FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


The policies of: Rick Santorum





catscratches
This'll be fun...

The Good

If you find something, let me know.

The Bad

Same-sex marriage
No suprises here. Same-sex marriage is oh so terrible and horrible and it's single-handedly ruining America.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/santorum-ill-die-stop-same-sex-marriages

Contraceptives
Santorum believes contraceptives are evil and "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." As a president, he will speak out against contraceptives. This makes him almost as bad as the pope in my eyes. Oh wait... he actually wants there to be law against contraceptives. So make that: worse than the pope.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/santorum-ill-die-stop-same-sex-marriages

The environment
Predictably, Santorum believes Global Warming is a conspiracy. And that little thing about oil, coal and natural gas being limited resources? Pfft, bullshit! "Drill everywhere!" We don't need no alternative energy sources. Fossile fuels will last us centuries!
http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-06-24-rick-santorum-glenn-beck-global-warming-skeptic-hoax/

Torture
Santorum supports the use of torture. Oh, sorry. I mean "enhanced interrogation techniques". Considering torture is neither efficient nor reliable, I can see no reason apart from pure sadism to support it.

The Stupid

Utterly delusional as to the motives of terrorists
Quote:
Rick Santorum understands that those who wish to destroy America do so because they hate everything we are – a land of freedom, a land of prosperity, a land of equality.
If this wasn't from his official web site, I could easily have mistaken this for a parody. This is laughable on so many levels. "The land of freedom, prosperity and equality"? Yeah, sure. *cough* I'm also sure what eg. al-Qaeda hates is your prosperity, not the military bases all over the world, constant intereference in world politics, playing "world-cop" and engaging in unethical, futile wars. Too bad al-Qaeda never really state why they do what they do. Some kind of official statement by, say Osama bin Laden, would really clear things up. But then again, people would have to read it and that's just expecting too much of them. Surely, freedom, prosperity and equality is what's so unique to the US in comparison to other western countries and why al-Qaeda hates the US specifically.
http://www.ricksantorum.com/believer-american-exceptionalism


The Verdict
Seriously, USA? Honestly? I'm depressed to see this kind of people even exists, let alone see them running for presidency. No, I'm dead serious. This guy makes me depressed. The reasons the post isn't longer than this is not because I couldn't find plenty of more negative material. It's because I just can't bear to write any more about this ignorant, bigotted, hateful idiot.
deanhills
OK, now I understand better why I don't like this guy. My "feeling" about him has been he's a sanctimonious twit! Probably the kind of guy who would kill you for the greater good of the country and "martyr" himself for it publicly in the media. As well as create secret upon secret, also for the greater good of the country.
ocalhoun
catscratches wrote:

The Good

If you find something, let me know.

I looked... I really did.

...Nothing.

And when he talks about 'Strongly opposing the libertarianish trend in conservative politics' that it's 'wrong to just let people do what they want'...

This guy is SCARY!


Please please please please please please please tell me he's not ahead in the polls...
*checks*

He's a very close #2.



I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
liljp617
I wouldn't trust him to take care of my dog, much less 300+ million people. He's a downright lunatic.
jmi256
catscratches wrote:
Same-sex marriage
No suprises here. Same-sex marriage is oh so terrible and horrible and it's single-handedly ruining America.


Obama is also against same-sex marriages:

handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
catscratches wrote:
Same-sex marriage
No suprises here. Same-sex marriage is oh so terrible and horrible and it's single-handedly ruining America.


Obama is also against same-sex marriages:


You are confusing a stance vs. an obsession. Obama did not make same-sex marriage an issue of his campaign, whereas for Santorum it's one of the most important issues that he wants to talk about.

So are you a Santorum supporter? Everyone else here is having trouble finding a single policy of his to agree with. What about you?

There is also this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19marriage.html?pagewanted=all

Quote:
Obama’s Views on Gay Marriage ‘Evolving’

WASHINGTON — Driving across the flatlands of Illinois with Barack Obama during the Senate race of 2004, Kevin Thompson sometimes found himself tutoring the candidate on gay rights.

A one-stop destination for the latest political news — from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.

Mr. Thompson, then a traveling aide, recalls long conversations about topics like the 1969 Stonewall Rebellion that sparked the gay rights movement, gay adoption — Mr. Obama once volunteered that Mr. Thompson and his partner would make “great parents,” Mr. Thompson recalled — and same-sex marriage, which Mr. Obama has in the past opposed.

Mr. Thompson, an Obama supporter, is skeptical about that. “To this day,” he said, “I don’t think Barack Obama has any issue with two people of the same gender getting married.”

Now President Obama says his views on same-sex marriage are “evolving,” and as he runs for re-election he is seeking support from gay donors who want to know where he stands.

This week, he will headline a $1,250-a-plate “Gala with the Gay Community” in Manhattan, his first such event as president; on June 29, he will host a Gay Pride reception at the White House. He is doing so at time when the New York Legislature is considering whether to make same-sex marriage legal — a vote that the president will no doubt be asked about while in New York.

The White House would not comment on whether Mr. Obama was ready to endorse same-sex marriage. But one Democratic strategist close to the White House, speaking only on the condition of anonymity, said some senior advisers “are looking at the tactics of how this might be done if the president chose to do it.”

And Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is gay, said in an interview that a top adviser to Mr. Obama, whom he would not name, asked him this year, “What would be the effect if he came out for same-sex marriage?”
jmi256
Wow, Obama is playing coy with gays to get their donations. Big surprise.
catscratches
This topic is about Rick Santorum, not Obama. If you want to talk about Obama, make a 'The policies of: Obama'-thread. Or someone else can. In fact, I encourage you all to do. I most likely won't get around to creating topics about all the currently running candidates, so it'd be nice if some other people could if they have the time to. Just try to keep it a bit less one-sided than you usually do. (I know this might seem a bit hypocritical considering this thread but honestly did try to look for positives. I did!)
jmi256
catscratches wrote:
This topic is about Rick Santorum, not Obama. If you want to talk about Obama, make a 'The policies of: Obama'-thread. Or someone else can. In fact, I encourage you all to do. I most likely won't get around to creating topics about all the currently running candidates, so it'd be nice if some other people could if they have the time to. Just try to keep it a bit less one-sided than you usually do. (I know this might seem a bit hypocritical considering this thread but honestly did try to look for positives. I did!)

First of all, exactly what “policy” are you referencing? You didn’t provide anything other than a blatant and pathetic attempt at a smear in regards to what you say his “policy” is. Obama’s view on gay marriage is the same as Santorum’s. Both do not support gay marriage and have gone on record that civil unions are the way to go. If you are trying to portray Santorum’s views as out of the mainstream, then you have to be willing to at least concede that Obama is as much out of the mainstream. The difference is that Obama is willing to hem and haw to keep campaign contributions coming in from gay contributors.
Ankhanu
jmi256 wrote:
catscratches wrote:
This topic is about Rick Santorum, not Obama. If you want to talk about Obama, make a 'The policies of: Obama'-thread. Or someone else can. In fact, I encourage you all to do. I most likely won't get around to creating topics about all the currently running candidates, so it'd be nice if some other people could if they have the time to. Just try to keep it a bit less one-sided than you usually do. (I know this might seem a bit hypocritical considering this thread but honestly did try to look for positives. I did!)

