Slashdot Mirror
Santorum Suspends Presidential Campaign
bobwrit writes with this excerpt from CNN:
"Conservative challenger Rick Santorum announced Tuesday that he is suspending his Republican presidential campaign after a weekend of 'prayer and thought,' effectively ceding the GOP nomination to front-runner Mitt Romney. Santorum made his announcement after the weekend hospitalization of his 3-year-old daughter Isabella, and in the face of tightening poll numbers in Pennsylvania — the state he represented as a U.S. senator — ahead of the April 24 primary. 'Ladies and gentlemen, we made the decision to get into this race around our kitchen table, against all the odds,' Santorum told a news conference, flanked by emotional family members. 'We made a decision over the weekend that while the presidential race for us is over, and I will suspend my campaign effective today, we are not done fighting.'"
Nothing so see here, move one. This is on every media outlet.
I have a hard time believing that Santorum actually expected to have a chance at this stage. My mother is a Neo-conservative Christian party-line voter, and even she is considering voting for Obama again; and not because she likes him. The entire GOP lineup is a mess.
Santorum pulls out after repeatedly coming in number two
He tried to come from behind.
Tap, Tap, is this thing on?
Good bye crazy douche-bag, you will not be missed.
Signed, Someone with a college degree a.k.a a snob.
I got here through a series of tubes
...campaign to prove he is not part of the social elite!
The results of elections affect the entire world. Please instruct your ignorance to go fuck itself, and please take time out of your day to send Mr. Frothy-Mix a letter asking him how he thinks people without insurance deal with the hospitalization of a 3-year-old.
Yours,
yours.
"Santorum Wiped Out"
"Santorum Expelled"
"Santorum Voided"
"Santorum Discharged"
"Santorum Creamed"
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Thought is a first for Santorum. Hell, he might even have won my vote if he kept that up.
They're all scum. Supporters are either stupid, or corrupt take your pick.
http://tdarkcabal.blogspot.com/2012/04/april-7-2012-white-hats-report-39.html
Ron Paul is the best candidate America had in over 50 years.
The GOP lineup has the same problem as the 2004 lineup that failed to defeat GWB. I took one look at that ticket and said: A Massachusetts old money man + a slick trial lawyer. That was everything the moderate GOP voter hates about the Dems, and wouldn't make anybody switch. They finally realized they needed something different and went with Obama.
The GOP is making the same mistake. The fact that the front runner is from MA is pure coincidence. It's wealthy businessmen, religious fanatics, and a guy who was fresh in the 90s.
The only "something different" candidate is Ron Paul; but he's too different. The GOP needs something fresh. I'm not sure where it'll come from, but these guys are not fresh. Really, for someone like myself with weak party affiliation the GOP is dead after GWB. The organization itself is defective. Not to say that the Dems are much better. It's the slightly less evil party.
I think we need just a bit more time for things to get so bad that sane people with the capability to lead will want to run on a 3rd party ticket. The two main parties are rapidly on their way to ruining their respective reputations. Not this time though. Not. Ready. Yet.
Shit that splatters
I highly doubt he could have won after his racially charged slur, But it's interesting to hear that he's quitting. As far as I knew, he had plans to continue in spite of the massive defeat by romney.
so I guess it is sort of related to /.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
My mother is a Neo-conservative Christian party-line voter, and even she is considering voting for Obama again
looks like your mom is a double idiot.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Okay, so now will republican voters maybe start paying attention to Ron Paul? He's the guy who is ACTUALLY in favor of smaller governments and the constitution.
You guys still claim to like those things, right?
If you're an idiot or insane. For normal functional human beings who are not either semi-retarded or sociopaths, he's what you might call a very dangerous, foolish, ignorant man.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Now all the Republicans who were whining about what a horrible candidate Romney was and how he wasn't any better than Obama get to shake, shake, shake etch-a-sketch and pretend to love him.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Frothy.
Now all we need is a promise from Romney that you won't hold any position of authority in his administration if he's elected. You're unfit to hold any public office.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Santorum pulls out after repeatedly coming in number two
And Good Riddance!
That Sum bitch is nothing but Christian Taliban.
And for those of you who want a Theocratic States of America, let me point out two things:
1. Every theocracy on this planet is a Third World Shit Hole. Yes, Correlation IS causation in this case.
2. We Catholics have over a millenia or two of controlling governments. Do you and your Christian based cult (Episcopalians, Baptists, Morons[Church of Later Day frauds], and whatever ) think you have any chance against us? If you're not Catholic, you're not Christian - according to one of our Bishops. Do you really think you have a chance?
Just saying.
Christians who think that everyone else believes the way they themselves do are fooling themselves and we wouldn't be "one nation under God" - we'd be a balkanized pseudo Christian shithole. But you can't tell that to Fox News and their moronic watchers!
Anyway, I'd be more than happy to have a Christian States of America - I can get rich! fucking the moronic followers of our religion.
(Jesus never said he was THE son of God. Ever. And that's assuming he actually existed.)
"Prayer and thought".
There's your problem. How about more thinking and less appealing to a non-existent sky-fairy? I truly look forward to the day when politicians can safely declare some sort of rationalist-based intellect instead of this, but I expect it's a long way off.
I have a hard time believing that Santorum actually expected to have a chance at this stage. My mother is a Neo-conservative Christian party-line voter, and even she is considering voting for Obama again; and not because she likes him. The entire GOP lineup is a mess.
At a conference of social conservative groups a couple of months ago, they anointed Santorum their choice. He may have figured the righteous right could trump the plutocrats.
But yeah, it has been becoming increasingly obvious that he wasn't going to be able to pull anything out of his, uh, hat.
Gingrich claims to be sticking it out, despite reports that his campaign is deeply in debt. I wonder if he's angling for a VP spot, or a Cabinet position.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I guess it's kind of relevant to Slashdot because of Santorum's strong anti-science stance.
now, there is no chance that we will be able to pass a constitutional amendment banning masturbation. with santorum gone, the only bulwark against the slaughter of the billions of semen is a man from whom I would not buy a used car - Mitt Romney.
When did "suspend" take the place of "quitting"? "Suspends" just seems to imply that he's gonna be back......
......somehow
......I hope not.
If the campaign is over, why do the candidates always say they have "suspended" it? Saw the same thing when Pawlenty, Bachmann, and the Godfather's Pizza Guy dropped out. The campaigns aren't coming back, so why are they saying they are only "suspended"?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
and one year after the war in iraq had started, but before it had gone completely to hell in a handbasket.
2004 was in the middle of the housing boom, when every fucking idiot thought they had $500,000 in equity in some piece of shit mcmansion that was in reality just a game piece so that some hedge funder could pump and dump another Mortgage Backed CDO on the widows and orphan investors of the planet.
"ask yourself, are you better off now than you were 4 years ago, using the fake paper accounting that is full of shit and will probably collapse before the next olympics"
Fighting for what? Against the ideals of your own Church that basically came out and said that universal health care is a right? That evolution is just fine? That women don't have to be barefoot and in the kitchen? That the world is older than 6000 years? That social justice is a good idea?
Keep fuckin' that chicken, Rick.
--
BMO
Indeed dangerous as he threatens the high life due to the nation's continued parasitic existence. The other guys that seek to start a global conflict against the BRICS nations and whoever else falls on their side for geopolitical reasons are a far better prospect for president surely. Let's ignore the fact that the US dollar effectively functions as a global tax via your quantitative easing and enforcing use of it via your military and the fact that the rest of the world is getting sick of that. Doesn't he realise that his policies mean a minimum wage worker will no longer be able to afford the latest shiney electronic gizmo every 5 months!? We shouldn't care that this is possible due to the exploitation of human beings elsewhere, just so long as we're all right Jack! Just how long do you think you can continue to subjugate a massive proportion of the human race in this way? Surely it's better to put a stop to it before the resistance reaches critical mass and 9/11 is a fond memory in comparison to the new reality you suffer.
"My fellow Americans, let me begin by saying that I am an atheist. I do not believe in the existence of God, the soul, the afterlife, or the supernatural. Instead, I believe in the supremacy of Science as a right and logical worldview. I believe that we are biological machines that are eminently programmable given the right kind of inputs and genetic engineering. Furthermore, I believe that instead of a non-existent "creator" that the universe came into being on its own, and will gradually dissipate into an eternal, endless heat death without recursion based upon immutable laws of physics that cannot and will not change. I believe that there is no such thing as conscious thought, and I will base my administration on moral, humane standards as set forth by Hitchens, Dawkins, Darwin, and the latest research from behavioralist-based neuroscience. I will not support any notion of faith, or belief in the hereafter, and I will not support or condone who do. In fact, I believe religion is a virus that needs to be eradicated from the minds of men and my administration will set forth priorities to rid our nation and our world of anything remotely resembling faith in anything except for logical empirical conclusions that agree with what Science has found. I ask you all to leave behind your befuddled illusions of what you hold dear and join me in the clear light of Truth and Unity, and to vote for me."
