Kansas.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/caucuses-kansas-wyoming-gop-hopefuls-15893854

Evo

Mar10-12, 03:01 PM

Looks like Santorum won the caucuses in Kansas.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/caucuses-kansas-wyoming-gop-hopefuls-15893854Kansas is known for it's religious leanings in education and politics, IMO, causing some rather embarrassing decisions.

AlephZero

Mar10-12, 03:12 PM

he'd make a great neighbor

For amusement only: Four quotes allegedly by Santorum, and four allegedly by Supreme Leader Khamenei. Who said what? http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/29/grand_ayatollah_or_grand_old_party?page=0,0

(I say "allegedly", because I haven't attempted to verify the sources).

ThomasT

Mar11-12, 03:30 AM

yeah I agree, I've also known lots of great Christians. But I've also known lots of great people who were not Christian.Me too.

Personally I think a good person will be a good person regardless of their faith, and vice versa.Me too.

Therefore I think that Santorum is really just using his faith to win votes, which is gross IMO.I don't see anything particularly reprehensible about that. He's, apparently, a very religiously Christian guy and there are lots of very religiously Christian people in the US. Why would he not attempt to appeal to that constituency?

I won't vote for him, but pushing his religious orientation is part of the game as currently circumscribed. It's up to people who don't agree with that sort of thing to vote for a different candidate. Which I certainly will.

mathwonk

Mar12-12, 11:03 PM

aleph, i only got two of those right. i am one of those people who isn't sure whether santorum's nomination would help republicans or democrats more. but if it helps republicans i'm pretty nervous, because he seems not to appreciate separation of church and state, (or was that khameini?)

Angry Citizen

Mar13-12, 01:44 AM

i am one of those people who isn't sure whether santorum's nomination would help republicans or democrats more.

I've been predicting a splinter in the Republican Party since a little after Obama was elected. The seems to be three factions in the Republican Party, all vying for control. One is, of course, the traditional Republican establishment responsible for Bush the Elder and Reagan and the '94 Republican takeover, which makes up perhaps half of the current constituency. Another is the libertarian wing, which I feel makes up about 10% (about the share Ron Paul is getting on average). And lastly is the Christian Conservative side, responsible for Bush the Younger. These make up the rest.

What fascinates me most about this is just how unstable the relationship is. Libertarians and Christian conservatives are practically antithetical to one another in every respect except their particular brand of laissez-faire economics. "Secular" Republicans see Christian conservatives as a threat that must be beaten down, else their party will find itself on the losing end of a youth generation that is overwhelmingly liberal on social issues. If the libertarian wing starts to defect, then the tenuous balance of power between Democrats and Republicans will break leftward. If the secular Republicans can't defeat the Christian conservatives, then the Republicans will find themselves marginalized. It is of the utmost importance for Republicans that they find a way to purge the influence of Christian conservatives while maintaining them as a loyal voting bloc. I don't think it needs to be said just how unlikely this scenario will be.

This is what I see happening. This 'war' between Christian conservatives, secular Republicans and libertarians will play out all the way to the convention. Santorum will lose, but it will be much closer than Romney will feel comfortable with. Romney is not going to be accepted by all of the Christian conservative movement, but he will be accepted by most. The Republicans are going to lose this election unless the economy turns into a train wreck and/or Europe succumbs to its imminent recession too soon. Obama has placed them in a checkmate no matter who wins the primary. Blame will be placed on the Christian conservatives, and they will no longer enjoy the status as the favored wing of the Republicans. This will translate into more traditional Republicanism, but I think it'll take another sound thrashing after 2012 (perhaps the 2014 midterms) before they wake up and smell the fact that Keynesianism - and dare I say it socialism - is back in vogue.

Evo

Mar15-12, 06:48 PM

Seriously? And what is his definition of pornography, scantily clad women? Playboy magazine? How many billions of dollars will he spend to keep Americans from looking at risque pictures in the privacy of their homes? No more nudity in films? Book burnings? Label all above IMO in case it's not clear that I am asking.

Rick Santorum wants to ban pornography

Rick Santorum wants to put an end to the distribution of pornography in the United States.

"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," Santorum's official website reads. "Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."

The former Pennsylvania senator states that, "as a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."

Santorum criticized the Obama administration for turning "a blind eye ... to the scourge of pornography" and for refusing to enforce obscenity laws.