First of all, exactly what “policy” are you referencing? You didn’t provide anything other than a blatant and pathetic attempt at a smear in regards to what you say his “policy” is. Obama’s view on gay marriage is the same as Santorum’s. Both do not support gay marriage and have gone on record that civil unions are the way to go. If you are trying to portray Santorum’s views as out of the mainstream, then you have to be willing to at least concede that Obama is as much out of the mainstream. The difference is that Obama is willing to hem and haw to keep campaign contributions coming in from gay contributors.

I think he said the thread was about Santirum and not Obama... Obama's policies are completely irrelevant here. If you have something to add regarding Santirum...
(if you have anything positive to add, I'm sure it would make a huge impact on the thread, and would be greatly appreciated by pretty much everyone)



Personally, I can't say I really find anything of value in Santorum's rhetoric, and much of what he campaigns on seems to be intolerant and backwards... But I just spent two weeks in States where that seems to play well with the public, so I can see some of his popularity. As with others, I find the idea of him as a president more than a little frightening.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
The difference is that Obama is willing to hem and haw to keep campaign contributions coming in from gay contributors.
I don't think there is a comparison between the two. Obama is a million times more accomplished in endearing himself with the media and public. He has the gift of the gab. I'm sure he must have a powerful marketing team in the background who are working day and night on the Internet to build a positive image.

Santorum lacks in that department. Apparently Microsoft's Bing doesn't like him at all - ditto Google:
http://searchengineland.com/why-does-bing-hate-rick-santorum-110764
catscratches
jmi256 wrote:

First of all, exactly what “policy” are you referencing? You didn’t provide anything other than a blatant and pathetic attempt at a smear in regards to what you say his “policy” is.
I'm sorry I didn't provide a link for that section. He explains his position in this video, which is the same link as for the next section. Since it was the same link, I thought I could lump them together, but I guess I was being unclear.

jmi256 wrote:
If you are trying to portray Santorum’s views as out of the mainstream
I'm not. I'm leaving my opinions on his policies through my perspective. I'm not comparing them with the views of the American mainstream. I'm comparing them with my views, the views of a middle-of-the-line (though probably more left-leaning than right-leaning) Swede. This means that I focus primarily on social issues, since the American economy will always be a foreign thing to me (though I certainly have views on that as well) whereas I consider social issues and human rights to be universal.

It's very true that this particular topic is very one-sided so how about you go and fix that? Not by bringing out the negatives of Obama, but by bringing out the positives in Santorum (if you believe there are any). Seriously, can't you stop talking about Obama for one topic? You're absolutely obsessed with him.
coolclay
Quote:
Rick Santorum understands that those who wish to destroy America do so because they hate everything we are – a land of freedom, a land of prosperity, a land of equality.


Yes, Santorum that is exactly why they hate us, it's also because their Mom didn't make them a PB and J sandwich.

It's times like these I am sad to be a Pennsylvanier, luckily I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell at the Presidency no matter how many extremist neocons vote for him, he's way to hokey for the majority.
Ankhanu
Apparently Dave Mustaine thinks he's good for president because he went home to be with his sick daughter... That's something semi-positive, I guess.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The difference is that Obama is willing to hem and haw to keep campaign contributions coming in from gay contributors.
I don't think there is a comparison between the two. Obama is a million times more accomplished in endearing himself with the media and public. He has the gift of the gab. I'm sure he must have a powerful marketing team in the background who are working day and night on the Internet to build a positive image.

It just means that the media and other Left Wingers are willing to attack people for their beliefs, yet unable to even admit that their candidates hold the very same positions they are attacking, just like you see those in this thread who want to attack Santorum for opposing gay marriage, while refusing to even discuss the fact that Obama also opposes gay marriage. Obama simply gets a pass because the hypocrites on the Left are not honest enough to even admit that is his stance. Obama and his supporters have been pretty successful in using smoke and mirrors to hide his positions and avoid any discussion of them, but whether you like him or not at least people like Santorum are honest enough and have the balls to make it clear what his views are while Obama and the Democrats would rather use bait and switch tactics to keep the campaign contributions coming in.


deanhills wrote:
Santorum lacks in that department. Apparently Microsoft's Bing doesn't like him at all - ditto Google:
http://searchengineland.com/why-does-bing-hate-rick-santorum-110764

This isn’t anything new. The Left has always used similar tactics and think they are sooooo smart and love patting themselves on the back for their stupidity. But smart people paying attention to the facts are able to quickly see through the tactics.
catscratches
jmi256 wrote:

It just means that the media and other Left Wingers are willing to attack people for their beliefs, yet unable to even admit that their candidates hold the very same positions they are attacking, just like you see those in this thread who want to attack Santorum for opposing gay marriage, while refusing to even discuss the fact that Obama also opposes gay marriage. Obama simply gets a pass because the hypocrites on the Left are not honest enough to even admit that is his stance. Obama and his supporters have been pretty successful in using smoke and mirrors to hide his positions and avoid any discussion of them, but whether you like him or not at least people like Santorum are honest enough and have the balls to make it clear what his views are while Obama and the Democrats would rather use bait and switch tactics to keep the campaign contributions coming in.
I'm not giving Obama a slip for opposing same-sex marriage. I'll call him out for the bigot he is just as much as anybody, but the difference is that Obama isn't about to put that belief into law, nor does he make it a huge part of his campaign. That's the same reason I didn't mention it on my thread on Ron Paul (who also opposes same-sex marriage).

You keep seeing things in black or white. Yes, Obama is a bigot. But 1.) not to the same degree and 2.) this topic isn't about him.


jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Santorum lacks in that department. Apparently Microsoft's Bing doesn't like him at all - ditto Google:
http://searchengineland.com/why-does-bing-hate-rick-santorum-110764

This isn’t anything new. The Left has always used similar tactics and think they are sooooo smart and love patting themselves on the back for their stupidity. But smart people paying attention to the facts are able to quickly see through the tactics.

Google and Bing are cold machines with no political bias. To think that the mathematical algorithms behind Google would somehow come alive and house political opinions is nothing short of a ridiculous conspiracy. And that goes for deanhills as well... Neither Google nor Bing dislike Santorum. They don't care. They're machines, computer code. In fact, the very article linked to explains this very well.