Anyone who has even casually been following the republican primaries can see how incredibly twisted and corrupt the party is. How could anyone still think voting republican is a good idea? Not saying democrat is a great way to vote either, but there are other parties and it's about time for some fresh parties and directions. The old has not served us well for the past 20+ years.
I was really worried this guy was going to try to keep going. The way he speaks reminds me of Hitler, in both subject matter and candor. This whole business of fighting the good culture warrior fight makes me very nervous. I don't like Romney either, but he doesn't scare the bejeepers out of me the way Santorum did.
The hot brunette in the electric blue blouse? Very bang worthy.
If you're an idiot or insane. For normal functional human beings who are not either semi-retarded or sociopaths, he's what you might call a very dangerous, foolish, ignorant man.
This has been a case study in ad-hominem attacks. Thank you for reading.
God told him to run.
Then, God told him to quit.
Maybe God should be Romney's running mate.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
I'm not trying to troll, but I'm curious why you think this. I voted for Obama last time, but I'm having a hard time justifying his Bush-in-all-but-name policies and would like an honest alternative. Romney's not it. What's wrong with Paul?
My mother is a Neo-conservative Christian party-line voter, and even she is considering voting for Obama again
looks like your mom is a double idiot.
Because she is a Christian voting for Obama, or because she is party-line voter voting against her party line, or because she is a party-line voting Christian.
Let me guess... all three.
That is to say...
His backers were the same ones who pushed Gingrich and Bachmann; trying to make the Republicans attack each other for as long as possible
* In other words, 'the belief of an idiot'.
but he did as he was meant to: plumb the waters with some outrageous-sounding statements.
now, the R machine knows exactly how far they can push social conservatism with their serious contender, the nexus-6 model Mitt Romney.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Ron Paul wants to take away their play pretties and pay the bills instead of pissing Trillions away. The left wants to piss it away on people who are "disadvantaged" and the right wants to piss it away on wars. I saw Ron Paul in one debate get booed because he said we couldn't afford to continue being the world's policeman even though it should be obvious to anyone that can do arithmetic. I'm thoroughly convinced that both the democrats and republicans are seriously math challenged.
Gingrich is filled with spite. I actually like it though. I can't stand Romney and while Gingrich is no prize either I do like that he's spitting in the eyes of the Republican leadership.
In a surprise announcement, Mitt Romney announced that he too is suspending his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination.
In his shockingly candid speech, Romney said "I only stayed in the race this long to ensure that Rick Santorum didn't get the nomination. Now, with Santorum out of the race, it's time for me to withdraw and leave the contest to the two candidates whose beliefs actually differ from those of Barack Obama".
"The American People deserve a choice of candidates who actually have differing beliefs. The only differences in belief between myself and Barack Obama, is that I'm a Mormon, and he is not. My policies when I was the governor of Massachusetts were virtually identical to President Obama's policies. If I were elected, you would be hard pressed to find anything that I would do differently. Therefore, I'm stepping down to ensure the voters have an actual choice in November."
When asked who he was going to endorse, he declined comment. This story may contain factual errors, and was, in fact, entirely made up. However, as making up facts and reporting on whatever we want is now commonplace, we figured you wouldn't notice.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
The GOP does not actually want to win this election. Just like they did not want to win the last election. Why? They want the other side to take the blame when the economy really turns south. So far the Obama Administration has managed to float the economy through massive QE and letting the stock market continue to be an HFT gambling hall. Eventually though, it will reach a tipping point where no amount of government tricks can keep the current system alive.
The line between ad-hominem and actually thinking somebody represents a dangerous, foolish and ignorant position is a fine one, especially when explaining the depths of ignorance is so futile, but it does exist.
Its only when the US goes fucking up in other countries (which seems to be quite often lately) do we notice, mostly because we have to go in and help clean up your mess.
Contradicts the first part of the point that you thought you were making:
I know many Americans are too arrogant to grasp this, but most of the world's population don't actually know let alone care about most things that happen in the USA.
Given the above,
Regardless of your personal view of how important US politics may be, even on a global scale, Slashdot is meant to be a Tech. news site. Lets keep it that way please.
Regardless of your clear genius, the political direction of the US Congress, Presidency (and judiciary that they put into power) directs the crafting and execution of legislation that applies to geeks. If your head wasn't preoccupied with spelunking the deeper regions of your colon, you'd be aware of such geek-centric topics as net neutrality, copyright, and piracy, and how US policy is deeply intertwined with global policy.
I'm aware of his fiscal and Constitutional viewpoints, but I was curious about the "dangerous, foolish, ignorant" part.
That doesn't mean he's wrong.
I don't understand your outrage. You should praise the beauty that is the living language we call English.
Do you *honestly* consider Ron Paul a better candidate than Gary Johnson? Wouldn't you rather have a REAL Libertarian rather than a fake one who let's his personal religious/moral attitudes on homosexuality and abortion cloud his political positions?
Many times, perhaps most times, candidates cede the race while in debt. If they discontinue the campaign entirely, they can no longer fundraise to cover those debts.
There are other also other reasons, e.g. the ability to pay campaign staffers to wind things down, control over delegates, control over remaining campaign funds. But the big one is usually debt, especially if the candidate is well-heeled and partially funded his or her self by making personal loans to the campaign.
Ah, the old guy with outdated ideology and a racist past?
Great choice.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Certainly the ones outside the States (or at least, mostly immune).
Do you really think that? A dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist Christian that thinks the Apocalypse is a good thing because he gets to meet his BFF Jesus that day, in charge of the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world?
Still think you're immune?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
That "outdated ideology" is the American ideology and defines the American way of life. If you don't like it there are plenty of other English speaking countries you can move too. America isn't for everyone.
Even Ron Paul's critics don't think he wrote those articles. He took moral responsibility for being a bad editor, but that doesn't make him a racist. Nor does it give him a "racist past".
The left wants to piss it away on people who are "disadvantaged" and the right wants to siphon it off to military contractors.
FTFY
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
(a) wants to repeal the 14th amendment and is willing to do it through judicial activism or legislation rather than a proper constitutional convention.
(b) wants to abolish the fed and return to the gold standard, two things which would be suicide according to virtually every economist with any sort of reputation
(c) wants to reduce the US military to effectively being state militias
(d) wants to legally declare that life begins at conception
(e) thinks that the civil rights act was unconstitutional, or at least bad law
(f) thinks states have the right to restrict individual freedoms, e.g. state laws forbidding abortions, forbidding same-sex partners to marry, outlaw sodomy
As a general rule of thumb, Ron Paul is very good at honestly bringing up very real problems, but then he puts forth the most extreme solution available to solving it.
Your statement is completely ignorant of the facts. Ron Paul is personally against abortion, but is for allowing the states decide for themselves. Same thing in regard to homosexuality ... allow the states to decide because as a true libertarian he knows it isn't his place or the federal governments to make that decision. That is pretty damn "clear" for a "clouded" political position, wouldn't you say?
Too bad. I rather enjoyed watching the Republicans feeding upon each other. I am looking forward to Obama's 2012 victory.
We tried a government based off of Ron Paul's vision already and it was an epic fail.
Don't forget the other Texan who could do maths and dismissed the follies of 'party politics'. If I had known what he did in Iran in '79 I would have voted for him twice.
Thanks for trying, Ross...
A good read.
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
If you believe the stock market is a gambling hall, that is a fair position to take, but HFT would not be what makes it a gambling hall. HFT is nothing more than faster trading. If the original trading was not gambling, it still isn't with HFT.
Thanks
Quit does not sound good. They will not wisely use a whole list of words.
Even if they quit they can technically not quit and continue to raise money etc for other ends; or like Newt does, find ways to pocket as much of the money as possible then avoid paying bills by closing down the corporation when he finishes. (Actually, having done consulting, they all incorporate and then later close them down and screw over anybody who does not get paid upfront.)
Outdated ideology? Peace and a balanced budget is outdated? Hardly. He has 70% support among people 18 to 35..... it's a *youthful* ideology not an outdated one.
>>>racist past?
Well let's ask some black people. Professor Walter E. Williams do you think Ron Paul racist? "Haahaha. That's ridiculous. I've known Dr. Paul for many years and he is definitely not a racist. On the contrary he's the most egalitarian person I know in Washington, as you would expect from someone who follows libertarian principles." (Quoting from youtube video when W.E.W. was guest hosting Rush Limbaugh.)