"If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so," Santorum writes. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration."

Continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-wants-ban-hardcore-pornography-222833811.html

Hobin

Mar15-12, 07:08 PM

I'm not from the USA, but surely there aren't that many people who agree with Santorum on this one? Or am I underestimating the anti-pornography movement in America?

Jimmy Snyder

Mar15-12, 07:12 PM

That should lock up the hypocrite vote pretty tight.

mheslep

Mar15-12, 08:01 PM

Seriously? And what is his definition of pornography, scantily clad women? ...He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

lisab

Mar15-12, 08:02 PM

I'm not from the USA, but surely there aren't that many people who agree with Santorum on this one? Or am I underestimating the anti-pornography movement in America?

I'm sure there are lots who would agree with him, while they're in church. But in the privacy of their own homes...:wink:

Evo

Mar15-12, 08:04 PM

He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.

Char. Limit

Mar15-12, 08:24 PM

He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition. And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.

mheslep

Mar15-12, 08:54 PM

Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition.Graphic depiction of sex. There are, BTW, obscenity guidelines on PF. Do you have any problem with understanding those: "depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic..."?

And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.Why? Did you read my prior post?

lisab

Mar15-12, 08:57 PM

There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.

But just think how many jobs will be created by trying to enforce a law against hardcore porn! We'd create a Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices*, which would soon be bigger than the TSA, commensurate with the "problem" it's trying to solve.

* if "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices" doesn't ring a bell - google it.

lisab

Mar15-12, 08:59 PM

Graphic depiction of sex.

That's in most R rated movies -- I don't think it's hardcore.

mheslep

Mar15-12, 09:02 PM

That's in most R rated movies -- I don't think it's hardcore.Eh, not graphic. R doesn't show genitals doing their thing.

Evo

Mar15-12, 09:04 PM

Graphic depiction of sex. There are, BTW, obscenity guidelines on PF. Do you have any problem with understanding those: "depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic..."?Santorum is talking about at the federal level. Where you not referring to a federal definition? If not, I don't see the point of your post. Forum rules are a far cry from what Santorum is claiming, no?

Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition. And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.You still haven't answered Char's request.

mheslep

Mar15-12, 09:11 PM

Santorum is talking about at the federal level. Where you not referring to a federal definition? If not, I don't see the point of your post. Forum rules are a far cry from what Santorum is claiming, no?The reference to the PF case was to make the point that decency rules have been set down here without a great deal of confusion about what those terms mean, and PF rules are clearly far more restrictive than banning hardcore porn.

Char. Limit

Mar15-12, 09:12 PM

The reference to the PF case was to make the point that decency rules have been set down here without a great deal of confusion about what those terms mean, and PF rules are clearly far more restrictive than banning hardcore porn.

There's a nice difference between forum rules and federal law - namely, that good federal law HAS to be exact. Vague federal laws aren't good federal laws. You can't say the same about forum rules.

mheslep

Mar15-12, 09:14 PM

You still haven't answered Char's request.From before...
... He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

micromass

Mar15-12, 09:15 PM

Graphic depiction of sex. There are, BTW, obscenity guidelines on PF. Do you have any problem with understanding those: "depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic..."?

As much as I value the PF rules, they do not make a legal document. Hence, they don't really need exact definitions.

Since you are talking about an actual law, then you DO need an exact definition. Can you give us the exact definition??

Evo

Mar15-12, 09:16 PM

The reference to the PF case was to make the point that decency rules have been set down here without a great deal of confusion about what those terms mean, and PF rules are clearly far more restrictive than banning hardcore porn.Still waiting for the federal law Santorum is refering to that makes "hardcore porn" illegal.

He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true. From the links I posted, apparently it is not true. There are vague guidelines for obscenity that is determined at the local/state level. I can't find anything more specific. Maybe Santorum doesn't know the law? You'd think he might have wanted to check that before he made claims.

Seems like he's handed the nomination over to Romney, IMO. Unless more of Santorum's followers would back Newt, I guess that's possible. What a mess if it comes to that, IMO.

mheslep

Mar15-12, 09:17 PM

There's a nice difference between forum rules and federal law - namely, that good federal law HAS to be exact. Vague federal laws aren't good federal laws. Agreed, if you substitute 'clear', or widely and easily understood, instead of exact. I don't think the laws should be on the books, especially these laws, if they are not.