Now, there is an issue with bias in Google search, but not like you'd think. That makes for a seperate topic as it has nothing to do with this.
jmi256
Who said Google or Bing were to blame? I was commenting on the tactics of Left Wingers to manipulate search results.
I would not call Obama a bigot in this case, and I think it is a shame that you have. I was simply pointing out that Obama and Santorum hold the same position on gay marriage. I personally believe the federal government has no role--nor right--in telling anyone who is of legal age and not related that they can or cannot get married. The reason the government is involved at all is because of taxes; married couples were taxed at a higher rate than two singles living together (the marriage penalty tax) before the Bush tax cuts. If a guy wants to enter into a contract or civil union with another guy, or a girl to a girl, and they find a church that is willing to call that a marriage, more power to them.
Ankhanu
The difference is the context of their stances. Though both hold a shitty stance on the topic, one is personal, the other is political. Only the political context matters in this discussion. To further that idea, only Santorum matters in the context of this discussion (forget that Obama exists for this thread, dig?).


So, so far, the only positive points that have been raised regarding Santorum as a politician has been that he cares about his family. In some ways this is important, but is also personal sphere, not political sphere... so is kinda moot. In some ways it's a political liability, even.
Are there any other redeeming political qualities?
handfleisch
catscratches wrote:
Yes, Obama is a bigot.

See below; that's an absurd statement.
jmi256 wrote:

It just means that the media and other Left Wingers are willing to attack people for their beliefs, yet unable to even admit that their candidates hold the very same positions they are attacking, just like you see those in this thread who want to attack Santorum for opposing gay marriage, while refusing to even discuss the fact that Obama also opposes gay marriage. Obama simply gets a pass because the hypocrites on the Left are not honest enough to even admit that is his stance. Obama and his supporters have been pretty successful in using smoke and mirrors to hide his positions and avoid any discussion of them, but whether you like him or not at least people like Santorum are honest enough and have the balls to make it clear what his views are while Obama and the Democrats would rather use bait and switch tactics to keep the campaign contributions coming in.


Here is how your argument works and how it is wrong: Out of a large policy subject, you take one part that Obama and Santorum are technically in agreement, and then greatly exaggerate on that to say they are totally the same on the policy.

In fact, on gay rights policy, Obama and Santorum are very different. Santorum is an anti-gay idealogue, while Obama has done a lot of relatively progressive measures.

Santorum is on record supporting laws against adultery (which still exist in some states) and saying he wants more laws like this and for other consenting acts between adults. He also called Obama's repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell "tragic".

Obama, on the other hand, has gotten rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" in the military, expanded hate-crime laws to include sexual preference, created visitation rights for gay couples in all hospitals which receive federal funds, done a lot of public relations on the subject of gay youth bullying, sponsored a study of housing discrimination against gays, prohibited discrimination against gays in federal hiring, led UN efforts to fight violence against gays worldwide and is fighting the regressive "Defense of Marriage Act", just to name a few. This administration is very active in communicating with the gay rights community.

Obviously, Santorum would not do any of these things and would probably try to overturn many of them if he could.

You also make a conspiracy out of the fact that the media is supposedly not pointing out the policy agreement concerning gay marriage and that the left are "hypocrites" for not pointing it out more. First of all, the agreement is on a "status quo" subject (not changing anything) which basically does not make it big news. Second of all, you are simply wrong -- there has been media coverage of it and gay marriage proponents complain that Obama is conservative on this issue. Here is a liberal news site's article about some major TV coverage:
Quote:
Anderson Cooper Calls Out Obama's Gay Marriage Flip Flopping (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/anderson-cooper-obama-gay-marriage_n_882075.html
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
catscratches wrote:
Yes, Obama is a bigot.

See below; that's an absurd statement.
jmi256 wrote:

It just means that the media and other Left Wingers are willing to attack people for their beliefs, yet unable to even admit that their candidates hold the very same positions they are attacking, just like you see those in this thread who want to attack Santorum for opposing gay marriage, while refusing to even discuss the fact that Obama also opposes gay marriage. Obama simply gets a pass because the hypocrites on the Left are not honest enough to even admit that is his stance. Obama and his supporters have been pretty successful in using smoke and mirrors to hide his positions and avoid any discussion of them, but whether you like him or not at least people like Santorum are honest enough and have the balls to make it clear what his views are while Obama and the Democrats would rather use bait and switch tactics to keep the campaign contributions coming in.


Here is how your argument works and how it is wrong: Out of a large policy subject, you take one part that Obama and Santorum are technically in agreement, and then greatly exaggerate on that to say they are totally the same on the policy.


No, the question was about policy on same-sex marriage, and Obama and Santorum do both have the same policy in that they both oppose it. In case you forgot (it is bold in the very first line):

jmi256 wrote:
catscratches wrote:
Same-sex marriage
No suprises here. Same-sex marriage is oh so terrible and horrible and it's single-handedly ruining America.


Obama is also against same-sex marriages:



handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

No, the question was about policy on same-sex marriage, and Obama and Santorum do both have the same policy in that they both oppose it. In case you forgot (it is bold in the very first line):


In fact the general policy subject is gay rights, and as I showed in my last post, there is no real comparison between Obama and Santorum on gay rights. Don't you agree?
ocalhoun
catscratches wrote:
Seriously, can't you stop talking about Obama for one topic? You're absolutely obsessed with him.

Very much this.

Some of us get tired of reading about Obama constantly.
handfleisch
What about Rick Santorum's policy stance on.....SATAN!

Highlights: Santorum says Satan attacked and destroyed US academia first. Then Satan took over the Protestant Church. Then Satan destroyed American culture. Now Satan is attacking the US government and it is "falling"
jmi256
This looks like another one of your faked videos, similar to the one in which you tried to basically claim Palin was practicing witchcraft. The audio is terrible and seems to be spliced from many different sources or excerpts from different speeches. Do you happen to have a real video? If so, I’d be interested in seeing it.
catscratches
A podcast of it (this is just an excerpt) is still up at Ave Maria University's offical homepage (a Catholic university). Search for 'Rick Santorum' in the 'Speaker'-field. It's called "Faith in Public Life: A Personal Journey" and is available as .wma or .mp3. The excerpt that was posted as a YouTube video starts at about 5:30 into the podcast.
jmi256
catscratches wrote:
A podcast of it (this is just an excerpt) is still up at Ave Maria University's offical homepage (a Catholic university). Search for 'Rick Santorum' in the 'Speaker'-field. It's called "Faith in Public Life: A Personal Journey" and is available as .wma or .mp3. The excerpt that was posted as a YouTube video starts at about 5:30 into the podcast.

Ahh yes. The sound quality is much better. It also shows that he was giving a speech a Catholic audience, and he was quoting others and commenting on those quotes in his speech. Here is a direct link to the podcast so you don't have to search:
http://www.avemaria.edu/Portals/0/Podcasts/2324.wma
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
catscratches wrote:
A podcast of it (this is just an excerpt) is still up at Ave Maria University's offical homepage (a Catholic university). Search for 'Rick Santorum' in the 'Speaker'-field. It's called "Faith in Public Life: A Personal Journey" and is available as .wma or .mp3. The excerpt that was posted as a YouTube video starts at about 5:30 into the podcast.