How about you, Bruce S. Gordon, former head of the NAACP? "Not in the slightest. I've known Congressman Paul for decades and he is in no way a racist. People who say that makes themselves look foolish." (quoting from radio interview)
And what Ron Paul's black volunteers? Well there are millions of them so I can't quote them here but you can certainly find their homemade videos on youtube. They think the charge is ridiculous, because they know the Drug Prohibition is the true racist policy (more blacks in jail than whites) and that Congressman Paul is the only one who vowed to end the prohibition as unconstitutional (10th amendment).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Dangerous: He's a gold standard nut. He wants to move US currency back to it. Frankly I don't know a great deal about it, but it seems to me that either way you go you have a faith based economy. In one case it's faith in the economy, the other is faith that the fed has the gold it says it has and will actually exchange it for money, plus faith that gold is valuable.
Foolish: The gold standard thing again?
Ignorant: He doesn't realize that some of his ideologies, totally unchecked, hurt very real people. He seems to think that the market will fix bigotry. Some have gone so far as to claim he's racist, I really doubt it though. He's not considerate of the issues at all, but I don't think it makes him racist.
All that said, I like him. There's zero chance of him getting the gold standard thing through. But some of his other ideas are very healthy: Like his anti-war anti-military positions. We need that, especially from a Republican.
Anyway, he has no chance. He has no appeal for the moralistic nutjobs. He has as much chance as a pro-life democrat.
I saw Ron Paul in one debate get booed because he said we couldn't afford to continue being the world's policeman even though it should be obvious to anyone that can do arithmetic
Because we can afford it, it's a matter of priorities and what we want to spend our money on. The Iraq/Afghanistan wars were only $100billion a year, consider that in terms of total GDP (it's less than 1%). We can afford it, the only question is what do we choose to spend our money on?
We can't afford to do wars, pay ever more in benefits to citizens, AND cut taxes. But that is what people want. It shouldn't be surprising that democratic governments go bankrupt from time to time.
When?
Kill all hipsters.
Not outrage, just pointing out your hypocrisy. Digging yourself in deeper with every post is amusing to watch.
His campaign was a an abortion...
Ron Paul is the best candidate America had in over 50 years.
While I admire him for many of his views (anti-war, personal privacy, consistent, etc), Ron Paul is not a viable candidate. He is not realistic in many of his plans - and he can get away with it because he doesn't really expect to win. For example, he's the guy who plans to eliminate IRS and (at least earlier) public schools. How realistic is that?
Why should the states have a say in either of those things when it is the US Constitution that guarantees individual freedoms?
Well I'm surprised. Santorum had enough delegates to negotiate a spot as vice-president. Maybe the Republican Party sat down with him and pressured him to dropout, in hopes those delegates would go to Romney.
That now firmly puts RON PAUL in the second place position..... about 200 behind Romney's total. (Counting the caucus states where Paul scored more delegates than Romney.) Romney can't win without Paul's delegates, and Congressman Paul says he will run to the end, just like he did in 2008.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
What's wrong with Paul?
For one thing, he isn't going to be on the ballot. I guess you could write him in, but that won't have any effect on who becomes President next January.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
The value of Slashdot was the tech link. If this is the new direction in search of page views, it's a big disappointment and makes Slashdot just another site filled with U.S. political nonsense and crap.
I'm thoroughly convinced that both the democrats and republicans are seriously math challenged.
Maybe a few of them are, but most of them are just giving the voters what they want. It's the voters who are math challenged, and they punish austerity by voting (or keeping) its proponents out of office. Natural selection in action.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Wow. I think we need a new category of political thought. State-atarian, perhaps. How else can one say it is libertarian to simply move a decision from Federal to State control. Control, regardless of granularity (or bureaucratic burdens of 50x as many regulatory agencies), is still control. Further, state-level control loses economies of scale: everyone gets screwed by the lack of regulatory uniformity and the cost of learning how to comply with 50 disparate regulatory agencies per regulatory category (god help you if your work involves half a dozen different compliance mechanisms like environmental, consumer product safety, banking/finance, etc). As for state control, the near-century between the end of the civil war and federal enforcement of minority civil rights in the south is a damned solid counterargument to ceding such power to states. The only certainty (and in my impression the **GOAL**) of dropping regs to the state level is arbitrage: someone will let megacorps screw them more easily than if federal regs held the entire nation to one standard.
As for Paul's stance, I don't get the charm: his libertarianism is just as naive and flawed as pure-play communism or unregulated capitalism. Hell, every hacker knows that stuff built on ideals are like will-o-wisps, and easily hacked.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not anti-Libertarian. I like it. But I also like socialized things like cops, freeways, and social security. The best ideas come out of the tug of war between libertarianism and socialism and capitalism. Keep all three ideals in your hip pocket as reference and guidance, but keep a copy of Machiavelli and the Art of War, too. Balance their ideals and mechanisms to reach your goals.
Regulations are akin to infosec 'defense in depth' -- they're countermeasures to combat rogues who simply seek to game any simplistic, idealized system. When they get crufty, don't be afraid to refactor (this is what the US **SUCKS** at, IMHO). But please don't pretend that the flaw isn't the cruft itself, but the presence of an ideal you loathe. YOUR idealizations won't survive alone. None do. They'll either be gamed (and that makes them unfair) or they'll need enforcement and balance mechanisms. In other words, they'll need regulations. But (to repeat myself) be vigilant to keep regulations simple and sane. A good regulation mechanism would be a well-designed no-deductions progressive tax simple enough to be autocomputed off paystubs, property records, or whatever. A crappy regulation mechanism is the current US tax code. Or state/local/county sales taxes -- due to the very complexity that the AnonCoward parent advocates by pushing policy down from federal to state levels.
TL/DR: fed vs. state regulation isn't a libertarian issue. Ideals never actually work ideally. And most of our (US's) problems aren't ideological: they're cruft and an unwillingness to refactor crufty legal code. And don't ever implicitly trust an idealist -- always look behind the curtain and try to understand what can go wrong.
One other thought:
The latest CBS polling shows that Romney will lose to Obama by 4 percent, whereas Ron Paul would defeat the current president by 5. Maybe YOU hate him but Paul has crossover appeal to independents and Democrats that Romney lacks.
- So if you like Obama and want 4 more years, hope Romney is the republican candidate.
- If you dislike Obama and want him out, then Paul is who you should be backing. The D's and I's like him more than they like Obama, and will put him into the white house.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Oh really? You sound like someone who reads DailyKos, didn't you get the message about Operation Hilarity?
While I realize that the GOP is adamant in its opposition of funding public education -- despite the long-term ramifications such a policy has toward global competitiveness -- surely, your coloring books depicting Jesus Riding Dinosaurs taught you that when citing primary sources, you should make sure that they support your argument?
Operation-Hilarity-Failed-Yet-It-Succeeded
So let me get this straight, in your world, the chances of "the one candidate who has a chance against Obama" is such a weak candidate that a small number of Democratic voters in Michigan is able to futz with his ability to secure the GOP nomination? Wow. I knew Republicans were shitting bricks, but I didn't realize that they were shitting so many bricks that they could build a Romney-sized mansion out of them, complete with a Romney car-elevator.
Instead of misusing words like 'homophobia' and 'hypocrisy', how about you actually explain in essay form, what is homophobic, and what is hypocritical? Correct answers must also explain why someone who is so pissed off at this article appearing on slashdot is so engaged in the comment thread.
Yes. He is.
Which is why theres no possible way he can win. Even if somehow he got 100% of all the population to vote for him and him alone. He still won't win.
Kinda sad how FUCKED UP our politicial system is.
How would he manage that? Public schools are run at the State and local level, not by the Federal government.
And the President really doesn't have the power to shut down State and local programs.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
sometime back just before 1800. Lot's of people feel it was a failure. I tend to disagree.
He decided to hold his speech in Gettysburg, site of one of the most stupid and bloody charges in military history (uphill across almost a mile of open ground, >50% casualties, and pretty much an entire division's officers wiped out). About the only thing I can think of is that he wanted his campaign to be another example of the Southern Cause, and his ultimate failure just be another step towards the Confederacy's ultimate victory or something.
I am officially gone from
I'll kinda miss him. Where am I going to get my daily dose of batshit crazy fundamentalist hatred now?
Oh, well. At least we now know who will lose to Obama this November.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
The first 150 years was just terrible! There were a few totally awesome points where people fought and lost some money, but it was the longest period of total fail the world had ever seen.
It doesn't guarantee personal freedoms. It merely states what the States cannot take away. Abortion, choice of partner, and drug usage are not listed... but you can petition the Supreme court to rule over the validity of those State laws and overturn them if you feel they are a violation of the principle of the Constitution. Or... if you are studious, you can coordinate to replace a governor/representatives that disagrees with those in your State opposed to trying to vote out a bad President or convince Fred Smith from Connecticut that his representative is hurting your choice.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
RP is right about our military spending. It is just wacko that we spend more now than we did when we had an actual hostile superpower (the USSR) to contend with. He is also right that the government should just butt out of people's private lives (but curiously, he doesn't think women should be able to choose to have abortions). On most other topics, he is a nutter, pure and simple.