...You can't say the same about forum rules.I'd say that about any set of rules.

micromass

Mar15-12, 09:19 PM

Agreed, if you substitute 'clear', or widely and easily understood, instead of exact. I don't think the laws should be on the books, especially these laws, if they are not.

No. Laws absolutely need to be exact. Since if they're not exact, then they're vague and up to interpretation. We don't want this.

SixNein

Mar15-12, 09:48 PM

There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.

Hardcore porn would be covered under obscenity laws. And obscenity laws depend on the local community. For internet web sites, it would be a disaster.

micromass

Mar15-12, 09:49 PM

Hardcore porn would be covered under obscenity laws. And obscenity laws depend on the local community. For internet web sites, it would be a disaster.

Please state the specific law.

SixNein

Mar15-12, 09:52 PM

micromass

Mar15-12, 09:53 PM

And obscenity laws depend on the local community.

So you mean that federal government can't do anything about it. So Santorum can't do anything about porn when he gets elected?
So Santorum is lying?? Is that what you say?

SixNein

Mar15-12, 09:53 PM

Please state the specific law.

I did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity#United_States_obscenity_law

SixNein

Mar15-12, 09:54 PM

So you mean that federal government can't do anything about it. So Santorum can't do anything about porn when he gets elected?
So Santorum is lying?? Is that what you say?

He could appoint someone who can enforce it. In other words, bring a lot of cases against internet web sites... in hopefully, very conservative and highly religious communities.

SixNein

Mar15-12, 10:01 PM

I'm surprised people are surprised. The bush admin made a law (2257 law) where all photographers of sexually explicit material must provide ID's of the models to all buyers of the content. In other words, webmasters buy it, and they get photo ID's too. Imo, it creates a security hazard for the women because anyone pretending to be a webmaster could buy those photos and get the ID's online.

I'm surprised women in America even do it now for fear of being stalked or having their identities stolen. They take a huge risk... but they are mostly young.

Evo

Mar15-12, 10:01 PM

Hardcore porn would be covered under obscenity laws. And obscenity laws depend on the local community. For internet web sites, it would be a disaster.The point is that the words "hardcore porn" aren't used in any laws and has no legal meaning. Attempts to federally enforce prosecution of what someone thinks is "obscene" get's thrown out due to not being specific. Santorum said he will appoint an Attorney General just to enforce a vague law on a federal level according to his interpretation? (my opinion of what he's claiming)

(bolding mine)

SixNein

Mar15-12, 10:09 PM

The point is that the words "hardcore porn" aren't used in any laws and has no legal meaning. Attempts to federally enforce prosecution of what someone thinks is "obscene" get's thrown out due to not being specific. Santorum said he will appoint an Attorney General just to enforce a vague law on a federal level according to his interpretation? (my opinion of what he's claiming)

(bolding mine)

Well yes and no. Hardcore porn generally involves penetration of some kind; as a result, it is a candidate for obscenity. Just ask Larry Flynt. He almost got 25 years for his mag. In fact, he was sentenced to twenty five years, but got off due to a technicality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt#Legal_battles

The chilling effect alone would kill half the sites. Who would risk prison for a few extra bucks a month?

Evo

Mar15-12, 10:13 PM

Santorum is unbelievable, he really seems to have little knowledge of the law or the constitution, IMO.

Santorum Backtracks on Language Stance in Puerto Rico

Rick Santorum tried to mitigate any damage his earlier remarks — in which he said English should be the island's official language — might have done to his campaign

"As in any other state, you have to comply with this and any federal law. And that is that English has to be the main language," he had said to the paper earlier, referring to the commonwealth's upcoming referendum on whether to become a U.S. state. Those comments ignited a firestorm of criticism, with many pointing out that requiring English to be the main language would violate the U.S. Constitution, which does not designate an official national language. OOOPS. Doesn't this poor man have a paid staff to check these things, or does he just make things up as he goes?

SixNein

Mar15-12, 10:22 PM

Santorum is unbelievable, he really seems to have little knowledge of the law or the constitution, IMO.

OOOPS. Doesn't this poor man have a paid staff to check these things, or does he just make things up as he goes?

I'm more afraid of his base. Social conservatives seem to desperately want a theocracy. They want to see a Christan Government ruled with a divine pretense. Keep in mind, they elected him into office. Mr. Santorum has served for 12 years as Senator. So he has been a part of our government for more than a decade.

