Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:True that. they're usually the ones imposing said law at the federal level.

Not when the states don't want to impose those laws.

Republicans certainly don't respect California's state rights, for example.

Frazzled wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Melissia wrote:No, Frazz is still stuck on that other religion thread from a week ago I think.

It comes from trying to be funny and not really saying anything.

I disagree. Sounds like nonsense to stir up the base, lefty this time. But like Republicans everyone's interested in sticking their nose in private affiars for good or bad.

Taking the below at face value as if he actually said these things:

He doesn't believe in the right to privacy.

***That’s problematic. Evidently most of Congress doesn’t either. Fortunately that’s fairly settled by SCOTUS. It’s the Economy Stupid.

He has suggested that laws against adultery, sodomy, and any sex acts he believes don't contribute to a wholesome family should exist.

Good for him. He's so cute when he's pandering. That’s a state issue, although largerly trumped by that evil SCOTUS again (maniacal laugh…maniacal laugh…if you know what that is from you’re a Kermit fan!) It’s the Economy Stupid.

He's a creationist, and believes it should be taught in schools.

***State issue. It’s the Economy Stupid.

He thinks contraceptives should be outlawed.

*** Fortunately that’s fairly settled by SCOTUS. It’s the Economy Stupid.


Evidently you hippy tree huggers have your own bugaboo talking points to distract from real issues.

He has actually said those things. Hell, he's said worse than those things.

Whether or not an issue has already been "settled" by the Supreme Court is irrelevant; Republicans campaign on Roe v. Wade all the time, despite it being long-settled law. Something deemed unconstitutional magically becomes constitutional when the Constitution's amended to include it. People advocating for that kind of thing are terrifying, regardless of if they're currently held in check.

As far as "it's the Economy Stupid" goes...I can't tell you how little respect and how much loathing I have for single-issue voters. I'll never understand the short-sighed idiocy that makes voting for a guy who will have wide-ranging influence on a whole host of extremely important issues simply because you like his stance on a grand total of one seem like a good idea.

But, hey. If you want to talk about the economy vis-a-vis Santorum...his economic plan is idiotic, hinged entirely on the absurd notion that manufacturing is going to drive us to a new era of prosperity. In light of all of this, I'm quite satisfied in declaring him to be a time traveler from the late '40s.

Seaward wrote:Something deemed unconstitutional magically becomes constitutional when the Constitution's amended to include it.

I can't decide if you're being critical of that fact, or not, but that is how it generally works.

Seaward wrote:
I'll never understand the short-sighed idiocy that makes voting for a guy who will have wide-ranging influence on a whole host of extremely important issues simply because you like his stance on a grand total of one seem like a good idea.

I mean, if someone campaigned on "Kill Dogma!" I would very likely vote against him no matter what he happened to think about anything else. Its perfectly reasonable to consider one issue more important than all others added together.

Seaward wrote:
But, hey. If you want to talk about the economy vis-a-vis Santorum...his economic plan is idiotic, hinged entirely on the absurd notion that manufacturing is going to drive us to a new era of prosperity. In light of all of this, I'm quite satisfied in declaring him to be a time traveler from the late '40s.

A more effective tactic would likely be to talk about his belief that there is no derived right to privacy.

dogma wrote:I can't decide if you're being critical of that fact, or not, but that is how it generally works.

Critical of the constitutional amendment process? No, not at all. I'm glad it exists. I was being critical of people who doubt True Believers' commitment to getting their extreme social conservatism enshrined into law simply because the Supreme Court has ruled against it in the past.

I mean, if someone campaigned on "Kill Dogma!" I would very likely vote against him no matter what he happened to think about anything else. Its perfectly reasonable to consider one issue more important than all others added together.

That example works only in the abstract. Economic policy. Foreign policy. Social policy. Defense policy. Environmental policy. No one of those is more important than all the others combined.

A more effective tactic would likely be to talk about his belief that there is no derived right to privacy.

People don't seem to understand the significance of that.

If Huntsman ends up on a ticket, I'll vote for him unless he's on the same ticket as Bachmann or Santorum.

If Bachmann or Santorum, or God forbid, Santorum/Bachmann end up on a ticket I'll vote for Obama.

