DC Tom Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 No. It's absurd that a reasonable person finds Santorum's social-enginieering positions so bad that he would quickly, easily and gladly take the leadership of a person who is so hellbent on ripping this country apart that it make Santorum look like an atheist. Really. I see where you're coming from. Tens of trillion in debt. A health care law that does nothing to fix health care. Trillions in money laundering to union pals and campaign supporters. Class warfare rhetoric that has unbathed tent-dwellers putting babies on train tracks, crapping on police cars, and destroying city property. Recess appointments where no recess is taking place. A mandate that churches must turn on their faith for the sake of "women's health care." An AG who has plenty of time to invade a guitar manufacturer, but no idea what that whole Fast and Furious thing is about. Economic growth that is completely in the crapper for the foreseeable future. And the idea that 1.2M people dropping out of the work force is good because it brings the unemployment down to 8.3%. But hey...let's not elect the guy who doesn't like gays. That would be really bad. Totally reasonable. "Doesn't like gays" is oversimplifying...that's just one part of a whole package of crazy that Santorum brings to the social policy table that ignores the basic reality of the position he's campaining for. That doesn't make him all that dissimilar from Obama (particularly if he has Krazy Kongress backing him in his first two years, like Obama did). The only benefit is that Santorum's brand of crazy isn't as likely to send the country into an economic death spiral as Obama's is. And your post comes extremely close to the same sort of "Anybody but ____" syndrome that ultimately got us Obama to begin with.
IDBillzFan Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 And your post comes extremely close to the same sort of "Anybody but ____" syndrome that ultimately got us Obama to begin with. I've posted many times here precisely this point and agree that the "Anybody but..." thought process is precisely how we got here. Fortunately for me, I don't have to sweat my upcoming vote. California will be called for Obama the moment the polls close regardless of what I do. And understand my positions on social issues do not reflect Santorum's in large part because I am much less faith-based. I'm best described as fiscally conservative and socially dysfunctional. Back to my original point: the only thing I was trying to express was that gladly accepting more Obama because of Santorum's social beliefs is a concept born through a lot of things, none of which resembles reason.
Magox Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) It's absurd that a reasonable person cannot find Santorum's social engineering positions--all faith based--terrible? Or you just don't like that I hyperbolized and said I want 20 more years of Obama? I know what I get with Obama. 5 more years of crappy leadership and an economy that is fixing itself despite the left and right's best efforts to eff it up. No, it is not unreasonable to find Santorum's social engineering beliefs to be absurd. I don't like it. It's a turnoff for me, But I'm reasonable enough to understand that social issues, when its all said and done really can't be tremendously dictated from the executive branch and at the end of the day, the election is about a choice, and that choice for me is who can help turn around this economy and reduce the debt more so than the other guy? Meanwhile you are obsessing about the dude's sweatervest and if he may try to propose an amendment to the constitution that has no chance in hell of passing. Yeah, and I agree with you, I don't like that he was pork barrel spender, but again, I'm rational enough to understand that one of the mandates that he would be elected if he were to get in that position (which I highly doubt) would be to cut spending, much more so than Obama. I also happen to like his manufacturing plan that he has, to not impose any capital gains taxes on manufacturers, which of course would help stimulate that segment of the economy. Would it be the silver bullet solution? Nope, but then again, from my perspective, there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution for our economic woes, but it is a bold idea that I happen to like. My focus is primarily on the economy and the debt, and that is what I mainly care about. If I had to put a number that represents the percentage of emphasis of how much I care about each issue national security about 20%, the economy and debt account for about 60%, centralized power about 15% and social issues about 5%. Now if you were to tell me that Santorum has stood on corners with signs that said "God hates Fags" or "Homos suck dick" then without a doubt that would automatically disqualify him for me, and I would just sit out this next upcoming election simply because I would see that as overtly hateful, and I believe we need to have a president who doesn't exemplify hate towards anyone. And please, don't show me a piece of legislation that he has proposed against gay marriage as an interpretation from you as him hating gays. Now if you have something that has shown that he has spewed hatred, then thats a different matter. I'm about as socially liberal as they get, I'm for gay marriage, pro choice, pro legalization of most drugs and a number of other issues, but when someone has