People pay a lot of attention to the President, but they don't care about congress. So they elect people like Santorum and Bachmann and wonder why the government is broken.

all of this is IMO

Galteeth

Mar18-12, 09:22 PM

The practical effect of a crackdown on pornography would be the loss of jobs, since Santorum can't crack down on foreign-produced pornography.

ThomasT

Mar19-12, 12:07 AM

lisab

Mar29-12, 07:35 PM

Be very afraid!

DApjHZq9o7M

Honestly, it's so bad, and so desperate, it's funny...in a ridiculous way, at least.

edward

Mar29-12, 09:47 PM

Be very afraid!

DApjHZq9o7M

Honestly, it's so bad, and so desperate, it's funny...in a ridiculous way, at least.

The most scary thing about the fear factor is that it often works. This video is so far over the edge that only my nutty sister -in- law will believe it.

skeptic2

Mar29-12, 09:56 PM

The irony is that Santorum criticizes both high gas prices and a nuclear Iran, ignoring the fact that the former is a result of trying to prevent the latter.

mheslep

Mar29-12, 10:22 PM

The most scary thing about the fear factor is that it often works. ...

Yep. Here's the king of all scary adds for perspective. It was broadcast only once during the Goldwater-Johnson election, and that was enough.
dDTBnsqxZ3k

skippy1729

Mar29-12, 10:23 PM

Reading through the last few pages in this thread it seems that Santorum is continuing his campaign of expressing, imho, inane opinions on unimportant issues in order to, apparently, appeal to a certain perceived base constituency.

Will the net effect of this keep him from becoming the next US president? Well, I hope so.

It is puzzling. If there are any "values voters" or "religious right" voters who don't already know where Rick stands on these issues they must be living under a rock. Yet he continues with statements that alienate many other Republicans and independents. Almost all Republicans would vote for him anyway but independents are the key.

SHISHKABOB

Mar30-12, 12:18 AM

was that done by the daily show or the colber report

I was honestly expecting to hear an audience laughing at the end but... I didn't ;_;

BobG

Mar30-12, 05:50 AM

Be very afraid!

DApjHZq9o7M

Honestly, it's so bad, and so desperate, it's funny...in a ridiculous way, at least.

I like it. The Obamaville part at the end gives it a bit of a Twilight Zone feel.

I have to admit including a nuclear explosion (as the Daisy ad did) would make it better. Nuclear explosions always work in political ads. (In fact, even warning that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" even works in the 21st century.)

y4tKOWdux9I

SHISHKABOB

Mar30-12, 08:36 PM

Angry Citizen

Mar30-12, 10:25 PM

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/video-did-rick-santorum-almost-call-pres-obama-n-word

I've tried my hardest, but I'm having a tough time thinking of some word that goes "nig-" that would fit after "anti-war"

anyways, what's wrong with being anti-war in the first place? Why is that something to frowned upon.

It's very clearly that word. He even starts stuttering afterwards, knowing he just sunk his candidacy.

Now we just have to start wondering who Romney will trot out for a VP, and if it'll be as vapid and depressing as the last one the Republican nominee picked. For Santorum, Bill Paxton said it best: Game over, man. Game over.

Char. Limit

Mar30-12, 10:53 PM

Well, that's Santorum done. His advisers can't even deny it.

jreelawg

Mar30-12, 11:03 PM

Wow.

Santorum-"...We all know what Obama was like. The anti-war, government nig uh the fuh the uh..."

That's worse than his no welfare for blah people speech.

ThomasT

Mar31-12, 01:54 AM

It is puzzling. If there are any "values voters" or "religious right" voters who don't already know where Rick stands on these issues they must be living under a rock. Yet he continues with statements that alienate many other Republicans and independents. Almost all Republicans would vote for him anyway but independents are the key.Yes, that seems to be the case. It seems, and one can hope, that he's talked himself into nonelectable ... ness.

ThomasT

Mar31-12, 02:02 AM

Be very afraid!

DApjHZq9o7M

Honestly, it's so bad, and so desperate, it's funny...in a ridiculous way, at least.Yeah, it's hard for me to comprehend that tens of millions of Americans will buy into this stuff. But, apparently, that's the case.

Gokul43201

Mar31-12, 07:04 AM

Nuclear explosions always work in political ads.They didn't help Humphrey win. But it's obvious why Humphrey lost; his campaign slogan is ungrammatical.

