Who actually supports Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum?

reply to post by Praetorius


Kids shouldn't play in Bombed out Tanks.

DU

I is a anti tank weapon there will be chemicals no what would be used. The radioactivity is nominal and if (IF) there are children being born with defects I highly doubt it is from the DU. There are no documented cases to date from it.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
I'll bite.

He wants the US, in 2011, to operate under a highly ambiguous document which was penned in the 18th-century. That is crazy.

What exactly makes it ambiguous? It's very clear in what it does and the limited responsibilities it bestows on the federal government. The states are supposed to handle the rest.

He/they can't have the best of both worlds; you can't accept the rulings of the SCOTUS in instances which you agree with, while complaining about ''unconstitutional'' legislation which has been upheld by the SCOTUS.

Supreme court rulings have been overturned before. Obviously, just because they rule on something doesn't mean they are correct about it. This is where one has to look into the intent of the framers themselves, and sometimes SCOTUS fails - miserably.

But he said that he opposed the US fighting the Nazis. It was most certainly in the US' interest to intervene and share the winners' spoils in WWII.

Verified citation and context for analysis, please.

How does he know that the USA are not in danger in the current wars ? Was he privy to the most classified of governmental and military knowledge which led to these wars ?

If he was, then perhaps you should be asking more questions about this seemingly ''unquestionable'' politician.

Paul is a student of history and is in agreement with our own intelligence experts, Israeli intelligence experts, US energy analysts, National Intelligence Estimates, and has been proven right historically for things he predicted in advance, as well as calling out facts eventually confirmed in US media. I'd say he has a solid grasp on things.

But that's the classic Ron Paul defence of his bizarre view on this issue. ''Things will sort themselves out''.

Nothing could be further from the truth. To deny that there are racial schisms within Western society is sheer lunacy. To provide legislation which enables people and communities to grossly exacerbate this schism is beyond crazy; it's actively encouraging legal apartheid.

The Civil Rights Act and any kind of legislation preventing discrimination were brought into law precisely because people, generally, won't behave themselves without the necessary guidance from an external body.

And setting precedent for how one may utilize his own property or run his own business is dangerous for multiple reasons, as we've seen with the recent federal healthcare mandate and various other overreachings of US governmental authority.

And Paul's only issue with the CRA '64 was its impact on private property rights. That hardly does much to get people to behave themselves - it just sets a terrible precedent and equally forces minorities to serve caucasians they might rather not deal with. It's done nothing to resolve racial disparity - and regardless, is a complete and utter non-issue. I don't believe Paul has ever proposed reversing it, nor would he have authority nor an opportunity as no such thing would ever be likely to come through Congress.

Originally posted by beezzer
ALRIGHT!!!

What is the line in the sand for you people?
What is the last straw?
What is the one thing that finally makes you snap?

I don't have one, i'm already past that. i'm already living the rebellion.

reply to post by Grimpachi
I can agree with the first bit. As to the rest, I guess we'll have to let the studies go on and the experts continue to argue over the evidence, but in that case I would certainly like to know what else we may have introduced into the equation that resulted in the various physical effects that started manifesting after our engagements.

And I do appreciate your input, Grimpachi - I don't mean to imply any disrespect. I just believe - as applies to most things humans learn to start using - we may not have a full grasp on all long-term consequences and effects as yet, or at least such is not common knowledge.

Take care.

So yeah maybe he is an idealist, what is wrong with that? He wants to see the country the way it was originally intended to be,, I'm not naive enough to think if he got elected things are going to change overnight and it will be all sunshine and rainbows, it is just a step in the right direction..... You can't elect the people who have the same talking points and ideas every 4 years and expect different results, how has that been working out for us so far? Lets try something different for once, honestly at this point what have we got to lose?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Praetorius

 

Nice argument, but we have those at Ft Hood shooting unarmed people.
We had people that tried to destroy the World Trade Centers once, and succeed the second time.
We have the USS Cole.

How many cheeks should we turn?


Compare how many people died in those attack as opposed to how many people have died in the subsequent wars trying to avenge those attacks. Not to mention the people that we only injured, but live limited lives now because of it. Then think about all the innocent people who have been forever scarred mental (PTSD and the alike). There have been a increase in violent incidents involving middle east war vets suffering from PTSD. All of that could have been avoided. All of it. But we are too stupid as a people to realize that the only way to fix it is to use our brains, sit down and talk it out. The way we are designed to communicate. Bombing someone sends a message. But it's not a debate or a trial.

