Support NeoGAF

[Souldriver]

If I could predict the future and see the right scenario playing out, I would actually like him as the Republican nominee.

In some alternate universe he would get completely and utterly destroyed by Obama in the elections, giving the Republican Party such a hangover that a witch hunt starts and a new (or rather: old) fraction of the party takes over. The fraction of sane fiscal conservatism. A ideology I don't agree with, but I can respectfully disagree with.

Chances of this happening are small though. Just imagine him winning against Obama. Oh lord! But more probably: after an Obama re-election the GOP would be so scorned that they get even more contrary, extremist and hellbent on opposing any form of decent policy and governing.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

If I could predict the future and see the right scenario playing out, I would actually like him as the Republican nominee.

In some alternate universe he would get completely and utterly destroyed by Obama in the elections, giving the Republican Party such a hangover that a witch hunt starts and a new (or rather: old) fraction of the party takes over. The fraction of sane fiscal conservatism. A ideology I don't agree with, but I can respectfully disagree with.

Chances of this happening are small though. Just imagine him winning against Obama. Oh lord! But more probably: after an Obama re-election the GOP would be so scorned that they get even more contrary, extremist and hellbent on opposing any form of decent policy and governing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/opinion/nocera-rooting-for-santorum.html

 

[JoeBoy101]

Santorum says bullshit to try and get the social cons to rally around him even more, so he can gain back some momentum against Romney. Film at 11.

Crazy fucker. If Romney gets the nom, I'm voting for him, but if Santorum gets it, than I'm out.

Spoiler

And if for some reason Gingrich gets it, I'll vote for Obama.

 

[Diablos]

Well, there goes Rick's support with the homosexual communi ---
Oh, wait.


Typical douchebag Rick preaching to the choir. I don't think he has learned his lesson about going overboard on the ideological conservatism fapfest.

 

[Devolution]

He won some worthless caucuses to get momentum. Was a smart move for his campaign, but he has yet to win anything where there's real voting.

An upset in Ohio is really the only chance there is for Romney to lose the nomination.

Ah okay.

 

[Souldriver]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/opinion/nocera-rooting-for-santorum.html

Yep, this is exactly the scenario I've been thinking of myself.


But it's still a dilemma. A Santorum nomination give an Obama re-election + GOP reform the biggest chances. But the off chance of a Santorum presidency would be potentially horrendous. With a Romney nomination the stakes aren't as high and the end results less extreme (good or bad).

 

[Tideas]

Marriage does belong to everybody. That's more reason for government to be out of it.

What? Do some of you guys even know what you're arguing about?

The only reason the government is involved in marriage at all is because of tax, patient, divorce, and death reasons.

That's the only reason why gay people want to be "married." it's to get the governmental benefits of that recognition of being "married".

Hell, anyone can get married to anything or anyone they want to.

 

[balddemon]

lol i said to my mom "Rick Santorum said something else stupid today"

and she goes, in a sarcastic tone "no way"

 

[CHEEZMO™]

That's the only reason why gay people want to be "married." it's to get the governmental benefits of that recognition of being "married".

Sure.

 

[Dany]

Sanatorum needs to shut his fucking mouth.

 

[Tideas]

Sure.

Then what's the reasoning behind asking for marriage equality, in the eyes of the gov?

 

[JoeBoy101]

What? Do some of you guys even know what you're arguing about?

The only reason the government is involved in marriage at all is because of tax, patient, divorce, and death reasons.

That's the only reason why gay people want to be "married." it's to get the governmental benefits of that recognition of being "married".

Hell, anyone can get married to anything or anyone they want to.

Well, in all honestly, why DOES government need to be involved in it? Inheritance is the only major point there. If they weren't involved with marriage, divorce is a null issue. Should marriages get tax breaks?

This is moot anyways as the government will NEVER get out of marriage. Would be nice if they could change the name though. Might solve some of the problems. Then again, probably not.

Then what's the reasoning behind asking for marriage equality, in the eyes of the gov?

Because they don't have those rights right now?

 

[loosus]

The only reason the government is involved in marriage at all is because of tax, patient, divorce, and death reasons.

First of all, that's not true. "Marriage" has been a religious institution that has been made secular more recently.

Second, taxes should have NOTHING to do with marriage. Federal income tax should be individual income tax.

"Patient reasons" (if I even know what the hell you are talking about) can be taken care of through contracts.

Divorce? Really? What a self-fulfilling reason. "We can't get rid of marriage because of divorce!"

Death reasons (again, if I even know what you are talking about) are another contractual issue. You don't need government-backed marriage for that.