Jack21222

Mar31-12, 03:02 PM

Well, that's Santorum done. His advisers can't even deny it.

I've heard three hypotheses that could explain what he said.

Perhaps he was trying to add the Slavic ending -nik to government. You know, a governmentnik, like a peacenik or a beatnik.

Or, he started to say "negotiator" and realized that "negotiator" isn't really an insult, so he stopped.

One conservative blog said that he tripped over two separate words, one starting with an N and one starting with a G, and it's just an unfortunate coincidence that they were next to each other.

I don't really buy any of these explanations, but they're possibilities.

jduster

Mar31-12, 06:45 PM

There is a chance he was about to say the word "nig".

I don't think this slip was too consequential.

We already know that nearly all African American voters are not supporting him.

skeptic2

Mar31-12, 06:59 PM

There is a chance he was about to say the word "nig".

I don't think this slip was too consequential.

We already know that nearly all African American voters are not supporting him.

Do you think only African Americans would be offended if he said nig?

Evo

Mar31-12, 07:09 PM

We already know that nearly all African American voters are not supporting him.Source?

jduster

Mar31-12, 07:19 PM

Source?

CNN has plenty of voter exit polls from primary states.

The amount of African American voters that supported Santorum (or any of them) was so trace that a percentage could not be calculated in many cases.

phoenix:\\

Apr2-12, 11:58 PM

asTPft2-RWw

I think he is serious.

Jimmy Snyder

Apr3-12, 05:20 AM

Santorum and I have this in common, neither one of us knows what he's talking about.

Here's an article by another member of the club.

The Daily Californian (http://www.dailycal.org/2012/04/02/santorum-makes-false-claims-about-californias-college-curriculum/)

In the article, they conjecture that he might be referring to a report by the California Association of Scholars which states that students at four UC campuses can

achieve a bachelor’s degree without doing any coursework in science, mathematics, a foreign language, economics, literature, or the history and institutions of their country. Those four include the Berkeley campus.

If so, he changed the meaning considerably when he said that the courses are not available. When I went to school at Rutgers in NJ, math and science majors were required to take 4 courses outside of math and science, but there was no requirement to take any specific course except English Composition 101. So technically, this quote covers my situation. However, the courses were available, just not required. For students in the humanities, they had a requirement of 4 courses in math and science. However, there was no individual requirement for math or for science so they could skip either one if they wanted.

SHISHKABOB

Apr3-12, 08:32 AM

Office_Shredder

Apr3-12, 08:39 AM

why would I take a course on USA history in college? I learned all that stuff in middle school and high school already. I feel as though Santorum has an odd view of why people go to universities. Er, well, actually I think that's definitely the case.

If a school didn't offer any American history courses it would be a pretty poor school.

Anywho

http://www.dailycal.org/2012/04/02/santorum-makes-false-claims-about-californias-college-curriculum/

Jack21222

Apr3-12, 09:03 AM

If a school didn't offer any American history courses it would be a pretty poor school.

Anywho

http://www.dailycal.org/2012/04/02/santorum-makes-false-claims-about-californias-college-curriculum/

"The only UC campus not to offer a U.S. history course is UC San Francisco — a medical school."

From the article.

Astronuc

Apr8-12, 04:51 PM

Rick Santorum, who rose in the polls thanks to enthusiastic support from Christian conservatives, faced pressure Sunday from a key Republican evangelical to end his increasingly long-shot White House bid.
http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-cancels-campaign-events-sick-daughter-135456885.html

The rest of the party was not so enthusiastic.

Astronuc

Apr8-12, 04:59 PM

asTPft2-RWw

I think he is serious. He is serious, and seriously wrong. :rolleyes:

Minor requirement in History as UCSD - one of ten campuses.

HILD 2 A-B-C - United States History
HILD 7 A-B-C - Race and Ethnicity in the United States

Clearly Santorum is out of touch with reality.

Clearly the US can do without a president mired in fantasy.

ThomasT

Apr9-12, 06:38 AM

He is serious, and seriously wrong. :rolleyes:
...
Clearly the US can do without a president mired in fantasy.I think you're correct. Unfortunately, tens of millions of Americans don't agree with us. I might have to break my vow to not vote for Republicans or Democrats in order to help prevent Santorum and his ilk from becoming president.

mheslep

Apr9-12, 10:39 AM

He is serious, and seriously wrong. :rolleyes:

Minor requirement in History as UCSD - one of ten campuses.