The IRS could use some trimming... we can all agree on that.
He never said anything about getting rid of public schools that I'm aware of. He just wanted to get rid of the Department of Education at the Federal level. He feels the individual State Boards are doing a good enough job and the Federal level is a waste of resources. (At least, that's how I interpreted it. Never did I get the feeling that he wanted to get rid of Public Schooling though.)
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Now you know why every Republican with cash was begging Chris Christie to enter the race, they didn't like any of the other contenders.
part of the problem is that MA is so Democratic (we have the fewest contested elections in teh country) that their is no real competition , real in the sense of L Atwater or K Rove ripping your reproductive organs off with aciddipped pliers.
as a result, the people from MA are light weight amateurs;
example I: Dukakis, no, not the tank photo. According to rumor Dukakis didn't know that an ACLU membership card is not a benefit in some areas of the USA
example II: Many of you remember that when T Kennedy died the special election was between the MA AG Ms M Coakley, and one unkown guy Scott Brown (a total creep - he went around in his "workingman's" jacket which it turns out cost 700 dollars)
Anyway, early in the primary season, when Ms Coakley was still contesting other democrats in the fall of 2008 , the height of the fear and economic downturn, she goes to talk to the guys at the union hall in Somerville a working class irish/ethnic town next to Boston.
And what does the AG say to the union guys, terrified that they can't make next months rent ?
She talks about the importance of Feminism in he Democratic party
Now, I'm all for feminism, but time and place......
It looks to me like a lot of faggots here on Slashdot need killing for denigrating Rick Santorum using the terminology of that faggot Dan Savage.
Tie them to wooden fences in Wyoming and beat them to death.
I don't know if you are drunk or just stupid but it's time to stop posting
Thank you for giving us your real name, Kirk Strauser.
That you've been added to the 'Do Not Hire' list will hopefully be the least of your problems.
Knew the second this went up, the comments would essplode. Everything from "nothing to see here" and "who cares?" and "yay!" and "nay!"...
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
The big hang-up for me about Santorum aside from the majority of his views was his daughters health. She is unfortunately constantly in and out of the hospital and I just dont think its smart to take on what has been called the most stressful job in the world while you're also worried about your childs health.
I hope that didnt come across as too harsh.
WIkipedia - costs of Iraq war - latest Brown University estimates are 3.2 to 4 trillion dollars for combined Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan war effort. So, about $400 billion per year. This does not count the costs to other countries - that is just U.S. costs. The estimate offered before starting the first one - $100 billion for a two year effort. Afford it? It's easier now, while interest rates are low. It'll be more difficult once interest rates start increasing. The increased debt service will be substantial. The disruption to the labor force in the U.S. with so many reservists called up was real. So were the effects in long term disabilities or deaths to our soldiers and their families.
Regardless of whether you agree on whether it is affordable or not, it is just plain wrong. You've got a bunch of people who have hated each other for several thousand years, and our sticking our noses in their affairs won't solve anything in the long run, and will increase our long term defense costs and increase the probability of retaliation at home or abroad. This is what RP objects to.
Voters will choose what scares them the least. Obama is currently having a meltdown, little hope for part deux. All the left can really do is spin class warfare and hope for the best, it's not like anyone would want more of what Obama has been selling.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
Hospital? What do you mean? Aren't you against science, progress and think that god and prayer can do everything for you? Well, stay the fuck out of our hospitals and just leave your daughter at home and pray until she dies, then say it was god's will.
Really, that's what we should do to the anti-science bigots. You are "pro-life"? You want creationism in schools? Great, go live with the Amish. If you enjoy living in the 21th century, embrace science and dump your imaginary god.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
God could have saved him a lot of money by telling him not to run in the first place.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
State boards are doing a good enough job? What his definition of a bad job be, then?
He's from Texas, too. Wow.
The latest CBS polling shows that Romney will lose to Obama by 4 percent, whereas Ron Paul would defeat the current president by 5.
Do you have a link for that?
While I agree with your point about more regulatory agencies - if a particular state chooses to regulate a particular activity - I think you miss the essential point. If decisions that have no constitutional basis are left at the state level and not promoted to or addressed at the federal level, I have more say and influence in adjusting the state laws to suit me (as does everyone else for their respective states) than I do at the federal level. If the state refuses to change existing laws or passes laws I don't agree with in a strong way, I have perhaps 49 other states to chose to live in that might have laws more to my liking, yet will still enjoy being a citizen of the United States. If the law is federal, you're stuck with it wherever you live in the United States.
I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the things that are getting people riled up wouldn't involve regulation other than by police forces. Few are complaining about the FCC or the ICC or the other multi-state workhorses and their desire for uniformity. The complaints noted in the threads are about abortion, drug use, marriage laws, and kid's education to cite a few. These would be regulated by the state's existing judicial branch if the states passed laws about them, wouldn't need any regulation at all if they were made legal in some cases, or are already handled in parallel with the federal government in the case of education.
For the record, I think Ron Paul would be great. I think that roughly 0% or maybe slightly higher of his ideas would become law since they require the Congress to act in order to accomplish it. That's why I don't worry a lot about some of the things he thinks should be done.
He could cut back the spreading executive branch and it's departments without much congressional interference and that would help some. Some of their work would devolve to the states, some would be shifted to other departments, and some of it would just not get done any more and probably nobody would miss it except the people doing it now. It would be refreshing for a change for a President to ask Congress to pass a war resolution before going to war, and RP would obey the constitution. I know they all promise they will, including the Congressmen, but they stretch it well past thin. It would also be refreshing to have a President who would veto the morass of legislation that comes his way that has unconstitutional bits and pieces inserted in "must pass" legislation. I'm pretty sure that given RP's congressional record, he'd be happy to do that.
He has 70% support among people 18 to 35....
[Citation doubtful]
I would reply but I'm waiting for Jon Stewart. I tried Googling Santorum, but I think I must have spelled it incorrectly (its like getting Rockrolled or finding Goatse).
#TDSBreakingNews @RickSantorum suspends presidential campaign. Dibs on the "Romney Licks Santorum" headline.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
Really? You honestly think its just because everybody ELSE is stupid besides Ru Paul?
None of them is stupid, including Paul. They are a power elite enriching themselves and others behind walls of "stupid" policy. Its not stupid at all. It just doesn't help YOU. YOU are not the customer of the US government. You are the product. You are sold to the highest bidder. Its not called wage slavery for nothing you know.
Its fools like you that really think its just bad decisions, stupid points of view, and "the wrong people" in charge, that is truly the problem behind the entire system. You sit back and let them rape you, because if only the right guy was in charge, if only the right bill got passed, things would be different. You are foolish and blind to the real corruption behind it all. MONEY. Especially now, its time to milk the last few drops from the cow before she perishes.
Good luck with your elections. I'm sure life will improve for you, IF ONLY the right guy is put in charge! Because its an individuals FAULT all the bad things that happen, happen. Not the system itself. Oh no. It works fine. Except that it doesn't work, BUT IT COULD! If only.....
>>>>>He has 70% support among people 18 to 35....
>>
>>[Citation doubtful]
Look at the breakdown of the primary results. Ron Paul has won among that age group in almost every state..... And of course he is waaaay more popular than any other candidate on facebook/twitter which is a youth-dominated medium..... Plus being filling-up small stadiums at college campuses all over the U.S.
I mean really -- did you need a citation Anon. Coward? Ron Paul's popularity with the youth is self evident to anyone who's paid attention since December 2011. Santorum/Romney/Gingrich wish they had that kind of young support.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
If I had to guess, Andrew Jackson's administration in the 1830's.
You should watch Fox news sometime. The take I got from Occupy Wallstreet was hippies smoking too much drugs want Bankers to pay for their bongs.
Or that it's the American way for Zimmerman to follow and shoot and unarmed black boy, and anyone who says otherwise is a racist who doesn't understand hunting season.
The incessant lie after lie after lie takes its toll, look at Fox presenters themselves, even they can no longer see the lies they tell from the reality. They constantly contradict themselves but their brain blots it out to keep themselves sane.
Gary Johnson is even better than Ron Paul.
Former Governor, many similar views -- low spending, anti-war, consistent over time and a two term Governor to boot. He will be the Libertarian Party Nominee this year. Maybe the Republicans have finally marginalized themselves to the point where people are ready to pay attention to the Libertarian Party.
minds, get scrambled like eggs, abused and erased. Hard Hearted Alice is who you want to see.
Somehow you've confused Santorum's homophobia [...] You should praise the beauty that is the living language we call English.