 

[Korey]

Santorum says bullshit to try and get the social cons to rally around him even more, so he can gain back some momentum against Romney. Film at 11.

Isn't it news at 11? Do they usually show films at 11?

 

[JoeBoy101]

Isn't it news at 11? Do they usually show films at 11?

Its used when if there is breaking news or something early in the day, the newscaster will talk about it, and then the 'film at 11' means there will be video and a longer story at that time as further info or as an addendum.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Second, taxes should have NOTHING to do with marriage. Federal income tax should be individual income tax.

I disagree with this.

A married person's income isn't tied to just that one person, so the taxes should not be treated as if they were.

You don't have to shoehorn individualism into every facet of everything. It seems like such an odd and anti-biological concept to actually want to treat family groups as individuals who kind of just stand around each other often, and not as the group they actually are.

I feel something like that might be more damaging to the concept to the "family" than gay marriage every would be (it wouldn't be at all anyway).

 

[Tideas]

Well, in all honestly, why DOES government need to be involved in it? Inheritance is the only major point there. If they weren't involved with marriage, divorce is a null issue. Should marriages get tax breaks?

This is moot anyways as the government will NEVER get out of marriage. Would be nice if they could change the name though. Might solve some of the problems. Then again, probably not.



Because they don't have those rights right now?

I know they don't have those rights right now. That's why they're asking for it. But the person who quoted me makes it seem like they want marriage equality for reasons that aren't those.

If there's one thing that the government has reasonable reason to be involved in, it is patient's privacy rights. Married = family. we don't want our doctors to tell anyone who comes waltzing in to tell them of our conditions right? I guess marriage is like a contract. So then, if you marry someone, you're at least willing to be with them through thick and thin.

as for tax and inheritance and stuff like that, maybe just get rid of tax benefits for married ppl.

First of all, that's not true. "Marriage" has been a religious institution that has been made secular more recently.

Second, taxes should have NOTHING to do with marriage. Federal income tax should be individual income tax.

"Patient reasons" (if I even know what the hell you are talking about) can be taken care of through contracts.

Divorce? Really? What a self-fulfilling reason. "We can't get rid of marriage because of divorce!"

Death reasons (again, if I even know what you are talking about) are another contractual issue. You don't need government-backed marriage for that.

Are you saying this as your opinion or as facts?

 

[loosus]

I disagree with this.

A married person's income isn't tied to just that one person, so the taxes should not be treated as if they were.

You don't have to shoehorn individualism into every facet of everything. It seems like such an odd and anti-biological concept to actually want to treat family groups as individuals who kind of just stand around each other often, and not as the group they actually are.

I feel something like that might be more damaging to the concept to the "family" than gay marriage every would be (it wouldn't be at all anyway).

It's the most clean-cut way to do it. If you want deductions/credits and whatnot for family members (as there are some already), then that's another discussion because that's an area we could work on. But salaries should be based on individuals, not families.

 

[littlerat]

I very almost sort of want this guy to win, just to see how Obama deals with him in the debates.

 

[overcast]

This is fucking disgusting.

 

[loosus]

If there's one thing that the government has reasonable reason to be involved in, it is patient's privacy rights. Married = family. we don't want our doctors to tell anyone who comes waltzing in to tell them of our conditions right?

Again, what exactly does that have to do with marriage? Tell the doctor/hospital who is on the "okay list" to give private medical info.

I really don't see how you are connecting the two.

salaries are based on individual...we're talking about taxes on said salaries. if two people are married, they're considered a family. that's what tax breaks are for, is it not? If you go back to before modern time. Give people encouragement to come together, and start something.

Are you talking about exemptions/credits for dependents? You can do that without being married...you are aware of that, right?

 

[Tideas]

It's the most clean-cut way to do it. If you want deductions/credits and whatnot for family members (as there are some already), then that's another discussion because that's an area we could work on. But salaries should be based on individuals, not families.

salaries are based on individual...we're talking about taxes on said salaries. if two people are married, they're considered a family. that's what tax breaks are for, is it not? If you go back to before modern time. Give people encouragement to come together, and start something.

Again, what exactly does that have to do with marriage? Tell the doctor/hospital who is on the "okay list" to give private medical info.

I really don't see how you are connecting the two.

Tell the hospital/doctor who's on your okay list? really? So say you get into a car accident. you're transported to a hospital in another state because the one you're in can't deal with yor accident. And the only person who is your family is the one you're married to. What then? How are you gonna tell the hospital when you're in a friggin coma?

 

[loosus]

Tell the hospital/doctor who's on your okay list? really? So say you get into a car accident. you're transported to a hospital in another state because the one you're in can't deal with yor accident. And the only person who is your family is the one you're married to. What then? How are you gonna tell the hospital when you're in a friggin coma?