Otherwise I think I'll probably stay home. I'm only temporarily in California so I pay little attention to local politics.

Seaward wrote:
That example works only in the abstract. Economic policy. Foreign policy. Social policy. Defense policy. Environmental policy. No one of those is more important than all the others combined.

Maybe not to you, but to someone else its an entirely different case. A gay billionaire probably isn't going to be in favor of gay marriage if he thinks it will cost him 500 million USD. After all, he's a billionaire, he can already essentially do what he wants. That's also an obtuse example, but looking at my day-to-day existence the only significant policy areas are economic, foreign, and defense. And the last two are only relevant in terms of potential employment, which makes economic policy a whole lot more important.

And that's before you consider the context of what Presidential political positions actually mean. Santorum can push for a ban on abortions if he wants, but a large chunk of both chambers will take issue.

Seaward wrote:
People don't seem to understand the significance of that.

Its more that, until the last few days, Santorum had been an irrelevant politician for some time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
If Bachmann or Santorum, or God forbid, Santorum/Bachmann end up on a ticket I'll vote for Obama.

I actually can't imagine a worse political ticket, given the current crop, both in terms of who I want to see in office, and who everyone else wants to see in office.

I will die laughing if it comes to pass.

dogma wrote:

Seaward wrote:
That example works only in the abstract. Economic policy. Foreign policy. Social policy. Defense policy. Environmental policy. No one of those is more important than all the others combined.

Maybe not to you, but to someone else its an entirely different case. A gay billionaire probably isn't going to be in favor of gay marriage if he thinks it will cost him 500 million USD. After all, he's a billionaire, he can already essentially do what he wants. That's also an obtuse example, but looking at my day-to-day existence the only significant policy areas are economic, foreign, and defense. And the last two are only relevant in terms of potential employment, which makes economic policy a whole lot more important.

And that's before you consider the context of what Presidential political positions actually mean. Santorum can push for a ban on abortions if he wants, but a large chunk of both chambers will take issue.

People are free to vote how they like, but I'm frankly scared of an electorate whose only thought when making decisions for the country is whether or not they they'll make an extra couple grand a year. After all, I can think of at least one truly horrendous individual in world history who made it into power simply by promising and providing economic improvement.

This country managed to pass a constitutional amendment banning the sale of alcohol less than a hundred years ago. I wouldn't put any level of socially conservative stupidity past Congress if the stars align.

Seaward wrote:After all, I can think of at least one truly horrendous individual in world history who made it into power simply by promising and providing economic improvement.

And I can think of more than one guy that did the same by promising social improvement.

And several that ran on the "I'm awesome." ticket.

dogma wrote:

Seaward wrote:After all, I can think of at least one truly horrendous individual in world history who made it into power simply by promising and providing economic improvement.

And I can think of more than one guy that did the same by promising social improvement.

And several that ran on the "I'm awesome." ticket.

I'm glad we're in agreement it's far more rational to look at a candidate's entire body of belief rather than simply cherry-picking one issue out of dozens and basing your decision on that.

We're not in agreement at all.

You're bandying about the word "rational" as you please.

Claiming that you really love birth, and that birth being denied is bad, then voting for people that really like birth despite other shortcomings, does not make you irrational.

dogma wrote:We're not in agreement at all.

We're not?

You don't agree it's better to look at a candidate's entire range of positions, rather than simply finding out where he stands only on one and voting based solely on that?

Interesting. So as long as I promise you a better defense industry job, I can advocate for a pogrom against redheads and the banning of all food that doesn't start with M and still receive your vote?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:True that. they're usually the ones imposing said law at the federal level.

Not when the states don't want to impose those laws.

Republicans certainly don't respect California's state rights, for example.

Which state right is that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Melissia wrote:No, Frazz is still stuck on that other religion thread from a week ago I think.

It comes from trying to be funny and not really saying anything.

I disagree. Sounds like nonsense to stir up the base, lefty this time. But like Republicans everyone's interested in sticking their nose in private affiars for good or bad.

Taking the below at face value as if he actually said these things:

He doesn't believe in the right to privacy.

***That’s problematic. Evidently most of Congress doesn’t either. Fortunately that’s fairly settled by SCOTUS. It’s the Economy Stupid.