I know you mean that in a flippant way, but there are two ugly uses of English here;
1. Use of the word homophobe to describe an anti-homosexuality position. The problem is there's no good word to describe this but it always grates when people use a slanderous term that assumes a psychological motivation to describe a political position.
2. The attempt to redefine Santorum. This is about as mature as "I know you are but what am I?".
Maybe it would be interesting to let the people who choose to create children (or risk creating them, regardless of intent) fund the kids' education directly, and if they can't pay to educate the poor kids they created, incarcerate the unprepared parents for failing to adequately meet the kids' societal needs, and spend our property taxes on both this potent deterrent of imprisonment and actually placing the kids into homes which can actually raise them, rather than forcing property owners, with or without kids, to shuck out the bucks for kids spun on a whim or birthed from the bottom of a bottle. Just my curmudgeonly opinion. Also, free birth control, a $100 tax rebate for an annual injection, preferably for both genders. Now *that* I would be happy to fund with my taxes.
Ron Paul Sucks, Here Are 20 Reasons Why:
http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html
Santorum's campaigning, then dropping out, makes sense in terms of "oops, did I just drive votes towards one of the other major candidates?". Those who've been following what Benjamin Fulford has been putting out read this back in mid-January:
The owners of the Washington D.C. Corporation have already decided on Mitt Romney as the new President of the United States. They have been rigging opinion polls and primary results to make sure their decision is enforced. The corporate media propaganda machine is also in on the decision.
So this maneuvering is not entirely bewildering, for some.
The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
The issue is that when pinned down on specifics and plans, he sounds like he'll be more traditional than his supporters think. Tax cuts are easier to pass than spending cuts. So, if he can cut taxes, but not spending, will he do what he can, making the debt worse, or will he increase taxes to reduce the deficit? I've never seen him answer that question, so I can only guess, but it's a case of people choosing the devil they know, rather than the devil they do not know (even if the devil they don't know is less evil).
Learn to love Alaska
I am really sick of the "labeling" you have in USA, makes me want to puck all over your faces. You USA citizens are made up from immigrants who want a better world, instead they find that BS that make every scientist who do things not only for a monetary compensation step away from politics and ultimately regrets he'd be part of such a bloody thirst empire. Just look at google, if one of the creators stayed in Russia you wont even exist.
The 1880s and thereabouts, the start of the Industrial Revolution, with robber barons everywhere and unions starting up for the first time because the corporations were overtly evil and would kill workers for profit (not directly, though I don't doubt they would have if they could have figured out how to profit from it).
Learn to love Alaska
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=santorum
Epitaph: At last! Root access!
What's his stance on gay marriage? I'm sure it's on the web, but my first hits didn't show me what I wanted an answer to. Most "constitutionalists" ignore the Constitution when inconvenient. The Constitution says that if TX makes gay marriage illegal and CA makes it legal, then anyone from TX could go to CA, get married, then return to TX and still be legally married, even if it's a gay marriage (full faith and credit). But most conservatives, even those who claim constitutional-basis to their stances, ignore the Constitution when inconvenient. What's Ron Paul's stance on that subject?
Learn to love Alaska
He plans to eliminate the IRS... how realistic is that?
It's actually very realistic if you eliminate the military industrial complex. It balances out quite nicely on the accounting books.
Liberty.
>>How else can one say it is libertarian to simply move a decision from Federal to State control.
Probably because the people have more direct control over state programs which is where every libertarian should want the control to be in the first place? Are you saying there are libertarians that want the federal government in control of this issues? By your definition, libertarians are a subset of your so-called state-atarian.
>>Don't get me wrong: I'm not anti-Libertarian. I like it. But I also like socialized things like cops, freeways, and social security. ... it has been well proven that private accounts greatly outperform SS in all categories and can be willed to family members. ... its the Socialist programs that need to go.
You have no leg to stand on with Social Security
You are confusing Social and Socialist programs. Social programs are programs that everyone has equal access to regardless of if they have actually payed into the system. Socialist programs are programs where only a select group are granted access regardless of the fact that those that don't have access pay torwards said program. No one has an issue with social programs like Police, Fire, ect
Your thoughts on regulation would carry more weight if the history of the last 100 years wasn't dead set against you. What has all this regulation created? 14 trillion in debt, a us dollar that is worth 3% of what it used to 100 years ago? 20% unemployment? Ever since we created the Federal Reserve and went with Keyensian economics we have gone down hill as a country in both liberty and wealth value. Thinking you could regulate the market is what got us into this mess and trying to regulate out of it is like trying to fix your credit card debt by borrowing money.
HFT isn't gambling. It's arbitrage. Profit through unequal information, that's the opposite of free market capitalism. I'd love it if someone could tell me what it is, on an economic type scale.
Learn to love Alaska
The latest CBS polling shows that Romney will lose to Obama by 4 percent, whereas Ron Paul would defeat the current president by 5. Maybe YOU hate him but Paul has crossover appeal to independents and Democrats that Romney lacks.
The only CBS polling that Google seems to know about (and that is reported on Paul's own website) is one that shows Paul beating Obama amongst independent voters. And Romney's slide in the polls has a lot to do with his massive loss of support from women (he still beats or ties Obama amongst men) after supporting all the right-wing insanity over birth control, forced ultrasounds, and the general assault on Women's rights. If the economy takes another dip, if republicans can successfully blame rising gas prices on Obama (who apparently controls gas prices world-wide; they are skyrocketing in Europe, too), or if Romney can dig up an effective October Surprise, then low-information voters (read: morons) will swing back to "the other guy," who is going to be Romney.
Don't get me wrong; I love Ron Paul, and I think that it is incredibly important to have his voice out there as a counterweight to the entrenched, inbred beltway thinking. In fact, I wish there was a Ron Paul on the left, so that people could see what the left--and not the center-right that FOX News calls the Far Left--actually looks like. But let's not delude ourselves; the GOP establishment will never take Ron Paul seriously, the media view him as an eccentric crackpot, and the delegate system is heavily rigged in favor of Romney (yet he still has to outspend his opponents by an order of magnitude because he's such an unlikable douche). Ron Paul has embraced his role as a foil and says crazy stuff that renders him completely unelectable nationally and Ron Paul supporters just have to accept that, just like Nader supporters did when Bush was sworn in as POTUS.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
haha, good point.
You can, unless some religious whackjob passes legistlation to prevent the Surpreme Court from ruling on such things... Not that anyone would try such a thing, it would be political suicide unless voters were completely deluded. Thank god you could see through such a plot, eh?
A lot of politicians take an extreme position then use that to negotiate a fairly centrist compromise(ie: the Pirate Party on copyright). So I think even if Ron Paul's positions are unrealistic, that doesn't necessarily mean they're not politically useful.
If you don't support Ron Paul, you're un-American and should leave the country?
Great news for Ron Paul supporters! Ron Paul as president would be a blessing for US citizens and all citizens around the world. Be aware evil voices are trying to hide this.
For those who don't know Ron Paul and his views:
http://ronpaulnews.net/2012/04/this-is-real-this-is-happening.html
Rick Santorum was going to make the US a beacon again for the rest of the world.
Santorum complained about the frothy redefinition of his name, which was not intended to please him, but was not directly his doing (even if one considers that it was deserved). However, he actually boasted about his personal creepiness and that he enforced it on his family. It's a bit surprising that this episode received less commentary, as it is indicative of a major character flaw.
As a beacon to the world, the US would be better off squatting on the tower of power than with a weirdo like Santorum as president.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I assume you mean the Republican primary? Since the Republican primary is only for Republicans, the GP was quite right to say "Citation doubtful". It's possible you're correct that he has 70% support among _Republicans_ age 18 to 35 (although that still sounds a little doubtful), but since Republicans are only a subset of the group known as "people", then you have a problem. If, for example, the 70% figure is correct for Republicans and Republicans make up 50% of the population (and we assume a perfectly even distribution by age group), then it would be 35% support among people age 18 to 35.
The US has a very long history of actively interfering in other sovereign nations affairs and not just those it has labeled openly as an enemy. It has physically and politically assassinated people from allied nations to steer election results. If you think the US elections have no effect on you just because you don't obediently salute the flag (what does a man do and what does a slave do) you are silly.
Mind you, since I am already burning Karma, I wonder if Santorum, the god-fearing Catholic believes that the illness of his child is gods way of stopping him from becoming president. That is how it works after all if you have the faith. Everything is gods plan. Funny how that never is acknowledged by the religious in defeat. You never see a Muslim going after they lost another war, it was Allah's will. A Catholic when they loose an election, god willed it. There may be no Atheist in hell but there aren't many true believers in defeat either.
Ah well, may I congratulate the American readers with the election of Obama for a second term? Lets face it, the only thing at the moment to prevent that would be the end of the world and that isn't due until just after :P
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Oh great. The Republicans trade in one religious nut for another.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
"Santorum Suspends Presidential Campaign"
Slashdot. News For Nerds, Stuff that Matters.....