I remember watching a Ron Paul interview where is was talking about our influence on the rest of the world and why some many people hate us. He said something along the lines of the following: The reason the rest of the world hates us isn't because of our freedoms. It's because we force our way of living on people. And we do it through intimidation and fear. We preach that we are the almighty society, yet we don't act it. Our actions don't match the message we are trying to spread. The image we portray to the rest of the world is one of violence, greed and shallowness. What we should be show them is how to be responsible humans, for ourselves and others. And this CAN be done through peace. But until we back off and put ourselves on equal ground with the rest of the world and realize we not better than everyone else, that will never happen.

This kind of change won't happen over night. It will take baby steps. Having a president that we can be proud of and that the rest of the world will appreciate would be a great first step. Because the more we fight people, the more enemies we make. Should we let these people attack us? Obviously not. But can we man up and admit that our actions can be VASTLY improved? Of course! I guarantee you we would have a better dialogue with countries that "hate us" if we had a president not hell bent on bullying them. And Ron will also be a reminder to the bankers of the world that they don't control everything (even though they basically do :puz

. So much potential for positive change with Ron.

reply to post by MrSpad


Uhhh, did you see the resulting in iowa? It's not like he didn't have a strong showing...

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
key word being internet

in the real world, people talk about romney, gingrich and santorum

By real world do you mean the TV? Because in my real world (aka first hand experience) I have not seen anyone talk about any of them. Only place I see them talked about is on the news...

Originally posted by jheated5
So yeah maybe he is an idealist, what is wrong with that? He wants to see the country the way it was originally intended to be,, I'm not naive enough to think if he got elected things are going to change overnight and it will be all sunshine and rainbows, it is just a step in the right direction..... You can't elect the people who have the same talking points and ideas every 4 years and expect different results, how has that been working out for us so far? Lets try something different for once, honestly at this point what have we got to lose?

I think we do still have a lot more to lose before too many people notice we're going the wrong direction. What concerns me is, even if Ron Paul was elected he could do very little to turn things around unless we gave all the corporate stooges in congress the heave ho at the same time. No, Im not seeing rainbows or sunshine either.

I have never uploaded a video so I probably did this wrong, but this video alone is the reason I will vote for him. And it's the reason I can't understand why any of these other candidates would be considered, because none of them are saying anything like this. I mean come on.

Originally posted by Praetorius
What exactly makes it ambiguous? It's very clear in what it does and the limited responsibilities it bestows on the federal government. The states are supposed to handle the rest.

What makes it ambiguous ?! The wording. The Bill of rights contains such shortly written, multi-interpretable statements, as to render the Amendments ridiculous in any kind of normal legal sense.

''The states are supposed to handle the rest''. That is exactly why Ron Paul and his supporters are crazy kooks. US society will devolve backwards to pre-1960s times and earlier, if this were to be the case.

Originally posted by Praetorius
Supreme court rulings have been overturned before. Obviously, just because they rule on something doesn't mean they are correct about it.

Who overturns Supreme Court rulings ? A future set of nine politically-appointed judges in the SCOTUS.

Originally posted by Praetorius
This is where one has to look into the intent of the framers themselves, and sometimes SCOTUS fails - miserably.

LOL.

So, suddenly, the Constitution goes out the window, and an extremely subjective interpretation of the ''intent'' of the writers of the document comes to the fore. How convenient !

So, tell me, what was the founding fathers' ''intent'' in their writing of the First Amendment and Second Amendment (considering that these have been consistently restricted over the years) ?

You can use a clairvoyant, if that helps you.

Originally posted by Praetorius
Verified citation and context for analysis, please.

Citation for what ? That Paul wouldn't have intervened in WWII or that it didn't benefit the US getting involved ?

Originally posted by Praetorius
Paul is a student of history and is in agreement with our own intelligence experts, Israeli intelligence experts, US energy analysts, National Intelligence Estimates, and has been proven right historically for things he predicted in advance, as well as calling out facts eventually confirmed in US media. I'd say he has a solid grasp on things.

Student of history ? Verified citation needed.

Please give examples of these ''intelligence experts'' being in pre-war agreement with him; that is to say, before late 2001 in Afghanistan and before spring 2003 in Iraq.

It's a logical fallacy to assume that because someone has supposedly predicted something in the past, then they'll be able to predict a vaguely similar thing in the future.

I'd say that he has far from a solid grasp on things, other than realising that he's got a way to pander and exploit a worryingly large market of uncritical thinkers, professional discontents and directionless messiah-seekers.

Originally posted by Praetorius
And Paul's only issue with the CRA '64 was its impact on private property rights. That hardly does much to get people to behave themselves - it just sets a terrible precedent and equally forces minorities to serve caucasians they might rather not deal with.

Yeah, people may be forced to serve other races or religions through gritted teeth, but that's far better than the alternative. ie. pre-1968.

I don't care if someone's ''private property right'' to unreasonably deny someone service or employment is usurped, because the legislation is in place for the greater good of everybody in society.