Ahh yes. The sound quality is much better. It also shows that he was giving a speech a Catholic audience, and he was quoting others and commenting on those quotes in his speech. Here is a direct link to the podcast so you don't have to search:
http://www.avemaria.edu/Portals/0/Podcasts/2324.wma


Santorum says exactly what I said he said, and he is speaking in his own words about his own views, in detail, about how he says Satan is attacking the institutions of America; there's no denying it.

First Santorum recounts Tom Brokaw discussing abortion with Nancy Pelosi, then Santorum quotes Bishop Samula Aquila in North Dakota concerning abortion, and then Santorum goes on to give his own view that we are in a "spiritual war" and says:

Quote:
This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war. This is a spiritual war. And 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. 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 has been the case now for almost two hundred years, once America’s preeminence was sown by our great Founding Fathers.

He didn’t have much success in the early days. Our foundation was very strong, in fact, is very strong. But over time, that great, acidic quality of time corrodes even the strongest foundations. And Satan has done so by attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.

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.

After that, you start destroying the Church and you start destroying academia, the culture is where their next success was and I need not even go into the state of the popular culture today. Whether its sensuality of vanity of the famous in America, they are peacocks on display and they have taken their poor behavior and made it fashionable. The corruption of culture, the corruption of manners, the corruption of decency is now on display whether it’s the NBA or whether it’s a rock concert or whether it’s on a movie set.

The fourth, and this was harder, now I know you’re going to challenge me on this one, but politics and government was the next to fall. You say, ‘you would think they would be the first to fall, as fallible as we are in politics,’ but people in political life get elected by ordinary folks from lots of places all over the country where the foundations of this country are still strong. So while we may certainly have had examples, the body politic held up fairly well up until the last couple of decades, but it is falling too.


Is Santorum running for president, or for Ayatollah?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
What about Rick Santorum's policy stance on.....SATAN!


handfleisch wrote:
Is Santorum running for president, or for Ayatollah?


Huh? I think you may want to do a bit of brushing up on the definition of “policy.” It is clear from the unedited audio that he is talking about his personal religious beliefs to a religious crowd, not forwarding some “policy” he is proposing. In fact, he has gone on record many ties to say he is willing to put aside his own personal beliefs for the sake of policy. For example, he is personally against contraception, but he understands that that is his own personal belief and that he and the government don’t have the right to impose those beliefs on others. He has voted to not block contraception and has even voted in favor of it at some times. I don’t think there is anything wrong with having morality and personal religious beliefs, but from a policy perspective I think it is important to not then impose those beliefs on others at the end of a gun. You imply and try to mock “Rick Santorum's policy stance on.....SATAN”, but exactly what public policy proposal, bill, anything has he introduced that deals with “Satan?” It is pretty clear you are grasping at straws here and trying to make the connection that since he has religious beliefs he then has a “policy stance on.....SATAN”, but I have a feeling there is no such proposed public policy but rather more Left Wing attempts at smears. Whether you like or agree with his actual policies is one thing, but to make something up in an attempt to paint him and anyone who has moral and religious beliefs as aligned with the Ayatollah is just sad, but not surprising.


In fact, Obama has gone on record to say that his religious beliefs are the reason he is against gay marriage. Using your own logic, the question would be did you vote for president or Ayatollah when you voted for Obama, which others have called a bigot for his stance?
Obviously you have still not watched the video in which he is challenged on his religious stance against gay marriage:
Ankhanu
... here we go with Obama again...


So, we still have for Santorum:
Positives: he cares about his own family.
Negatives: the other stuff mentioned in the thread.

It would be really cool to see the positives inflated a bit... but if they can't, I suppose the thread is kind of at a dead end.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
What about Rick Santorum's policy stance on.....SATAN!


handfleisch wrote:
Is Santorum running for president, or for Ayatollah?


Huh? I think you may want to do a bit of brushing up on the definition of “policy.”
---
In fact, Obama has gone on record to say that his religious beliefs are the reason he is against gay marriage. Using your own logic, the question would be did you vote for president or Ayatollah when you voted for Obama, which others have called a bigot for his stance?
Obviously you have still not watched the video in which he is challenged on his religious stance against gay marriage:


There you go with your Obama obsession again. People have asked that this thread concentrate on Santorum's policies. I started a separate thread on Obama, gays and Santorum, so go there if you can't control yourself.

Santorum talking at length about his views on Satan attacking the USA was too good to pass up. True, the fact that he is a nutty religious extremist isn't exactly a policy issue, but it brings up the policy issue of separation of church and state.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
There you go with your Obama obsession again.

Says the Obama fanboy. Rolling Eyes
It’s not an obsession on my part, but I am pointing out the hypocrisy from the Left. Obama has the same views, and has even gone further by stating on record that his religious views dictate his policy decisions. Conversely Santorum has stated and has shown often that his own personal morals and beliefs are his and should not be used to dictate actual policy decisions. Yet while you try to smear Santorum by trying to align him with the Ayatollah, you do not have the honesty to apply the same standard to Obama even though he is actually guilty of imposing his religious beliefs on policy decisions.



handfleisch wrote:
Santorum talking at length about his views on Satan attacking the USA was too good to pass up. True, the fact that he is a nutty religious extremist isn't exactly a policy issue, but it brings up the policy issue of separation of church and state.

Again, you fail to comprehend simple concepts. Having religious or moral beliefs is not a violation of separation of church and state, and the separation is not a policy issue but rather a guarantee afford under the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. It is ironic that Left Wingers seem to hate the rights afforded under the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution most of the time, but are quick to show how ignorant they are of what it actually says when they try to refer to it. But hopefully the below will clear it up for you. Please tell me how having a moral or religious belief that does not dictate policy is a violation of that right.

Quote:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Source = http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
Obama has the same views

lol. you really can't control yourself, can you? Please, feel free to address me on this issue in the separate thread devoted to this. You're very entertaining.

Quote:
Again, you fail to comprehend simple concepts. Having religious or moral beliefs is not a violation of separation of church and state, and the separation is not a policy issue but rather a guarantee afford under the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. It is ironic that Left Wingers seem to hate the rights afforded under the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution most of the time, but are quick to show how ignorant they are of what it actually says when they try to refer to it. But hopefully the below will clear it up for you. Please tell me how having a moral or religious belief that does not dictate policy is a violation of that right.


Ah, insults, sweeping generalizations against "Left Wingers", blah blah blah. I guess you trolls love these unmoderated forums. Did you get kicked off www.abovetopsecret.com or are you still using them for your info?