He has suggested that laws against adultery, sodomy, and any sex acts he believes don't contribute to a wholesome family should exist.

Good for him. He's so cute when he's pandering. That’s a state issue, although largerly trumped by that evil SCOTUS again (maniacal laugh…maniacal laugh…if you know what that is from you’re a Kermit fan!) It’s the Economy Stupid.

He's a creationist, and believes it should be taught in schools.

***State issue. It’s the Economy Stupid.

He thinks contraceptives should be outlawed.

*** Fortunately that’s fairly settled by SCOTUS. It’s the Economy Stupid.


Evidently you hippy tree huggers have your own bugaboo talking points to distract from real issues.

He has actually said those things. Hell, he's said worse than those things.

Whether or not an issue has already been "settled" by the Supreme Court is irrelevant; Republicans campaign on Roe v. Wade all the time, despite it being long-settled law. Something deemed unconstitutional magically becomes constitutional when the Constitution's amended to include it. People advocating for that kind of thing are terrifying, regardless of if they're currently held in check.

As far as "it's the Economy Stupid" goes...I can't tell you how little respect and how much loathing I have for single-issue voters. I'll never understand the short-sighed idiocy that makes voting for a guy who will have wide-ranging influence on a whole host of extremely important issues simply because you like his stance on a grand total of one seem like a good idea.

But, hey. If you want to talk about the economy vis-a-vis Santorum...his economic plan is idiotic, hinged entirely on the absurd notion that manufacturing is going to drive us to a new era of prosperity. In light of all of this, I'm quite satisfied in declaring him to be a time traveler from the late '40s.

Democrats campaign on just the opposite. Its a side show to 1) scare the mouth breathers into voting; or 2) more importantly get those campaign contributions into the old coffers. Its both sad and distracting.

Rick prays alot. If he doesn't win it's because god hates him.

olympia wrote:Rick prays alot. If he doesn't win it's because god hates him.

olympia wrote:Rick prays alot. If he doesn't win it's because god hates him.

Win.

When God gives you lemons, YOU FIND A NEW GOD!!!
POWERTHIRST!!!!!

frgsinwntr wrote:

olympia wrote:Rick prays alot. If he doesn't win it's because god hates him.

Win.

When God gives you lemons, YOU FIND A NEW GOD!!!
POWERTHIRST!!!!!

It is what plants crave.

Frazzled wrote:
Democrats campaign on just the opposite. Its a side show to 1) scare the mouth breathers into voting; or 2) more importantly get those campaign contributions into the old coffers. Its both sad and distracting.

You're wrong, I'm afraid. In his losing campaign in 2006, when he knew perfectly well he was going to lose, he let loose with this stuff, and by his campaign's own admission at the time, decided to go out talking about what he believed rather than trying to win a hopeless fight. He's a True Believer, not pandering. Exactly nobody panders to the, "police should have the right to search your house and arrest you if they have reason to believe you've been using contraceptives while having sex with your spouse," crowd.

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Democrats campaign on just the opposite. Its a side show to 1) scare the mouth breathers into voting; or 2) more importantly get those campaign contributions into the old coffers. Its both sad and distracting.

You're wrong, I'm afraid. In his losing campaign in 2006, when he knew perfectly well he was going to lose, he let loose with this stuff, and by his campaign's own admission at the time, decided to go out talking about what he believed rather than trying to win a hopeless fight. He's a True Believer, not pandering. Exactly nobody panders to the, "police should have the right to search your house and arrest you if they have reason to believe you've been using contraceptives while having sex with your spouse," crowd.

I didn't say Democrats weren't true believers too, but you see this all the time. Vote for X or because the other party eats babies and will try to eat yours! blah blah. Meanwhile the city is burning. Where's my lyre?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

dogma wrote:We're not in agreement at all.

We're not?

You don't agree it's better to look at a candidate's entire range of positions, rather than simply finding out where he stands only on one and voting based solely on that?

Interesting. So as long as I promise you a better defense industry job, I can advocate for a pogrom against redheads and the banning of all food that doesn't start with M and still receive your vote?

Both are good. Some people vote on single or few issues, some are full penumbra of rights type guys.