Wait, what?
Given that US presidents do not have the power to strike out laws, how exactly will Ron Paul achieve everything he promises?
[FUCK BETA]
Ron Paul is the best candidate America had in over 50 years.
Thanks! I needed to be reminded people will still vote for bigots in 2012. Anyone who adamantly voted against the Civil Rights Act and has the arrogance to go on national television and say they'd do it again with a 200+ year history of race divisions within the US is something alright, but definitely note the `best candidate' America has had in over 50 years, unless you meant to say, the `worst candidate.' I could go on about his `limited government' while living off the teet of the federal tax payer for 40 years of his life, or the litany of race baiting publications, but you clearly either look passed that or truly don't research your candidates before you decide.
Are you talking about 70% support among people of the ages 18 to 35 in the general population, or in the Republican primaries?
"prayer and thought" i did not know u guys had monks and paladins running for president :D
sad that he quits, alas
FTA Receivers | FTA Satellite Receiver | Free Satellite Channels | Free shipping ! Unbelievable Prices !
Standard definition FTA satellite receivers, just $35. 120cm KU dishes, just $159.
Brightek KU LNB at unbelievable $6.25. and Brightek SW21 switches at unbelievable $5.50
Free shipping on everything!!!
http://www.oceansatellite.net/
http://www.oceansatellite.net/
Actually, I believe that I am a being of a higher order who has created this universe and its imperfect inhabitants for me to reside in, as a form of "entertainment" or distraction from the dulls of my omnipotency. Therefore in my current state, I am a human, but at the same time, I am god. Under these circumstances, both intelligent design and evolution are correct, as I have created evolution so that this world makes some kind of coherent sense.
"Your thoughts on regulation would carry more weight if the history of the last 100 years wasn't dead set against you. What has all this regulation created? 14 trillion in debt, a us dollar that is worth 3% of what it used to 100 years ago? 20% unemployment? Ever since we created the Federal Reserve and went with Keyensian economics we have gone down hill as a country in both liberty and wealth value. Thinking you could regulate the market is what got us into this mess and trying to regulate out of it is like trying to fix your credit card debt by borrowing money."
*Ahem*, compare the real health, wealth, and safety of the regular US citizen now and 100 years ago.
"history of the last 100 years ... dead set against you"? Carrying about how much a mathematical abstraction is "worth" when most people are far, far better off in real terms? You're thinking about about this emotionally, not rationally. You *want* regulation to be "wrong" for "moral" reasons.
The left wants to piss it away on people who are "disadvantaged" and the right wants to siphon it off to military contractors they own shares in.
FTFY
FTSMFY
Frankly I don't know a great deal about it
Obviously.
Dr. Paul is quite candid about the problems with the "gold standard" as we once had it, which is the simple fact that it doesn't mean gold coinage, it means paper notes ostensibly redeemable for gold. The trouble is that governments will always cheat and issue more notes than they can redeem. That's not a problem with gold, it's a problem with lying shyster politicians handing out bogus gold receipts.
What he actually has called for, is the elimination of the Federal reserve's monopoly, which would open the market to competing currencies. Gold and silver coinage would most likely prove to be the most popular money for all the reasons that applied historically, but if people want to trade in bitcoins or commodity contracts, that would be their decision and not the government's.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Pulling out is exactly where you should expect to see santorum.
As much as I detest Santorums politics I feel for him and his family. Hoping for the best for his daughter.
Waiting for you by the bridge
No. He's really not.
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
See, since defunding the Military eliminates 25% of the Budget, and removing the IRS eliminate 100% of the budget, you just debunked both Ron Paul's budget plan *and* his belief that schools are fine.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Since the Gold Standard is based on the theory that the value of "all the Gold in the earths crust" is exactly equal to the value of "everything else in the earths crust being put to it's best use", I'd have to say that's actually a problem with Gold.
To be fair, that's a problem with any standard of that style and is the exact reason we got off the Gold Standard. What amazes me is the number of people that blindly assert how the Gold Standard and no Fed was wonderful, while ignoring the fact that recessions last longer, were more common, and we had worse inflation problems then. To steal a phrase, the good old days weren't always good.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
I saw Ron Paul in one debate get booed because he said we couldn't afford to continue being the world's policeman even though it should be obvious to anyone that can do arithmetic.
Sure, but the important word is "we". As a country you can't, but individually people who are dependent on defence for employment can't afford to stop being the world's police.
Unfortunately people tend to put their own interests above the common good, but that isn't due to poor maths skills.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
How does the IRS need some trimming? They're the guys who enforce the tax laws. If you trimmed them, then that means people will get away with not paying their fair share of taxes. That sounds great for you and me, but when our country flies into debt because millionaires and billionaires are avoiding billions in tax payments, you'll be singing a different tune altogether.
The tax LAWS themselves need to be changed but the IRS needs to be around to enforce whatever laws are passed.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
A bad job would be 'budget considerations should focus on reimbursement of the teachers first, then second on the quality of the education the students get.' You know, the kind of thing the NEA advocates.
Is this mean Google will start showing the search result for Santorum as "Lubricant mixed with fecal matter, as a byproduct of anal sex." again soon?
What's wrong is that people can't accept diversification and decentralization. Why? Because they've been taught (by government) that centralization of power is good and decentralization is bad -- and they refuse to question it. They need everyone "on the same team", consolidated and centralized -- by force -- in order to make themselves feel secure.
Well, that theory isn't a lot farther off from the theory that 'everything in the earth's crust is worth about whatever politicians feel like printing the money for it to be worth.' Anchoring value in the world marketplace on the scarcity of a static symbolic material that is not consumed in particularly huge quantities is better than anchoring it on the trust of the politicians to not go nuts printing yet more paper money.
Recessions lasted longer? Really? This one is going to last another four years if we don't get our priorities right and drum the current clods out of power in Washington. That means Obama AND his cabal of cronies and czars.
>1. Use of the word homophobe to describe an anti-homosexuality position. The problem is there's no good word to describe this but it always grates when people use a slanderous term that assumes a psychological motivation to describe a political position.
Denying equal rights to a segment of the population is not a political position - it's bigotry and bigotry is a psychological condition with a known cause: phobia. There may be the odd exception but this is true of the vast majority of racists, sexists, homophobes and everybody else who has ever tried to deny anybody else the right to be equal before the law.
Homophobia is a bit of a trickier word for a completely different reason though - most people misunderstand what it even means. Most bigotry is built on a fear of the group being excluded per se. Racists fear black people for what's different about them. Homophobia however refers to a different fear (though certainly some of the more common fear is now prevalent). The original meaning of the word is something else though. It's not a fear of people who are gay. It's a fear of being gay yourself causing people to act out against those who are.
Since sexologists will tell you all people are bisexual and it's only a matter of degrees - nobody is so straight that they have never had a gay thought. When your worldview is filled with gay people suffering, and a believe that this suffering is just- such thoughts are very, very frightening, perpetuating the very suffering that caused the fears in the first place.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Ron Paul is the best candidate America had in over 50 years.
I wonder if I just write the word "libertarian" a few times will I get modded up too? Probably best to say how evil all government is too, while I'm at it. Sticking on an "M$ sucks" would clinch the perfect slashdot post.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Your statement is completely ignorant of the facts.
Or is it? Ron Paul is the sponsor of an act that would make abortions legally murder. Maybe he isn't the person you thought he was.
allow the states to decide because as a true libertarian
A true libertarian would want to forbid any government from interfering, regardless of whether it's federal, state, or local.
That is pretty damn "clear" for a "clouded" political position, wouldn't you say?
No, see the link above. He's clearly not doing what the propaganda says he would. Ron Paul's got his good points, for the OP pointed out one of his big problems. He's a corporate-libertarian and a social conservative.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
This is where, as a non-US citizen, I get confused. Government is government, it really doesn't matter whether you call it local, parish, town, county, state or Federal government. They all fit together. You can't just get rid of one element as though it was unnecessary icing on a cake.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Because they are happy for Obama to win. He is does everything the Republicans want and when it all goes wrong - "hey it was the Democrats that dun it".
Congratulations, Obama you've made Bush look respectable.
The IRS is unnecessary, there is no reaosn for government to be that big. The IRS only enables government to grow uncontrollably.
Ron Paul does not plan to, and would not have the power to eliminate public schools. He would eliminate the Department of Education, a bloated federal department which hinders education. We did just fine without the DoE prior to 1977.
If you're an idiot or insane. For normal functional human beings who are not either semi-retarded or sociopaths, he's what you might call a very dangerous, foolish, ignorant man.
This has been a case study in ad-hominem attacks. Thank you for reading.
It is generally understood by people who aren't idiots or insane that it is his policies that are being criticised as dangerous, foolish and ignorant..