Now, I will go slow: About the separation of church and state, Santorum's extremist and nutty religious beliefs do bring up policy issues concerning gay rights and contraception, stem cell research and abortion. His policies come directly from his fundamentalist views and he freely admits this:
Quote:
In an interview with the National Catholic Reporter, Santorum said that the distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility, espoused by President John F. Kennedy, had caused "great harm in America."

"All of us have heard people say, 'I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it's not right for somebody else?' It sounds good, but it is the corruption of freedom of conscience."


I really don't know what you get out of trying to defend the guy... This is supposed to be about policies, and you haven't brought up one example of a policy of his that you like. Why don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Same-sex_marriage_and_contraception
catscratches
jmi256 wrote:
Conversely Santorum has stated and has shown often that his own personal morals and beliefs are his and should not be used to dictate actual policy decisions.
No, he hasn't (if he said so, he lied). He's voted against same-sex marriage countless times, and even tried to ban same-sex marriage through a constitutional amendment. Santorum makes policy based on his personal morals all the time and clearly states he thinks that's the way it should be.
gandalfthegrey
I cannot believe this guy is a serious candidate. If "GOD FORBID" he is chosen as the Republican nominee and somehow elected president, I will not be surprised if a revolution starts.

He has no right to tell women what they can do with their bodies - this alone will have people up in arms.

His anti-gay policies will result in many great Americans who happen to be LGBT fleeing to Canada.

His musings about getting rid of all pornography from the internet borders demonstrates an incredible ignorance of technology and jurisdiction (unless he plans of censorship through American IP providers).

I don't get why this idiot doesn't get labeled as a conspiracy quack for not believing global warming, and Ron Paul does for his monetary reform policies. Fox News perhaps?
Ankhanu
gandalfthegrey wrote:
His anti-gay policies will result in many great Americans who happen to be LGBT fleeing to Canada.

Sadly, the Harper Government isn't much better, really Sad

gandalfthegrey wrote:
I don't get why this idiot doesn't get labeled as a conspiracy quack for not believing global warming, and Ron Paul does for his monetary reform policies. Fox News perhaps?

I don't think any of the GOP candidates are getting any kind of pass on climate change... they're all recognized as backwards denialists.
Mr_Howl
jmi, please don't say you would vote for Santorum. Sad You've made it quite clear you hold a deep hatred for Obama, but Santorum...come on. Have you heard the things that come out of his mouth?

As a member of the Republican party, maybe you can enlighten us: why are these people the nominees? They all have major, major flaws. And yet Santorum is gaining supporters? How can this be?

Where are they hiding the GOOD Republican candidates?

Or are they just trying to throw this election?
Ankhanu
Luckily, the fact that none of us could come up with a single positive thing to say about the politics of Ricky doesn't mean a jot anymore. The ol' boy's out of the race.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/04/10/rick-santorum-republican.html?cmp=rss
ocalhoun
That's a relief!
jmi256
Mr_Howl wrote:
jmi, please don't say you would vote for Santorum.

I never said I was voting for Santorum. I was just pointing out to those who objected to his policies and stances that Obama shares the same stances. So if someone feels Santorum was unqualified based on his policies, it would imply that Obama is just as unqualified.


Mr_Howl wrote:
You've made it quite clear you hold a deep hatred for Obama

I have never said I hold a deep hatred for Obama (and to be clear I do not hate him). For all I know he might be a really nice guy. But facts are facts, and Obama has been an utter disaster of a president. His policies have fallen flat on their faces, yet all he can do is try to deflect blame for his failures while taking credit for the achievements of others.


Mr_Howl wrote:
As a member of the Republican party, maybe you can enlighten us: why are these people the nominees? They all have major, major flaws. And yet Santorum is gaining supporters? How can this be?

First of all, I don’t think you understand how the process works. There is no nominee, so your question of “why are these people the nominees” doesn’t make sense.


Mr_Howl wrote:
Where are they hiding the GOOD Republican candidates?
Or are they just trying to throw this election?

I think the field is winnowing down, and if you compare the failed record of Obama against whoever the Republicans nominate, it will be easy to see who the best candidate is. If you want four more years of the crap we have been subjected to under Obama, go ahead and vote for him. But then don’t b*tch and moan when his policies continue to fail and subject the US to more government bureaucracy, waste and mismanagement.
Mr_Howl
At the time I posted that, Santorum looked like he could win the candidacy.

And the "process" was that we had Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Bachman, Perry, and Paul (did I miss any?) to choose from. All of them suck (except maybe Paul). So my question was: is this the best the Republican Party has to offer? A bunch of war-hungry lunatics and a guy who is so rich he sees everything tinted green?

And you're right, it will be easy to see who the best candidate is. If it's not Ron Paul, then it's Obama. If it is Paul, then it'll be the most interesting election in years.

But it seems we're looking at Romney now. And despite failed policies, I'd rather have four more years of Obama than any years of Romney.
deanhills
Mr_Howl wrote:
But it seems we're looking at Romney now. And despite failed policies, I'd rather have four more years of Obama than any years of Romney.
I'd say most people feel that way. Would be nice if Ron Paul could come in though. I think Obama would still win, but at least the Republicans would have redeemed themselves a tiny bit from looking completely incompetent as a party.
jmi256
Mr_Howl wrote:
And you're right, it will be easy to see who the best candidate is. If it's not Ron Paul, then it's Obama. If it is Paul, then it'll be the most interesting election in years.

I agree that it would be interesting to have Paul as the nominee, but it looks like he won’t. Regardless of who the Republican candidate is, however, Obama is still stuck with his record of failures and mismanagement.


Mr_Howl wrote:
And despite failed policies, I'd rather have four more years of Obama than any years of Romney.

These types of statements show exactly what is wrong with politics, and remind me of the image below. The fact that you (and there are others like you) would rather stick with Obama and the Democrats’ failed policies and programs simply because of (what I am assuming to be) the fact that they have a “D” behind their name is exactly why the two-party system exists. If you really want better leaders, then stop blindly supporting failures like Obama. It is one thing to take a chance and “hope” that an unproven candidate might be up to the challenge, and while I disagree with that sentiment when it comes to the presidency I can understand that sentiment. However, as the last three-plus years have shown us, Obama is a disaster of a president. If someone sees the mess Obama has been and made and still supports him, then they shouldn’t complain.


