What is it with politicians named Rick??

Perry funding trips with TX money

Here's another example of bizarro fiscal conservatism. TX has to pay for Perry's campaign trips. I'd love for my work to pay for trips I take to go interview for other jobs. And politicians wonder why the people think they're all out of touch.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8996706/US-election-2012-Rick-Santorum-claims-same-sex-marriage-is-comparable-to-polygamy.html

US election 2012: Rick Santorum claims same sex marriage is comparable to polygamy

Really? I mean, REALLY?!

He said same sex marraige was an anathema like ploygamy to his values. “So, everybody has the right to be happy?” he said. “So, if you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that OK?”

An audience in New Hampshire, where he is campaign in a primary election reacted angrily to his comments.

It was the first such confrontation over Santorum’s well-documented opposition to gay rights and gay marriage since his surprisingly strong finish in the Iowa caucuses, but it probably won’t be the last. New Hampshire has allowed same-sex marriage since 2010, and voters who were unaware of Santorum’s stance on the issues are likely to hear a great deal about them now that he is emerging as the Christian conservative standard-bearer in the race.

Student after student challenged him on his stance, especially in light of his earlier remarks about the founding principle that all men were created equal.

Mr Santorum first tried arguing that there was no compelling reason to change the current laws banning same-sex marriage. Mr Santorum achieved national notoriety by claiming homosexual marraige would lead to bestiality and child rape.

“Don’t you have to make a positive argument that the law should be changed?” he asked the crowd. “You, the person who wants do this, tell me, what is the justification? What is the public purpose?”

The comment elicited a chorus of answers, which Santorum tried to quiet. “We’re not shouting out here. Raise your hand, I’ll give you the opportunity.”

Another audience member argued that gay couples would like the right to visit each other in the hospital. Santorum responded that adults may already enter into legal contracts to declare such rights.

Then he made his polygamy comparison.

“If it makes three people happy to get married, based on what you just said, what makes that wrong?” he asked one of the questioners.

“That’s irrelevant,” she responded. “In my opinion, yeah, go for it. But what I’m asking you is how do you justify your beliefs based on these high morals you have about all men being created equal?”

Santorum summed up his position this way: “God made man and woman, and men and women come together to have a union to produce children, which keeps civilization going and provides the best environment for choldren to be raised.”

Santorum then tried to shift the discussion to other topics, but it came up again at the end. When he finally concluded the event, his closing thanks were greeted with a chorus of boos.

Emphasis mine


HAH!

Santorum is hard to listen too. Last semester I had to follow a candidate and write a story about him. Part of it was attending an event. The class decided to attend this Thanksgiving Family Forum. It was 2 hours (6 for the press) of all the candidates saying that gays ruin the sanctity of marriage, are the cause of the economic down fall and the corruption of moral principles. As part of the press, I had to sit back and listen.

My article was good and was very neutral, but one of the hardest things I have ever had to write. Cause all the candidates are freaking whack-a-doodles.

Quote by doogiegood

all the candidates are freaking whack-a-doodles.

Yes. Yes they are.

Yes we Americans are Number One, in nutty politicians. :dry:

Dunno about that, but we're definitely up there.

I generally try to stay away from political discussions when among friends. I believe that people hold specific political (and religious) viewpoints because life brought them to that point for one reason or another. No body holds a political or religious view point "just because."

To write off an entire party as "liberal kooks" or "conservative bigots" does nothing to advance the actual discussion of issues in any meaningful way.

I went from a school-indoctrinated liberal, to a right-wing nut, and have finally settled somewhere center-right. My biggest issue with BOTH parties is that they BOTH are about increasing and further defining government intrusion and power over individual liberty and rights, just in different ways.

The Democrats shout from the rooftops about freedom of speech, social equality, the end of bullying, etc. Google "Santorum" and check the first result to see just how much they value their own stance about social tolerance. But even if we were to take them at face value about the social issues, they are all about advancing government control over fiscal matters: regulation, increased government programs, punitive taxation, and the list goes on.

The Republicans on the other hand rail against government intrusion, promote lower taxes for all, taking personal responsibility, and that states should be given greater authority and the federal less. But what is the first thing they want to do? Constitutionalize discrimination by promoting federal Defense of Marriage laws, trying to regulate medical matters (primarily abortion, and while I'm pro-life, I believe that is something that should be handled on a grass-roots community level, rather than regulated at the federal level).

I am DYING for a candidate who is consistent on matters, one that is for INCREASING individual liberties, and DECREASING government intrusion. This means liberty both in the opportunity to succeed or fail financially on our own, and our liberty to succeed or fail in pursuing happiness on our own. I want the government out of my bedroom as much as I want it out of my wallet.

The problem is with the way our two-party system has become entrenched in modern politics, your choices are social liberty but financial constraint, or social constraint and financial liberty. I don't understand why more people don't see the absurdity of this narrow set of choices and stop voting for the people the media tell us we need to vote for.

Next year I'm stuck: I'm lucky enough to have the right to have married at the moment, but now I need to decide of all the issues out there, which is the most immediate and critical. Do I vote for the guy who doesn't recognize my union, but has sound reasoning for my primary political issue, or do I go with the guy who tells me that while he disagrees with my union, he doesn't think he can stand in the way of it, but has given me three years of the most absurd decision making on my primary political issue.

I know what that primary issue is for me this election cycle. To me, I believe this particular one can mean whether our nation will be able to stand strong enough to defend my liberties whichever ones it happens to support at this time. The problem is, I literally, need to select the lesser of two evils because, for me, the critical nature of my personal primary political issue trumps just about everything else at the moment.

What I wouldn't give for a more viable third-party that is closer to the libertarian side of the political spectrum.