a religious belief that they are against abortions and against gay marriage, I have the capacity to understand where they are coming from and respect their beliefs. I find it incredibly unfortunate that most people aren't able to be adamantly opposed to someone's view, but at the same time respectful of their religious beliefs. It's a religious belief man, its important to them, can't you see that? Like I said, if he is or was spewing hatred, that's another matter. I'll tell you whats really up, you just HATE when politicians commingle religion with politics. I remember, I believe it was you or Peace, I think, that I had mentioned John Thune as a possible candidate, and there you went, you basically went off the reservation and brought up a similar argument with virtually the same passion against him, simply because you perceive him to be some bible thumping politician that is incapable of tolerance. Face it, you have a serious hangup for this sort of stuff, that it creates so much hate within you that it clouds reason. Meaning that in matters that virtually have such little impact in what the presidency can do, that you would rather vote in a much less qualified president to guide us through this crappy economy and horrid debt issue simply because they are against gay marriage and pro choice matters. Now that is what you call unreasonable. Edited February 10, 2012 by Magox
John Adams Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 No. It's absurd that a reasonable person finds Santorum's social-enginieering positions so bad that he would quickly, easily and gladly take the leadership of a person who is so hellbent on ripping this country apart that it make Santorum look like an atheist. Really. I see where you're coming from. Tens of trillion in debt. A health care law that does nothing to fix health care. Trillions in money laundering to union pals and campaign supporters. Class warfare rhetoric that has unbathed tent-dwellers putting babies on train tracks, crapping on police cars, and destroying city property. Recess appointments where no recess is taking place. A mandate that churches must turn on their faith for the sake of "women's health care." An AG who has plenty of time to invade a guitar manufacturer, but no idea what that whole Fast and Furious thing is about. Economic growth that is completely in the crapper for the foreseeable future. And the idea that 1.2M people dropping out of the work force is good because it brings the unemployment down to 8.3%. But hey...let's not elect the guy who doesn't like gays. That would be really bad. Totally reasonable. I could easily poke some holes in all this especially the underlined, but much like I put you in the distasteful position of defending Santorum, you've countered to put me in the position of defending Obama. I have no interest in running to his defense though. When I weigh Obama vs. Santorum, Obama wins. For you, Santorum wins. It doesn't matter because Romney will be the nominee barring some crazy controversy happening. Obama will beat Mitt. Obama would destroy Santorum.
OCinBuffalo Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 It's a religious belief man, its important to them, can't you see that? No, he really can't. You A) have to have respect for those beliefs, and JA doesn't, he believes they are beneath him, and therefore, so are the people that hold them B) can't be a phony, who of course considers himself tolerant and therefore a better person than most people, while at the same time being intolerant of other people's beliefs, because of A and expect to comprehend other people's religious beliefs. I have called John Adams a phony multiple times on this board.... ....because he absolutely is. Now you can see it for yourself. How is he supposed to respect his "lessers"? But, yeah, I am the "narcissist" Nope. I simply won't tolerate phonies like John Adams, regardless of the how they arrive at their phoniness.
John Adams Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) No, he really can't. You A) have to have respect for those beliefs, and JA doesn't, he believes they are beneath him, and therefore, so are the people that hold them B) can't be a phony, who of course considers himself tolerant and therefore a better person than most people, while at the same time being intolerant of other people's beliefs, because of A and expect to comprehend other people's religious beliefs. I have called John Adams a phony multiple times on this board.... ....because he absolutely is. Now you can see it for yourself. How is he supposed to respect his "lessers"? But, yeah, I am the "narcissist" Nope. I simply won't tolerate phonies like John Adams, regardless of the how they arrive at their phoniness. Thanks Holden Caulfield, who like you, was a serial narcissist. Edited February 10, 2012 by John Adams
OCinBuffalo Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Thanks Holden Caulfield, who like you, was a serial narcissist. No amount of calling me names....mitigates your phoniness....that I have proven, routinely, for years. You are not morally superior, if you demand tolerance from others, yet refuse to demand it from yourself. No, you are simply a self righteous, self-congratulating phony who is no better than the televangelist caricatures he judges to be morally inferior. I am not the one claiming to be better than other people...you are. So, who's the narcissist again? It's called projection, John Adams. You are projecting.