Bachmann, Perry and Cain all got into the race because God told them to.

God is high fiving someone over this hilarious joke right now.

Rented Tritium wrote:Bachmann, Perry and Cain all got into the race because God told them to.

God is high fiving someone over this hilarious joke right now.

The anti God crowd is strong this morning.
Total BS, but even if we assumed that:

Is it better to run because God told you too, or run because your ego is so incredibly over developed you think you are capable, indeed the best choice, to run the the most powerful country in the free world?

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Bachmann, Perry and Cain all got into the race because God told them to.

God is high fiving someone over this hilarious joke right now.

The anti God crowd is strong this morning.
Total BS, but even if we assumed that:

Is it better to run because God told you too, or run because your ego is so incredibly over developed you think you are capable, indeed the best choice, to run the the most powerful country in the free world?

It's an irrelevant question considering I don't believe God actually exists.

So what you are really asking is, is it better to hear voices or be cocky? Going with cocky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What if Zeus tells me to run, frazzled? Are you going to take me seriously?

So what you are really asking is, is it better to hear voices or be a clinical magalomaniac?

Corrected your typo.

What if Zeus tells me to run, frazzled?

As you're an atheist, I'd proffer you'd stick your fingers in your ears and go "NANANA! not getting me!"

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:True that. they're usually the ones imposing said law at the federal level.

Not when the states don't want to impose those laws.

Republicans certainly don't respect California's state rights, for example.

/source.

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:True that. they're usually the ones imposing said law at the federal level.

Not when the states don't want to impose those laws.

Republicans certainly don't respect California's state rights, for example.

/source.

She's referring to states not recognizing each other's gay marriages.

Or before that, not recognizing each other's interracial marriages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

So what you are really asking is, is it better to hear voices or be a clinical magalomaniac?

Corrected your typo.

So your position is that one has to either be told by an invisible friend or be insane to think they can do that job?

Now that I think about it, that's not actually the worst way of looking at it.

Rented Tritium wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:True that. they're usually the ones imposing said law at the federal level.

Not when the states don't want to impose those laws.

Republicans certainly don't respect California's state rights, for example.

/source.

She's referring to states not recognizing each other's gay marriages.

Or before that, not recognizing each other's interracial marriages.

Don't be daft. Thats flipping it. Under the Constitution if one state goes rogue and makes marrying billy goats legal, all the other states have to recognize that.

Seaward wrote:That example works only in the abstract. Economic policy. Foreign policy. Social policy. Defense policy. Environmental policy. No one of those is more important than all the others combined.

I would give an example to the contrary-- for homosexuals, gay rights often ARE more important. It's not just a single issue but a whole swath of issues, but still.

The economy can fix itself if the government stops screwing around and adding in uncertainty (both parties being guilty of this), our foreign policy doesn't really change much over administrations anwyay (usually it only changes over decades or major events), defense will always be looked after, and environmental policy doesn't always have a direct effect on their lives.

But social policy does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:/source.

Gay marriage and legalization of marijuana come to mind.

Monster Rain wrote:If Huntsman ends up on a ticket, I'll vote for him unless he's on the same ticket as Bachmann or Santorum.

If Bachmann or Santorum, or God forbid, Santorum/Bachmann end up on a ticket I'll vote for Obama.

Otherwise I think I'll probably stay home. I'm only temporarily in California so I pay little attention to local politics.

Vote for Obama anyway mate, I've stuck £100 on Obama winning the next election at 8/11.

Frazzled wrote:
Is it better to run because God told you too, or run because your ego is so incredibly over developed you think you are capable, indeed the best choice, to run the the most powerful country in the free world?

What?

Melissia wrote: legalization of marijuana come to mind.

I didn't know Holder was a Republican. Thats news.

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Bachmann, Perry and Cain all got into the race because God told them to.

God is high fiving someone over this hilarious joke right now.

The anti God crowd is strong this morning.
Total BS, but even if we assumed that:

Is it better to run because God told you too, or run because your ego is so incredibly over developed you think you are capable, indeed the best choice, to run the the most powerful country in the free world?

You're asking if I'd prefer a narcissist or a lunatic.

Narcissist, any day of the week. Twice on Sundays.