deanhills
Does the President of the US really make such a huge difference though jmi? I'd say the real problem is the political system in its entirety of voters only having an either or choice of basically the same evil in its total package. Time for a roots change of the political system? I've heard more and more people in their thirties and younger saying that they can't relate to any of the political candidates, or policies of any of the two parties. Somehow this system has become so powerful that neither the two parties nor the electorate are in charge any longer.
Ankhanu
Pretty much, Dean... which is why the political party fanaticism people like JMI display is so confusing to me Razz There's little significant difference between the two, and the system itself needs a revamp... what is there to be so fanatical about???
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Pretty much, Dean... which is why the political party fanaticism people like JMI display is so confusing to me Razz There's little significant difference between the two, and the system itself needs a revamp... what is there to be so fanatical about???
I don't quite get political party fanatacism with JMI. I may be wrong but I get the feeling it's more about free market economy. And being anti-socialism. Obama to JMI presents a threat to free market economy and Obama has demonstrated a huge interference of Government in the mechanics of the economy. JMI is against that. He may give the impression of backing a party as he seems to have chosen the party he thinks is the one that can do the lesser damage of the two. I don't think either of the two parties can help with ensuring a freer market economy as somehow political leaders managed to have been "bought" by powerful corporations during the nineties to get rid of all of the banking legislation that managed to separate banking from investments and real estate. In the process it demolished the small cooperative trusts that were helpful with funding small businesses and keep markets going. Government interference also became much more intense from that time forwards as well. Government leaders need election campaigns and sponsors etc. etc. so in that way has become completely dependent on those large banking corporations that seem to be holding the economy in an iron grip.
Ankhanu
Fair point; party backing statement retracted.

Small point on detail, however, the whole "bought by corporations" and banking issue goes back further than the 90s, it's better entrenched than that... End result, of course, is pretty much the same, though.
busman
Rick Santorum is a straight up looney. For real though all you have to do is go down the list of his beliefs and just look at it it like WTF... Anyway good thing he quit. Romney is not much better either though but ya a least not as bad. And Romney is NOT going to win, I don't believe the USA is progressive enough to vote in a Mormon just tbh. But in reference to JMI, yes Obama has done some terribly bad ideas but so has EVERY single president. John Adams the FRIGGIN SECOND president passed the Alien and Sedition acts trouncing upon the constitution thoroughly. And another question for JMI when has a "free-market" ever helped Human Rights? Or caused a decent working wage? And helped quality of product go up? And not caused monopolies? And not caused the ritch to stuff their coffers with the work of the disenfranchised? Honestly answer without diflecting the question and changing the subject and you may have a debate. But since the dawn of time a truely un-regulated market is only good for one thing, driving down wages and producing private profits and i'd beg you to show me a different scenario.
handfleisch
busman wrote:
Rick Santorum is a straight up looney. For real though all you have to do is go down the list of his beliefs and just look at it it like WTF... Anyway good thing he quit. Romney is not much better either though but ya a least not as bad. And Romney is NOT going to win, I don't believe the USA is progressive enough to vote in a Mormon just tbh. But in reference to JMI, yes Obama has done some terribly bad ideas but so has EVERY single president. John Adams the FRIGGIN SECOND president passed the Alien and Sedition acts trouncing upon the constitution thoroughly. And another question for JMI when has a "free-market" ever helped Human Rights? Or caused a decent working wage? And helped quality of product go up? And not caused monopolies? And not caused the ritch to stuff their coffers with the work of the disenfranchised? Honestly answer without diflecting the question and changing the subject and you may have a debate. But since the dawn of time a truely un-regulated market is only good for one thing, driving down wages and producing private profits and i'd beg you to show me a different scenario.
And that straight-up looney is now well-positioned in the Republican Party to be a powerful force, and maybe presidential candidate. The GOP has lost it, we have to all we can to keep them out of the Oval Office.
busman
Its friggin scary, I know that Dems tend not to be *much* better but they also dont come out n straight say stuff that would get a HS Principal thrown in the pyche ward. I don't know who Santorums P.R. guy is but ya... He's not doing a great job for the rest of the 75% of the population that thinks he is straight nuckin futs.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Fair point; party backing statement retracted.

Small point on detail, however, the whole "bought by corporations" and banking issue goes back further than the 90s, it's better entrenched than that... End result, of course, is pretty much the same, though.
Thanks and I agree .... it was a very long battle that preceded the eighties. When the larger corporations started to gobble up smaller ones.
Iceaxe0410
I was relieved when I learned Rick Santorum dropped out of the presidential nomination race. I don't think the Republicans have much of a chance this presidential election. It was just scary for me to think that he could even have a shot at being president with the extreme policies he supports. The one that really bothered me the most was his views on separation of church and state.

This presidential election... I'm seriously considering just not voting at all. I have voted at every election since I was able to vote some 15 years ago. This particular presidential race just doesn't interest me. I suppose I still have time to think about it, but I doubt my feelings will change.
deanhills
Iceaxe0410 wrote:
This presidential election... I'm seriously considering just not voting at all. I have voted at every election since I was able to vote some 15 years ago. This particular presidential race just doesn't interest me. I suppose I still have time to think about it, but I doubt my feelings will change.
I've heard so many people saying exactly that. Sort of makes this system redundant? Maybe time for a new system?
busman
deanhills wrote:
Iceaxe0410 wrote:
This presidential election... I'm seriously considering just not voting at all. I have voted at every election since I was able to vote some 15 years ago. This particular presidential race just doesn't interest me. I suppose I still have time to think about it, but I doubt my feelings will change.
I've heard so many people saying exactly that. Sort of makes this system redundant? Maybe time for a new system?

Damn right it is Twisted Evil
handfleisch
Iceaxe0410 wrote:

This presidential election... I'm seriously considering just not voting at all. I have voted at every election since I was able to vote some 15 years ago. This particular presidential race just doesn't interest me. I suppose I still have time to think about it, but I doubt my feelings will change.


How do you feel about a war in Iran? About the torture that the Republican made official policy the last time they held the White House? How do you feel about going back to the deregulation that led to economic crash and the housing crisis? About Santorum in the cabinet as head of the Education Dept? These are the among the reasons you got to vote.
Josso
Ankhanu wrote:
Pretty much, Dean... which is why the political party fanaticism people like JMI display is so confusing to me Razz There's little significant difference between the two, and the system itself needs a revamp... what is there to be so fanatical about???


Hear, hear
handfleisch
Ankhanu wrote:
Pretty much, Dean... which is why the political party fanaticism people like JMI display is so confusing to me :P There's little significant difference between the two, and the system itself needs a revamp... what is there to be so fanatical about???

Do you think the attack and invasion of Iraq was not significant? There is indeed a huge difference between the parties in that way. It is very safe to say the war, unprovoked and based on lies, would not have happened under a President Gore. (I am well aware the Democrats in Congress voted along with it, but it was entirely started by, planned by and pushed by the Republican White House.) And just that single fact makes the parties very, very different. I could mention more..
Iceaxe0410
handfleisch wrote:
How do you feel about a war in Iran? About the torture that the Republican made official policy the last time they held the White House? How do you feel about going back to the deregulation that led to economic crash and the housing crisis? About Santorum in the cabinet as head of the Education Dept? These are the among the reasons you got to vote.