I'm more of an anarchosocialist than anything, and feel like I was born in the wrong country. For local offices, I generally vote Green, and where I live, they occasionally get in. (Heck, we have some city districts where the council members who run are neither Democrat nor Republican. Minnesota is an odd political beast.) But nationally? I'm stuck. I like some of what Obama has done, but it feels like it all gets negated by things like the overturn of habeas corpus. And yet, I am about as not-Republican as you can get, so I'm not going to vote for them. (This was not always the case, but I used to go to a church that pretty much insisted you vote Republican. It's amazing what can be got away with if it's not coming from the pulpit.) So, I feel like I'm stuck voting for a presidential candidate who did something I believe was dangerous and despicable (yes, I know it's more complicated than that, but really, he should have held his original stance).

Oy.

Quote by DakonKor

The Democrats shout from the rooftops about freedom of speech, social equality, the end of bullying, etc. Google "Santorum" and check the first result to see just how much they value their own stance about social tolerance. But even if we were to take them at face value about the social issues, they are all about advancing government control over fiscal matters: regulation, increased government programs, punitive taxation, and the list goes on.

Democrats believe in strong personal freedoms and strong regulation of business. Those are too separate tenants and one cannot be applied to the other. Despite what the Supreme Court might say, corporations aren't people and should be held to a different standard.

I don't understand how Republicans can sit there screaming for less government oversight of corporations year after year despite literally centuries of historical evidence showing the abuses by corporations, either against their workers, the environment or our financial system itself. Corporations have one purpose, to make money, and if they have to buy and sell people, they will; they've done it before. The little consumer, worker and personal protections that we have in this country were not thrown up over night because of some Democrat overreaction. Each and every law was created and approved as a response to a particular problem our country faced, but as time goes on and the original problem slips from the public's eye, Republicans swoop in to remove the protections under some guise that it's no longer necessary. As if, it is impossible for that problem to occur again.

In the United States a slew of worker protections were started after the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in which 146 people died due the factory managers locking the exists so workers could not leave. As well, it caused unions to start up across the country as workers banded together to bring attention to working conditions and safety concerns, which beforehand would've meant you were just fired and replaced. Now a days, safety protections and unions are under a constant assault into nonexistence. When I point to examples such as this and the laws that were enacted to prevent it from happening again during discussions about government oversight to my more conservative friends they say, "Of course, those protections are needed.", but for every single regulatory law there is an equally heinous tragedy that caused its existence.

Next week . . . my rant on why goverment programs are good.

Quote by NicholasJohn16

I don't understand how Republicans can sit there screaming for less government oversight of corporations year after year despite literally centuries of historical evidence showing the abuses by corporations, either against their workers, the environment or our financial system itself. Corporations have one purpose, to make money, and if they have to buy and sell people, they will; they've done it before. The little consumer, worker and personal protections that we have in this country were not thrown up over night because of some Democrat overreaction. Each and every law was created and approved as a response to a particular problem our country faced, but as time goes on and the original problem slips from the public's eye, Republicans swoop in to remove the protections under some guise that it's no longer necessary. As if, it is impossible for that problem to occur again.

This is basically the same reasoning I have when it comes to Universal Healthcare. I don't know why it's acceptable for private business to regulate or be involved with healthcare. For me it poses a really huge conflict of interest:

If your purpose is to make profits as a corporation, how can you provide services to those who are sick or dying without money?

The short answer is, you cannot. As the sole purpose of any corporation is the acquisition of wealth, resources and time dedicated to that end. For those who cannot provide that, aren't entitled to it.

Now, I have a problem with this. To me, medical treatment is a right, not a privledge. As is education and the emergency services (such as police, fire brigade) and to a lesser extent defence (Military, Navy etc).

I, as a Briton, am very happy with the fact its slightly different here, in that we have the NHS (National Health Service), which is universal healthcare or free-at-point of-entry healthcare, whichever terminology you prefer.

Sorry for going off topic, just while reading your point, I recalled how desperately republican pundits began attacking the British NHS in an attempt to undermine Obamas healthcare bill.

I recall they demonised it by calling it "socialist medicine", which while I'm not any American, would assume carries certain connotations (i.e Soviets, USSR, Evil Russia).

Or death councils or whatever, determining who deserves treatment and who can just die.

In a way, it was very LOL. Much like FAUX News. :cheer: :lol:

Quote by Sixu

I recall they demonised it by calling it "socialist medicine", which while I'm not any American, would assume carries certain connotations (i.e Soviets, USSR, Evil Russia).

Yes they despise anything that's socialist.

Except their social security, don't mess with their social security!

Quote by Angelsilhouette

Quote by Sixu

I recall they demonised it by calling it "socialist medicine", which while I'm not any American, would assume carries certain connotations (i.e Soviets, USSR, Evil Russia).

Yes they despise anything that's socialist.

Except their social security, don't mess with their social security!

Social Security isn't socialist! They just put social in the title to be ironic. B)

Quote by NicholasJohn16

Quote by Angelsilhouette

Quote by Sixu

I recall they demonised it by calling it "socialist medicine", which while I'm not any American, would assume carries certain connotations (i.e Soviets, USSR, Evil Russia).

Yes they despise anything that's socialist.

Except their social security, don't mess with their social security!

Social Security isn't socialist! They just put social in the title to be ironic. B)

Since tone is hard to convey, this said completely lightheartedly: Who are we kidding? Any of us under the age of 40 are going to be pretty lucky if Social Security survives until we retire. I know I'm not banking my future (or my husband's, sometimes to his chagrin) on it.

Too bad it's only glitter; but it's still funny.



I want them to use the really really finely cut glitter. The stuff that's super hard to get off. :p