Libertarians generally possess a selfish, entitled, ''I'm aright Jack'' mentality, and I've seen nothing to suggest that Dr. Paul and his self-abasing acolytes differ from this nauseating mentality.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

What makes it ambiguous ?! The wording. The Bill of rights contains such shortly written, multi-interpretable statements, as to render the Amendments ridiculous in any kind of normal legal sense.

''The states are supposed to handle the rest''. That is exactly why Ron Paul and his supporters are crazy kooks. US society will devolve backwards to pre-1960s times and earlier, if this were to be the case.

I'm not sure why you feel that way. The federal government handles national security, ensures everyone's treated equally, coins money and regulates it value, and a few other big things.

The states are experiments in liberty. They're free to craft the outcome as they see fit, they have their own constitutions, governments, law enforcement, and so on. They are (or were, anyway) essentially to be fairly autonomous. Is it so weird that Sweden handles its own affairs, even more so than US states? What's the problem? Do they need some overseeing authority to take care of them?

Who overturns Supreme Court rulings ? A future set of nine politically-appointed judges in the SCOTUS.

Yes. And? The court is not infallible, being the obvious implication. That doesn't mean something was both constitutional and not at different times - it means the court was wrong at one time.

LOL.

So, suddenly, the Constitution goes out the window, and an extremely subjective interpretation of the ''intent'' of the writers of the document comes to the fore. How convenient !

So, tell me, what was the founding fathers' ''intent'' in their writing of the First Amendment and Second Amendment (considering that these have been consistently restricted over the years) ?

You can use a clairvoyant, if that helps you.

No, not out the window at all. The US has a long history of very smart people reviewing and clarifying exactly these points, mostly in its early history, from the vast amount of literature and communications left by the founders.

What exactly about the 1st and 2nd amendment aren't you clear on? Are you trying to get at the incorporation argument and if the states have a right to judge contrary to the amendments? Again, I'll fall back to what I said previously as these two are generally clear, and yes, government tends to overstep its bounds at times. Historically, children were raised in households with guns at a young age and taught to be proficient and trustworthy with them, and people were free to speak their minds, follow their faiths, report news, and so forth without government interference.

Sadly, the US has become perverted in these understandings, and the people negligent and lazy in understanding their heritage.

Citation for what ? That Paul wouldn't have intervened in WWII or that it didn't benefit the US getting involved ?

You said:

But he said that he opposed the US fighting the Nazis.

I want to know where and when he said this, and what the context of the conversation was.

Student of history ? Verified citation needed.

I recommend Youtube or picking up a copy of his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship" (a collection of his speeches before the House) and checking up on his discussions of american history for yourself.

EDIT:
I suppose it is a fair question. We'll start with the fact that he warned us about the terroristic responses and loss of liberties prior to 9/11 as a result of his understanding of history and foreign policy, as well as warning us about the housing bubble and coming economic collapse for the same reasons as pertains to economic history.

Please give examples of these ''intelligence experts'' being in pre-war agreement with him; that is to say, before late 2001 in Afghanistan and before spring 2003 in Iraq.

Superfluous. You asked how he knows the US isn't in danger in the current wars, and I don't think anyone should know better than actual intelligence experts from multiple governments. Don't try to talk around things.

It's a logical fallacy to assume that because someone has supposedly predicted something in the past, then they'll be able to predict a vaguely similar thing in the future.

I'd say that he has far from a solid grasp on things, other than realising that he's got a way to pander and exploit a worryingly large market of uncritical thinkers, professional discontents and directionless messiah-seekers.

And I'd say it's a logical fallacy to claim hyped up threats constantly drummed at us by media and politicians who disagree with their own intelligence agencies and their analyses carry more weight than those intelligence agencies and their findings themselves.

And you're also free to disagree with these experts all you want. But as Paul agrees with them and they with he, I'll trust his judgement over yours any day...

reply to post by Praetorius

Yeah, people may be forced to serve other races or religions through gritted teeth, but that's far better than the alternative. ie. pre-1968.

I don't care if someone's ''private property right'' to unreasonably deny someone service or employment is usurped, because the legislation is in place for the greater good of everybody in society.

I don't mind if you hold that opinion, although I think it's incredibly shortsighted in light of precedent. I do think it's funny how much has been foisted off on people throughout history "for the greater good" that ended up working to the general contrary.

Libertarians generally possess a selfish, entitled, ''I'm aright Jack'' mentality, and I've seen nothing to suggest that Dr. Paul and his self-abasing acolytes differ from this nauseating mentality.

You must not be paying attention, then. I'd say generally wanting to secure a more peaceful world and financial stability for the US people and their money supply, if not looking at ANYTHING beyond that, works quite contrary to selfishness.