Honestly, I don't care much at all for war in general. I believe in developing defenses on our own soil rather than interfere with other countries. I do understand that its more about economics and resources though. The war in Iraq is one such example. I still think the primary objective was to obtain oil for the U.S. to use rather than a regime change. In any case, preventing other countries from developing weapons of mass destruction isn't the proper way to handle things. You can almost be sure that they are developing them behind the scenes. It's inevitable that one of those countries will eventually develop or obtain nuclear capabilities. It's only a matter of time. Sure, our involvement delays that outcome, but for how long? I believe we should be focusing on countermeasures to combat those weapons.

As for Santorum as head of the education dept, hah... I admit that would be bad considering he wants to cut government spending on public schools. However, you have to consider that I don't think Mitt Romney has a chance against President Obama which would leave my vote pretty much meaningless.

In any case, I was referring mostly to the primaries that are coming this June for my state. What's the point if the candidates are already determined? It's going to be Mitt Romney against President Obama. My vote isn't going to change that outcome at this point.

If anything, I could vote for the two state measures. I believe for me one of them is putting term limits on the legislators in my state and the other one increases cigarette taxes. Both, I don't mind vote yes on.

As for the actual presidential election, like I said, I still have time to think about it. I'm basically given the choice of picking the lesser of two evils. Which one is less bad for the U.S.?
busman
Iceaxe0410 wrote:

If anything, I could vote for the two state measures. I believe for me one of them is putting term limits on the legislators in my state and the other one increases cigarette taxes. Both, I don't mind vote yes on.

As for the actual presidential election, like I said, I still have time to think about it. I'm basically given the choice of picking the lesser of two evils. Which one is less bad for the U.S.?


Do you realise a pack of ciggarettes costs approximently $2.50 to produce and ship where as the final cost is close to 6 to 8$, try doing that to fast food before you double tax the smokers AGAIN and as your point for term limits, i've had deep discussion about this and although i believe in the motive behind it (getting old school fat cats out of office) it won't accomplish much considering corperation money is just as indfluential to new comers as well as fat cats. The only way to fix that problem is to limit campaign donations and get corporate money out of polotics.

The reason i say put a sin tax on fast food is because TODAY in the USA obesity related problems are costing the american public more than cigarettes (1 n 5 americans are smokers, where as 2/3's are overweight and 1/3 are morbidly obese) due to diabetes, emergency gastro-bypass, heart failure, and stroke and those numbers are most likely going to keep sky-rocketing due to the fact that it doesn't seem like anyones willing to challenge the fast food and food coperations in their crusade to keep pushing this garbage down our throats.

But see the sad thing is, wait n see if you try and do this, people will go NUTS because that's considered discrimination against fat people... Hahaha laughable to say the least, because no-one minds descriminating against smokers. If you tried to put an extra $1.80 on a Big Mac watch all the people cry because their wallets are affected, but hey wait we always got smokers to push around so it doesn't matter right? That's the american way, screw you if your a minority population of any kind; YOU WILL BE PUT DOWN in every aspect of your life as long as it doesn't hurt the majority of people.

Examples:
Black Ghettos= doesn't affect whites, hispanics or asians right?
Smoking taxes= doesn't affect anyone other than smokers right?
Gay rights= doesn't affect hetrosexuals, but hey while were at it might as well deny these people too
FCC Censorship= Hey screw it, TV & Radio brodcasters are a minority and so they don't deserve freedom of speech right?

This list could go on forever and it's sad to see people allow others to decide what behaviors they should and shouldn't be allowed to do just because they're different than the others in the majority and even sadder that some suscribe to this way of thinking. Sad
Josso
Quote:
FCC Censorship= Hey screw it, TV & Radio brodcasters are a minority and so they don't deserve freedom of speech right?


lol I see the point you are trying to make and it is a good one mate but heres some interesting things I discovered a few years ago. The differences between FCC and Ofcom are actually quite intriguing. I think we have slightly more leeway over here in terms of censorship (this is obvious, watch UK tv) yet Ofcom regulations are technically tighter for broadcasting regulations. The FCC actually has a lot fairer policies when it comes to allowing amateurs some room to do their thing. I am talking in terms of FM/UHF transmitting. I think the censorship and lack of freedom of speech actually comes from the broadcasting companies themselves in America *NOT* the FCC. Just an observation.
Iceaxe0410
Oddly enough, I actually changed my mind and will vote in the primaries. I read the literature on the propositions and honestly the one about term limits is deceiving:

1. It claims it lowers legislators term limits down to 12 years, which is true. The current law allows legislators 14 years total among the state house and state senate along with a loophole that can extend it to 17 years.

2. The reality is it does lower the term limit to 12 years, but actually extends the time they can be in office by separating the combination of term limits; meaning they can serve 12 years in the state house and 12 years in the state senate. So, in summary if this proposition passes, they can extend their position in office up to 24 years, not including the loopholes.

That's a flat out no that I will have to vote on. I hate all these propositions that say one thing, but actually do another. Yes, I do read the literature each year for all the propositions. Luckily, there were only two measures this time. Usually, there can be up to 5-7 different measures.

As for cigarette tax, I don't agree with that. Smokers have bothered me for a lot of my life. It's a bad habit and they know it. I know it's hard to kick a habit like that, but most of the people I know aren't even willing to quit smoking. It's their right, but I feel its my right to breath "cleaner" air and not smell like smoke.

Despite what you may think, I would be for a tax increase on fast food. The only tax that comes close to that is the sales tax. I don't mind increases on sales tax because it affects everyone equally. Even the illegal immigrants that avoid paying federal taxes have to pay sales tax. Of course, I know what you mean about a separate tax directed on fast food. That will never fly since it would have to be a tax on food across the board. It would have to cover healthy food choices as well. What exactly would they tax? Soda? The bun of hamburgers? The hamburger meat? The potato used in the french fries? The oil used to cook the fries? If you look at it from this perspective, it also includes healthy foods. The problem would be defining what exactly is being taxed unless if you place the tax on the business itself. If it is done that way, it would have to tax all restaurants not just the fast food restaurants.

Getting back on the topic. It kind of makes me hate Mitt Romney more now that Rick Santorum is endorsing him. I know it's a political move, but it just makes it worse. I just feel that anyone Rick Santorum associates with gets corrupted by association.
busman
Iceaxe0410 wrote:

As for cigarette tax, I don't agree with that. Smokers have bothered me for a lot of my life. It's a bad habit and they know it. I know it's hard to kick a habit like that, but most of the people I know aren't even willing to quit smoking. It's their right, but I feel its my right to breath "cleaner" air and not smell like smoke.