Rob's House Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 As Obama found out in short order. Still...does mean he's an idiot. Why is it that most of us here on a football message board have more knowledge about the limitations on the powers of the President than the presidential candidates themselves seem to have? one thing I've come to realize is that when it comes to interpreting constitutional limitations on power, judges, politicians, & the like know more or less where the lines are. They just "interpret" the law to be whatever they wish it was. No. It's absurd that a reasonable person finds Santorum's social-enginieering positions so bad that he would quickly, easily and gladly take the leadership of a person who is so hellbent on ripping this country apart that it make Santorum look like an atheist. Really. I see where you're coming from. Tens of trillion in debt. A health care law that does nothing to fix health care. Trillions in money laundering to union pals and campaign supporters. Class warfare rhetoric that has unbathed tent-dwellers putting babies on train tracks, crapping on police cars, and destroying city property. Recess appointments where no recess is taking place. A mandate that churches must turn on their faith for the sake of "women's health care." An AG who has plenty of time to invade a guitar manufacturer, but no idea what that whole Fast and Furious thing is about. Economic growth that is completely in the crapper for the foreseeable future. And the idea that 1.2M people dropping out of the work force is good because it brings the unemployment down to 8.3%. But hey...let's not elect the guy who doesn't like gays. That would be really bad. Totally reasonable. Damn. That pretty much nailed it.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 10, 2012 Author Posted February 10, 2012 The only benefit is that Santorum's brand of crazy isn't as likely to send the country into an economic death spiral as Obama's is. Really? So you think his economic plan is sane? You actually think the balanced budget amendment is anywhere near the side of sane? It has to be the single stupidest, insane, self-destructive plan out there. It's economic suicide. And what do you have against Obama's economic plan?
Chef Jim Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 Really? So you think his economic plan is sane? You actually think the balanced budget amendment is anywhere near the side of sane? It has to be the single stupidest, insane, self-destructive plan out there. It's economic suicide. Ok, it's official. I have just joined the group that think you're a made up character. Because that's some real funny chit right there buddy. Bravo
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 11, 2012 Author Posted February 11, 2012 Ok, it's official. I have just joined the group that think you're a made up character. Because that's some real funny chit right there buddy. Bravo Funny like an ignorant peasant laughing at science? No, what don't you understand?
LeviF Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 The more and more I look at Santorum, the more I hear someone whispering "Poe's Law" in my ear.
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 Really? So you think his economic plan is sane? You actually think the balanced budget amendment is anywhere near the side of sane? It has to be the single stupidest, insane, self-destructive plan out there. It's economic suicide. I actually don't know anything about it, because I haven't bothered to learn anything about it, because 1) I don't vote Republican, so I don't particularly care until the primaries are nearly over, and 2) even if I did, I take Santorum only slightly more seriously than I take you. But whatever economic plan he has, I'm confident betting it's better than Obama's, because... And what do you have against Obama's economic plan? ...what plan?
IDBillzFan Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 Ok, it's official. I have just joined the group that think you're a made up character. Because that's some real funny chit right there buddy. Bravo Yeah, he pretty much tipped his hand when he asked Tom what he had against Obama's economic plan.
Magox Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 The more and more I look at Santorum, the more I hear someone whispering "Poe's Law" in my ear. Dude, I hope it's a chick whispering in your ear.
LeviF Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 Dude, I hope it's a chick whispering in your ear. It's actually a self-disemboweling fox with a bell collar.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 11, 2012 Author Posted February 11, 2012 I actually don't know anything about it, because I haven't bothered to learn anything about it, because 1) I don't vote Republican, so I don't particularly care until the primaries are nearly over, and 2) even if I did, I take Santorum only slightly more seriously than I take you. But whatever economic plan he has, I'm confident betting it's better than Obama's, because... ...what plan? But it's better than Obama's.....ya, ok Can I point out that you are an idiot? Or will mean I'm "acting like you"?
3rdnlng Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 But it's better than Obama's.....ya, ok Can I point out that you are an idiot? Or will mean I'm "acting like you"? So, your reasoning is that nobody's plan can be better than Obama's because Obama doesn't have a plan?
DC Tom Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 But it's better than Obama's.....ya, ok Let's just go with "not worse". Unless Santorum is advocating the President assuming the unrestricted right to unilaterally overturn any private contractual agreement... Can I point out that you are an idiot? Or will mean I'm "acting like you"? Oh, you worship me. Sad, really...I don't even aspire to be me, I don't know why you do.
Recommended Posts