It's a form of metonymy.used widely in political debate. For instance, I'm in the UK, and if I say "Margaret Thatcher was a divisive, anti-democratic, heartless Prime Minister" it's her policies I'm referring to, not her as an individual (since I don't even know her).
The personal qualities of politicians are almost irrelevant, as long as they are presentable and not egregiously unpleasant. It is what they say and do that matters.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
What he actually has called for, is the elimination of the Federal reserve's monopoly, which would open the market to competing currencies.
In other words, he has managed to come up with an even stupider concept than returning to the gold standard.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Dennis Kucinich?
I was actually thinking along the lines of someone from the communist party (the real far-left) or a true socialist (not Bernie Sanders, who is an eminently reasonable Social Democrat)... But you're right, Kucinich is the Democratic equivalent of Ron Paul, isn't he? Too bad he's been redistricted out of office.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
Remember, the IRS is the collection arm of the US Gov't. With the deficits WE have, don't you think it's a good idea for us to have as many agents going after rich tax evaders as we can?
Expand the IRS!
--PM
Considering how much Hope and Change (TM) actually made its way through, why would Ron Paul be not viable?
He doesn't want to shut down public schools, he wants to shut down the Federal Department of Education, which is an entity that should not exist according to the Constitution, so states can handle it themselves. The post you replied to wasn't correct.
To answer the other person's post, he wants to balance the budget, drastically reduce the size of the federal government, so that we CAN get rid of the IRS. I think it's not an overnight plan, but one that I'd support wholeheartedly considering the IRS abuses and their unconstitutional existence. I guess I find it hard to understand why people call him a radical when he simply wants a much smaller, CHEAPER, less powerful federal government, especially since the current footprint of the government seems to be on our necks. The overwhelming majority of people are more than capable of taking care of themselves without the government controlling every aspect of their lives. We can't keep giving the government more power to take care of the tiny percentage that can't, it's the tail wagging the dog.
Paul is not an option. He is not the Republican candidate, and never will be. He's a senile old nutter.
Romney is the candidate.
And yes, there is a gigantic chasm of difference between Obama and Romney.
It is indeed a sad day that Santorum leaves the race for the GOP Presidential nod. He should take all of his support and team up with Gingrich to topple Romney from getting the valued spot. Romney and the Morman Church do NOT need to be at the top of the heap. Romney is a JOKE ! He won't defeat OBAMA. He might have the money, but he does not have the CLOUT !!!
In the USA, we have a Federal Constitution. It specifies what the FEDERAL government can do, and what it cannot.
Each State has a Constitution. Which specifies what it can do, and what it cannot.
Local governments don't have Constitutions, but are restricted in what they can do by what the Federal and State Constitutions permit higher levels of government to do.
Then there's INDIVIDUAL Rights, which limit what ANY level of government can do.
Note, for reference, that much of what the Federal government does these days is not, strictly speaking, allowed by the Constitution. But that much of what is unconstitutional for the Federal government is perfectly legal if done by a State government.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You mean like medical marijuana dispensaries?
The other major problem with a return to a gold-based currency, and the one Slashdotters should have picked up on way earlier than they did, is that we're maybe sixty years away from manufacturing synthetic gold on an industrial scale, and I'll chop that estimate down to thirty if gold becomes the basis for a major currency again.
Still....ANYONE or any thing would be better than 4 more years of Obama.
I'd vote a small soap dish in over Obama at this point.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Perhaps you're not understanding who the ad-hominem attack was directed at. *hint* it wasn't Ron Paul
In the U.S., local, state, and federal governments are separate entities. A state was originally almost a county on its own - in fact some of them were. The powers the states gave up to the federal government were spelled out in the Constitution of the United States. There weren't very many of them and after those federal powers were listed, it basically says, "Everything else belongs to the states." Remember that states joined the United States voluntarily.
But what does someone with power always want? More power.
Take one example - public roads. This is run by state governments and the federal government has no say. So what they've done over the years is to gradually tax the people and then gradually return that money directly to highways departments. It's my money going to pay for my local road, but it's passing through the federal government first.
Now they come along and pass a federal law that says, if a state does not set a maximum 55mph speed limit, they will stop returning that money. They'll still take the tax money, of course. So the state can either comply or pay twice for the same service. This happens now with many, many government functions.
So when someone says we should completely eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, they're not advocating the closing of public schools. It just means that the federal government would stop taking that money from my paycheck. The state would take it instead. Schools would still receive the same money they did before, but without the strings attached by the federal government.
Which is better? Well, that's the fundamental reason we have a 2 party political system. One wants a big federal government with far reaching power, and one wants a limited federal government. Although recently it's more like one wants a HUGE federal government and one wants one that is almost but not quite as enormous.
:wq
No, they killed workers for profit sometimes. If anyone started any trouble, they'd send the Pinkertons after them. Bang bang, everyone else get back to work...
Ron Paul is a cult of personality. Most of his supporters don't even know much about his policies and often seem entirely clueless on the ramifications. For example, the gold standard. It's bad enough being so tied to oil prices, why would we want economic problems when there's trouble at gold mines too? But that's not the point. They say things like, "He's the only honest politician." They don't even notice the oxymoron.
Ron Paul is hardly a religous nut. If he were, he wouldn't be supporting legalization (by the State Legislatures under the 10th amendment) of marijuana, gay marriage, and prostitution.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
>>>Since the Republican primary is only for Republicans,
False.
Oh and by the way Paul has done quite well in the Democrat primary too. I'm not sure why people are voting for Paul on the D ballot, but I guess it doesn't really matter. (shrug). So far he's taken 2nd place after Obama in every Democrat primary to date (the ones that allow write-ins).
As I said Paul has cross-party support.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
With 70% in that age group?
Oh, and only among Republicans.
Oh wait, that's not even true... only among Republicans age 18-35 who voted in the primaries.
You've got a bad case of selection bias.
His anti-popularity is also quite evident. I know many, many people age 18-35, from all parts of the political spectrum, who think his policies are dangerous, negligent, and/or idiotic.
Ron Paul is a polarizing figure because his views are extreme in comparison to the mainstream. Just because his supporters are particularly vocal does not mean that he hasp popularity among the general population (or even just the subset of Republicans aged 18-35) equivalent to his primary numbers. In particular, it needs to be noted that Ron Paul's supporters are much more likely to vote in primaries than his detractors or those ambivalent about him.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Here's how you know his popularity is nowhere near what his supporters claim. He's still alive.
Had he garnered sufficient popularity to upset the establishment, he would be involved in a "mysterious" air crash or die in a 1-car accident.
So I assumed. Which was why I tried to suggest the implausibility of shutting down public education (which is beyond the purview of the Feds, even if they were so inclined).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
>>>Since the Republican primary is only for Republicans,
False.
I'll admit it varies by state, but since you claim to live in Maryland, I must inform you that you are wrong. As an independent, I am not permitted to vote in the primaries.
I suppose it could have changed in the last 10 years, but as you have provided no proof, I'm gonna have to say it hasn't.
While that would be the case the full faith and commerce clause also allows congress to carve out exceptions for states. This is why there is the federal defense of marriage act that allowed states to no have to honor gay marriage from a different state. I know there was a case recently on it where some parts were struck down but I am not sure which and don't feel like tracking it down at the moment.
Time to offend someone
Absolutely no sense of humour, you libertards.
Ah well, enjoy your faith in the Prophet of the Free Market, praise be upon him.
Mart
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Wait...are you being sarcastic?
Ron Paul has been a candidate for 50 years......
The 1880s and thereabouts, the start of the Industrial Revolution, with robber barons everywhere and unions starting up for the first time because the corporations were overtly evil and would kill workers for profit (not directly, though I don't doubt they would have if they could have figured out how to profit from it).
This also is part of the Gilded Age, a period which saw most of the transition from relatively backwards former colony to scientifically advanced superpower.
What strikes me about this contest is how the candidature of Ron Paul hasd been ignored by the entire US media.
"The countywide totals for Dr. Paul include 246 Congressional delegates, more than double Mitt Romney's 120, and 360 alternate delegates for Ron Paul, a clean sweep in that regard". link
AccountKiller
Ron Paul is the best candidate America had in over 50 years.
Second Jesus Christ, perhaps.
Where are my mod points when I *want* them??? Damn it, your post is the best one I've read here in a long time. Bravo!
Still, electing Paul would be a huge improvement, if for only these two reasons: he would prevent the looming disaster of an Iranian invasion, and he would shake things up in a big way. Perhaps that shake up might catalyze the re-factoring whose lack you so cogently bemoan.
Social Credit would solve everything...
If you're an idiot or insane. For normal functional human beings who are not either semi-retarded or sociopaths, he's what you might call a very dangerous, foolish, ignorant man.