Despite what you may think, I would be for a tax increase on fast food. The only tax that comes close to that is the sales tax. I don't mind increases on sales tax because it affects everyone equally. Even the illegal immigrants that avoid paying federal taxes have to pay sales tax. Of course, I know what you mean about a separate tax directed on fast food. That will never fly since it would have to be a tax on food across the board. It would have to cover healthy food choices as well. What exactly would they tax? Soda? The bun of hamburgers? The hamburger meat? The potato used in the french fries? The oil used to cook the fries? If you look at it from this perspective, it also includes healthy foods. The problem would be defining what exactly is being taxed unless if you place the tax on the business itself. If it is done that way, it would have to tax all restaurants not just the fast food restaurants.



You tax food's that companys willfully know are the direct cause of heart disease and diabetes that simple. And as for clean air... Right then don't use electricity (not a natural requirement to live) and don't drive a car because your vehicle puts out 300 ciggarettes every minute and coal plants are far worse than ciggarettes, its really that simple and very true. And you dont need a car to go to work i walked 4 miles a day for 3 years and made $24,000 a year at 19 doing so. Thirdly Fast Food is a bad and disgusting habit and i hate to look at obese people, but see the same solution to smoking move your butt so you cant see them or smell them again very simple and easy to do. And i dont support smoking in restuarants etc, just in public get over it or just walk a lil behind or infront of the smokers, just like i have too to fat people
Iceaxe0410
Well, I don't necessarily agree with your position. Fast food and tobacco are completely two different things. Electricity, gasoline, and cars are separate as well. Tobacco is a luxury item meaning it isn't required to live or function normally in society. As such, I don't have any problems with it's taxation especially since it encourages bad health. That's not including how many people it affects that don't smoke around them.

Fast food, while also bad for health, is still a type of food. It can sustain life, just not as long as other foods can. For some, they actually live off the stuff because it's cheap and convenient. They may not even think they have cheaper alternatives. It doesn't help it tastes good. It's an addiction just like cigarettes and tobacco can be.

As for gasoline, cars, electricity, those are things that are required for everyday living. Most people rely on these to get to work, travel, or transport things. There aren't too many alternatives which makes our dependence on oil such a bad thing. You get rid of any three of those and the economy will essentially collapse without a strong alternative.
coolclay
Maybe we should close this topic since Santorum is out, and this thread seems to have gotten a little off topic!
busman
coolclay wrote:
Maybe we should close this topic since Santorum is out, and this thread seems to have gotten a little off topic!

True haha i apologise.

Iceaxe0410 wrote:Well, I don't necessarily agree with your position. Fast food and tobacco are completely two different things. Electricity, gasoline, and cars are separate as well. Tobacco is a luxury item meaning it isn't required to live or function normally in society. As such, I don't have any problems with it's taxation especially since it encourages bad health. That's not including how many people it affects that don't smoke around them.


As for gasoline, cars, electricity, those are things that are required for everyday living. Most people rely on these to get to work, travel, or transport things. There aren't too many alternatives which makes our dependence on oil such a bad thing. You get rid of any three of those and the economy will essentially collapse without a strong alternative.

I dont actually belive in sin taxes, i was simply showing the hypocrisy considering fast food is more harmful to the health of the USA than cigarettes. All you need to do to fix the problems of ciggarettes and fast food is take into account the health problems that may occur and raise the sale's taxes by .5% to pay for the Emegancy rooms for people that don't have health coverage and raise insurance premiums to those that choose to partake in risky behaviors. As for having a car, tell New Yorkers or Bay area folks that they NEED a car and theyll laugh at you; same goes for europeans, simply upgrade the PT system infastructure, saves gas and money while keeping the enviroment cleaner. I'd be more than willing to PM you or start a new thread on this topic for open debate.
Mr_Howl
jmi256 wrote:

These types of statements show exactly what is wrong with politics, and remind me of the image below. The fact that you (and there are others like you) would rather stick with Obama and the Democrats’ failed policies and programs simply because of (what I am assuming to be) the fact that they have a “D” behind their name is exactly why the two-party system exists. If you really want better leaders, then stop blindly supporting failures like Obama. It is one thing to take a chance and “hope” that an unproven candidate might be up to the challenge, and while I disagree with that sentiment when it comes to the presidency I can understand that sentiment. However, as the last three-plus years have shown us, Obama is a disaster of a president. If someone sees the mess Obama has been and made and still supports him, then they shouldn’t complain.


No, I'd stick with Obama not because of the "D" behind his name, but because his name is not "Mitt Romney." When left with those two choices, I pick Obama.

It's not like it's a choice between Obama and some unknown--Romney has been in politics a long time. We can therefore make a guess as to what he'll do. He also has a "history" we can refer to.

And, based on his history, I'd go with Obama.

Romney has flip-flopping down to a science. For example, considering that he pretty much invented it, it's strange that he is so critical of Obamacare.

And look at his company--a morally bankrupt piece of trash. You want your government to be run that way? Who do you think he's going to help--you and other Americans, or his billionaire friends?
coolclay
Then it's a d@mn good thing it's not just a choice between Romney and Obama, in case you haven't noticed Ron Paul has the majority representation of around 4 states so far! And is still by far in the running for president! If it was a choice between those 2 bafoons (Obama, and Romney) then I'd rather not vote!
busman
coolclay wrote:
Then it's a d@mn good thing it's not just a choice between Romney and Obama, in case you haven't noticed Ron Paul has the majority representation of around 4 states so far! And is still by far in the running for president! If it was a choice between those 2 bafoons (Obama, and Romney) then I'd rather not vote!


True, and the thing is with Ron Paul in he wouldn't be able to get all his more extreme ideas passed, while still being able to soften the blows of moving towards the right direction of more freedom, taxes in the RIGHT area and ending foriegn spending.
ocalhoun
coolclay wrote:
Then it's a d@mn good thing it's not just a choice between Romney and Obama, in case you haven't noticed Ron Paul has the majority representation of around 4 states so far! And is still by far in the running for president! If it was a choice between those 2 bafoons (Obama, and Romney) then I'd rather not vote!

And even if Romney wins the Republican nomination, there's still others out there.

Don't let the two-party system force you to vote for someone you don't want!
busman
@josso good to know Very Happy

Quote:
Getting back on the topic. It kind of makes me hate Mitt Romney more now that Rick Santorum is endorsing him. I know it's a political move, but it just makes it worse. I just feel that anyone Rick Santorum associates with gets corrupted by association.


Ya he's an idiot man-child hahaha.
Related topics
Indie Music
Panel Says - Bush Policies against Iraq has failed
IBM profiting from the Nazi in 2nd world war
You've been Rick Rolled!
Tea Party Protests
Rick Sanchez.....maybe you lie too. Or don't check facts...
Beyond Reconciliation- The Slaughter Rule
Rick Perry: Creationist, Global Warming Denier, Hypocrite
Republican New Hampshire Primary - Competition
Petition: Stop Google & CPAC/Repubs supporting bigots
Obama, Santorum and Gay Rights
2012: Barack Obama (D) vs Mitt Romney (R)
Coming out and the people that come with it
Find the couples
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.