I suppose the proper way to address this argument moving forward would be for you to stop making various claims about Paul's views and simply let us know where they have been proven incorrect, or where more trustworthy experts have disagreed with him and been proven correct.

Take care.

Originally posted by beezzer
Is war the issue?
Then Ron Paul. Or Obama.
They'll both wave the white flag.

The WHITE FLAG!?!?! Who's attacking Us? I mean without Us doing anything to Them? (Obama will not keep Us out of wars... Libya comes to mind...)

How can We surrender to countries We have been bossing around? Or is freedom from Us (the US gov't) a poor reason to fight back?

White flag, My a$$.

Is the erosion of the US Constitution a bigger deal?
Then Romney would be your guy.

ROFL! I bet He would have signed NDAA... And not repealed the "Patriot" Act. Ron Paul would have NEVER signed NDAA - and will repeal the Suppression of Citizens...er..."Patriot" Act.

Sure. Romney, My a$$,

Is there anyone perfect running?
Heck no!

But there is one who stands firm (with the same stance for decades), wants the US to stop bullying other countries and then declaring war on them when they protest... Who would that be... Santorum? Ah, nope. He wants the government to regulate what You do in Your bedroom (1984, anyOne?).

It's Paul again.

What's your line in the sand?

A candidate who has stated His position on both war and constitutional rights, who wants the states to take on public assistance (rather than collecting from the states, paying a zillion dollars to "administrators" and then handing back the little that's left), who wants to keep the feds out of the abortion issue and leave that to the states, too, that wants to end the War on (some People who used some) Drugs.

So. My line is quite inclusive.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Praetorius

 

reply to post by seberhar

 

But just "not fighting" doesn't end war.

In fact, to some, it would invite it.

Let them bash them selves against our defenses then...

I don't know how anyone could support them. They are both soulless corporate automatons. Both of them are so patronizing and fake that it makes my blood curdle. They are both lying tools. They are replaceable, expendable empty shells. Ron Paul is the only real human being on the race. I love Dennis Kucinich best but he's not in the race. Ron Paul is the only sane, honest person running.

Obama signed the NDAA and has lied about everything he promised on the campaign trail. He's not for real either. Senator Ron Wyden, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only politicians that I know about in the USA who aren't corrupt evil, soulless douchebags.

reply to post by 0001391


I concur. Santorum and Romney are the epitome of robotic political puppets. Look at any debate. When they answer, they sound so scripted. You can tell they force answers because they've been told what to say. I just don't understand how more people aren't able to see that. Are people really that stupid and brainwashed. It's so incredibly sad how brainwashed and trained people's minds are. If a talking head says you shouldn't vote for someone, there are so many people that was just obey. It blows my mind.

reply to post by mileysubet


Agreed. It's funny. So much has been done in the name of national security, when in fact our national security has never been thinner. We have troops spread out across the world, so if something were to happen here at home (you know the thing we are supposedly fighting to protect) then our soldiers would be on the other side of the world and unable to protect us. It is BS the way this whole thing works. There are big companies that want us to be at war so that they can make profit (northrup gruman for example). So they invest millions into whatever politician will allow their business to flourish. If we aren't at war, these companies have no demand for their supply. So these paid for politicians have to get us involved in wars that don't concern us so that they can pay back their funders. Ron Paul doesn't come with this package. The one funders he has to pay back are the people. This would be the first time in a long time (probably since JFK) where our president would truly put the people first. Most people don't understand that most politicians don't really care about the people, but they'll say whatever they can to win them over. There is a reason Obama played the "change" card in order to beat the republicans in 2008. People were sick of Bush and the repubs so he came out and said I understand and I will be different. Then he got elected and did nothing different! He expanded almost all of bush's foreign policy. And people don't even realize! It's a freakin crime.

Originally posted by beezzer
Is war the issue?
Then Ron Paul. Or Obama.
They'll both wave the white flag.

Obama the bomber waves the white flag? Ha, that's a good one.

Just wanted to follow up.

Many here have disagreed with my assessments of the candidates.

To be brief and to keep with the intent of the thread, I'd go with Romney because of Obamacare and illegal immigration.

As stated before, Obama has proven himself to be an appeaser. Negotiating with the Taliban? Playing second fiddle to NATO and the UN. He's not a leader.

Paul is (to be kind) a non-interventionist. Before I get on the Paul bandwagon, someone had better explain how that would help South Korea or Taiwan!

Santorum is a big government republican. He's what I would call a "progressive" as well.

Would Romney get rid of the Patriot Act? The TSA? Dunno. Doubt it.

But no candidate is going to be perfect. T'is why I asked where people drew the line.