Hi Martian. How do explain the record crowds? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgsg7a-Ok8Q&feature=youtu.be Ron Paul 2012.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I was searching for "gatling gun used on workers" so I could demonstrate that, actually, business owners did murder their workers for profits. What I found listed that, but it was listed as part of a compilation of May Day issues.
So, I have more than one instance, and I learned something about history (we tried to rename "May Day" to both "Americanism Day" and "Loyalty Day", but the people will remember -- for now, anyway). Thanks!
In 1855 the Chicago police used Gatling guns against the workers who protested the closing of the beer gardens. In the Bread Riot of 1872 the police clubbed hungry people in a tunnel under the river. In the 1877 railway strike, Federal troops fought workers at "The Battle of the Viaduct." These troops were recently seasoned from fighting the Sioux who had killed Custer. Henceforth, the defeated Sioux could only "Go to a mountain top and cry for a vision." The Pinkerton Detective Agency put visions into practice by teaching the city police how to spy and to form fighting columns for deployment in city streets. A hundred years ago during the street car strike, the police issued a shoot-to-kill order.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Perhaps re-read your signature next time you choose to post?
Ms Palin, America desperately need your presidency to bring it's sanity clearly to the minds of the Rest Of The World. By the middle testicle of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, you must do this!
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
How else can one say it is libertarian to simply move a decision from Federal to State control.
Not sure about libertarian, but can definitely say that is Constitutional. If the Constitution does not grant the power to the Federal government, then by definition it is restricted to the states. How can you argue against that?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
A true libertarian would want to forbid any government from interfering, regardless of whether it's federal, state, or local.
Is a "true libertarian" like a "true Scotsman"? Because the Constitution says that the powers not granted to the Feds are reserved to the States. So the Feds are prevented from interfering, but the States are able to, based on our sovereign laws. Why would you think to prevent the state and local statutes? We want to prevent the Feds from overreaching. And we're the bad guys?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
whenever I saw 'lil Rickie on the tv.
I have a hard time believing that Santorum actually expected to have a chance at this stage. My mother is a Neo-conservative Christian party-line voter, and even she is considering voting for Obama again; and not because she likes him. The entire GOP lineup is a mess.
Wow, neo-conservative christians hate mormons that much? So much that they would actually consider voting Democrat if given the choice? That's hard to believe.
There may be the odd exception but this is true of the vast majority of racists, sexists, homophobes and everybody else who has ever tried to deny anybody else the right to be equal before the law.
Even if this is true* it is simply against the 'rules' of argument to claim that because someone has a psychological reason for a belief then that belief is incorrect and any arguments they make for it can be disregarded. Using loaded terms in an attempt to belittle a position is simply newspeak and does nothing to convince your opponent. In fact it is likely to make them dig in even more. Plus, if an argument is the result of fear then chances are it can be easily refuted without resorting to name-calling.
I'd make the same argument for similar words. For example "racist" is preferable to "xenophobe". A genuine (self-conscious) racist is likely to accept that term, then you can move on to debate them instead of discussing the insult.
Interesting note on the original definition of homophobia by the way.
* You could phrase all political positions as phobia: socialism is the fear of capitalists leaving you poor, libertarians fear the government etc. etc. Technically a phobia is irrational fear but simply claiming something is a phobia is begging the question.
>Even if this is true* it is simply against the 'rules' of argument to claim that because someone has a psychological reason for a belief then that belief is incorrect and any arguments they make for it can be disregarded
But I never made such a claim. Even so - a psychological reason is ipso facto not a rational one. Irrational positions are by definition weak arguments. Or to put it otherwise - they are not evidence in favor of the position at all - and claiming they are is a fallacy. The believe may still be valid, but it would have to be proven based on other, empirical, premises.
In the case of bigotry attempts to do so have invariably failed due to a complete absence of evidence or evidence that is easily refutable.
>Using loaded terms in an attempt to belittle a position is simply newspeak and does nothing to convince your opponent.
All terms are loaded. There is nothing belittling about calling something what it really is. You are not belittling homophobes by calling them that. Unless you are deluded enough to think anybody on the planet isn't phobic about something. For starters most homosexuals are rather phobic about violence from homophobes (their phobia is far more justified of course - as such violence does occur far too often).
>Plus, if an argument is the result of fear then chances are it can be easily refuted without resorting to name-calling.
There is no name-calling involved here. At least, not in the sense you use the phrase. It's pretty much impossible to describe anything without giving it a name. If a simple descriptive name for your position feels insulting to you - that suggests a flawed position not a flawed named.
> For example "racist" is preferable to "xenophobe"
Those are two completely different concepts. Xenophobia often happens within the same race (some of the worst xenophobic violence of the past few years happened in South Africa in 2007 and was black-on-black xenophobia) They can overlap but they are not the same thing so you cannot call one an improvement over the other as they describe entirely different problems.
> A genuine (self-conscious) racist is likely to accept that term, then you can move on to debate them instead of discussing the insult.
And why would a genuine xenophobe be any less likely to accept that he is one ? You make a statement while offering absolutely no supporting evidence - your judgement however is clouded by the fact that you think racism and xenophobia are synonyms, which is just blatantly ignorant to the point of stupid (now THAT is an insult, or would be if it wasn't a simple statement of provable fact).
> You could phrase all political positions as phobia: socialism is the fear of capitalists leaving you poor, libertarians fear the government etc. etc. Technically a phobia is irrational fear but simply claiming something is a phobia is begging the question.
It's only a fear if it is irrational. So homosexual who fear gaybashing are not phobic, but heterosexual who fear they may be gay are being irrational.
I would say you could label all political positions as fears (though this would only rarely offer useful political discourse) but not that you could label them all phobias. Some of those fears are entirely rational and backed up by strong evidence (how strong that evidence is perceived to be is more personal).
Holding a political position out of fear without having looked for evidence is however always a phobia as any unsubstantiated fear is irrational.
I stand by the belief that any group of people who denies the equality of any other group is guilty of bigotry and by definition not being rational. It is not the psychological cause that's the problem, it's the absence of any rational thought to temper those psychological effects that make it irrational.
If one thinks rationally one must accept that the actions of an individual cannot with any reliability whatsoever be predicted based on any group classification that may apply to him - for classifications that are born-in rather than chosen the reliability of such predictions are even lower.
It is no more rational to fear gay marriage than it is to assume that *every* black man in America likes KFC.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Why would you think to prevent the state and local statutes?
I'm not trying to prevent them, I'm just saying if you are a "true libertarian" you should also be opposed to "state and local statues". You're seem to be confusing "strict constitutionalist" with "libertarian". I think there is a well established basis that, by definition, a libertarian is opposed to government intervention except as required to protect individuals from coercion and violence.
You seem to have ignored the bill I linked above, HR-1096. I've seen statements that estimate that up to two thirds of all pregnancies spontaneously terminate (I'm not sure if this statistic includes women on birth control pills). If that's true, the police should have their hands full with an endless stream of potential murders of incorporeal and nameless "people". After all they have a duty to investigate the death of "people". Women who have miscarriages could now be prosecuted for murder, manslaughter, negligence causing death, failure to provide the necessities of life, or other crimes. The birth control pill could be viewed as a weapon of mass murder, doctors and pharmacists as accomplices. You might think that's a little far fetched, but do you think the law won't be used that way by people like Rick Santorum who don't believe people should be allowed to have sex for any purpose other than procreation.
So, a bill sponsored by Ron Paul would result in more oppressive government not less. Actions speak louder than words.
We want to prevent the Feds from overreaching. And we're the bad guys?
No, you're the bad guys because you ignore the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
You're joking, I hope. There are plenty of people that will be worse than Obama. Although you are probably right about the soap dish being better.
Simplify the tax laws and remove loopholes in the process, then you need less people to do the work at the IRS. Hopefully this would also lead to the rich paying more taxes (due to lack of loopholes) which would lower the tax the average person needs to pay.
Of course it isn't really this simple many tax breaks (which can be used as loopholes) are designed to help stimulate the economy*, which if removed may lead to a number of companies going out of business increasing unemployment and making the average person worse off. Which means if you do choose to simplify tax law you have to consider who will be negatively impacted by it and how it will effect the economy.
*Let's assume this is true for now, and they really are intended to either help the poor or small/medium businesses (which require politicians not to be corrupt self-interested bastards).
Here's the bit that scares me the most:
... after a weekend of 'prayer and thought,' ...
We are always busy worrying about "muslim clerics" having too much influence in their own countries, but is American politics any better? Fundamentalist with an overtly anti-democratic, anti-human rights and anti-freedom agenda have a disproportionate amount of influence on American politics, to the extent that nobody running for office can get around pretending they are deeply religious - and we have the nerve to comment on the muslims?
I think that is deeply scaring. And shameful.