HILD 2 A-B-C - United States History
HILD 7 A-B-C - Race and Ethnicity in the United States

Clearly Santorum is out of touch with reality.

Clearly the US can do without a president mired in fantasy.

Politifac suggests Santorum was likely referring to the recent WSJ Berkowitz (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577312361540817878.html) (board of National Assoc. of Scholars) article, which points out

"None of the nine general campuses in the UC system requires students to study the history and institutions of the United States. None requires students to study Western civilization, and on seven of the nine UC campuses, including Berkeley, a survey course in Western civilization is not even offered."

So Santorum, as Politfac states, badly bungled the details on the stump. Is that the standard for being out of touch with reality? Should I bring up comparable blunders from Obama as a reality check?

D H

Apr9-12, 11:06 AM

Should I bring up comparable blunders from Obama as a reality check?
That's not a good idea (consider yourself warned). This thread is about Santorum's strengths and weaknesses, not Obama's.

daveb

Apr9-12, 12:12 PM

From the UCLA (http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/catalog/catalog11-12-21.htm#368767672_pgfId-998745) website:

American History and Institutions
The American History and Institutions requirement is based on the principle that a U.S. citizen attending an American university should understand the history and public institutions of the U.S. under the federal and state constitutions. Candidates for a bachelor’s degree must satisfy the American History and Institutions requirement by one of the following methods:

•Completing a year’s course in American history or American government, or a one-year combination of both, in high school with an average grade of B or better OR
•Completing any one of the following UCLA courses with a grade of C or better, or a grade of Passed:
Afro-American Studies M158A, M158B, M158C, M158E
Asian American Studies M171D
Chicana and Chicano Studies M159A, M159B, M183
Economics 183
Geography 136
History 13A, 13B, 13C, 138A, 138B, 138C, 139A, 139B, 140A, 140B, 140C, 141A, 141B, 142A, 142B, 142C, 143A, 143B, 144, M144C, 145A, 145B, 146A through 146D, 147A through M147D, 149A, 149B, M150A through M150E, M151A, M151B, M151C, 152, 153, 154, M155, 156
Political Science 40, 114A, 114B, 140A, 140B, 140C, 142A, 143A, 143B, 145B, 145C, 146A
Equivalent courses completed in UCLA Extension or at another college institution, and accepted by the Board of Admissions, may be used to fulfill the requirement OR
•Presenting a satisfactory result of the requirement, by examination, as administered at another college or university within the state OR
•Scoring 500 or better on the SAT Subject Test in U.S. History OR
•Scoring 3, 4, or 5 on the College Board Advanced Placement Test in American History.
Candidates for an instructional credential, but not for a degree, must take one of the following courses: History 143A, 143B, Political Science 145B, or 145C.

Students attending the University on an F-1 or J-1 visa may petition for exemption from this requirement by showing proof of temporary residence in the U.S.

My guess is Santorum was referring to those that satisfy the requirement ina manner other than taking it at UCLA - but they still (supposedly) know the concepts and information, so why force them to learn it all over again? Hence, I conclude he's a tad loopy.

BobG

Apr9-12, 12:33 PM

That's not a good idea (consider yourself warned). This thread is about Santorum's strengths and weaknesses, not Obama's.

I would say comparing Santorum's gaffes to Obama's gaffes wouldn't be a particularly thorough analysis of whether Santorum makes more gaffes than the average candidate, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

A better measure would be to take the number of gaffes all of the candidates make and then see if Santorum makes an above average number of gaffes, a below average number of gaffes, or makes about an average number of gaffes.

It's an evaluation that's impossible to make without referring to the gaffes of other candidates. (None the less, simply telling other posters to do the comparison themselves between one other candidate isn't a particularly strong statement, but I think the point that a conclusion can't be drawn from one example was clear.)

At least Santorum has yet to make the top 25 list (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalgaffes/tp/most-embarrassing-moments-of-decade.htm) for most embarrassing politician gaffes of this century. He still has a little bit of time left in which to raise his game, though.

And, why they matter (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-27/opinion/opinion_obeidallah-gaffes_1_president-obama-mitt-romney-eric-fehrnstrom?_s=PM:OPINION), even if a candidate's gaffes should be put into perspective.