So what you really want is a federal registry that contains a list of people who can legally obtain and provide your private medical info? Again, where does marriage enter this formula?

 

[Tideas]

So what you really want is a federal registry that contains a list of people who can legally obtain and provide your private medical info? Again, where does marriage enter this formula?

because when u're married to someone, you don't need a federal registry. seriously, dude, u still don't get it? I'm arguing that the name doesn't matter. it is what's behind the government's recognition of it. federal laws states that doctors can't reveal patient info unless it's with immediate family members. that's the necessity of government recognized marriage for those that aren't related.

 

[Enron]

Too many people here act like Rick Santorum is PRESIDENT OF REPUBLICANS or something.

 

[loosus]

because when u're married to someone, you don't need a federal registry. seriously, dude, u still don't get it? I'm arguing that the name doesn't matter. it is what's behind the government's recognition of it. federal laws states that doctors can't reveal patient info unless it's with immediate family members. that's the necessity of government recognized marriage for those that aren't related.

If the federal law really does read like that now, then change it to "Doctors can't reveal patient info unless it's with someone who has been approved in the federal registry."

What if you don't want immediate family members knowing something?

 

[slidewinder]

First of all, that's not true. "Marriage" has been a religious institution that has been made secular more recently.

No, that's not true. Marriage has always had civil, secular importance, but only sometimes and in certain places has it had religious components, either necessarily or at all. And it sure as heck wasn't an innovation of Christianity, as some Americans seem to want to believe.

 

[Pollux]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/opinion/nocera-rooting-for-santorum.html

please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please

LET THIS HAPPEN!!!!!!!

Please.

 

[loosus]

No, that's not true. Marriage has always had civil, secular importance, but only sometimes and in certain places has it had religious components, either necessarily or at all. And it sure as heck wasn't an innovation of Christianity, as some Americans seem to want to believe.

I'm talking about the American context. It has been, without doubt, a mostly Christian institution in the context of America ever since its founding. That's exactly where Americans get their idea of it being an "innovation of Christianity" from.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Too many people here act like Rick Santorum is PRESIDENT OF REPUBLICANS or something.

Rick Santorum as a candidate is the most zealous representative of social conservative values. He exemplifies what the other side hates.

Granted, I'm sure a lot of Republicans dislike his moral beliefs too. But they still have to tow the party line and pretend like what he's saying makes any sense.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

I used to think that Santorum winning the nomination would be a great thing for Obama, but after listening to him for the past few weeks, and seeing how many people are reacting positively to him, I'm not even willing to risk a 0.5% chance of that man becoming president. I'm not afraid of a Romney presidency. I'm afraid of a Santorum presidency.

 

[Enron]

I used to think that Santorum winning the nomination would be a great thing for Obama, but after listening to him for the past few weeks, and seeing how many people are reacting positively to him, I'm not even willing to risk a 0.5% chance of that man becoming president. I'm not afraid of a Romney presidency. I'm afraid of a Santorum presidency.

What planet are you on? Reacting to him positively over the past few weeks? Over the past few weeks he's lost the brief 5-10% points he had gotten on Mitt Romney and is trending in the other way after getting spanked last week by Mitt. Next week is going to be more of the same.

 

[DrForester]

I used to think that Santorum winning the nomination would be a great thing for Obama, but after listening to him for the past few weeks, and seeing how many people are reacting positively to him, I'm not even willing to risk a 0.5% chance of that man becoming president. I'm not afraid of a Romney presidency. I'm afraid of a Santorum presidency.

Romney better win the Election. Because Santorum will just be back with a vengeance and an "I told you so" attitude if he loses the nomination and then Romney loses the general.

 

[JJD]

God damn. I'm fucking ashamed to profess the same religion as this man. Perhaps it's time I reevaluate my position.

 

[Glorified G]

God damn. I'm fucking ashamed to profess the same religion as this man. Perhaps it's time I reevaluate my position.

You also share the same religion as the KKK, there are kooks in all walks of life.

 

[GaimeGuy]

He's not, and he's never been.

Why do you keep on saying this? He lead the polls just a few weeks ago. When you consider the fact that the presidential election is a 2 man race, and that this is the #2 guy (at lowest) in the republican primaries, it means that Rick Santorum is, at worst, the 3rd most likely person to be elected president this november.

That is a fact, and it should scare the fuck out of everyone.

In 2008, 60 million people - 46% of the people who voted - voted for Sarah Palin to be the first in line to the presidency.

Therei sa very real chance that people like Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum become president. People like them hold many seats in congress already

 

[JoeBoy101]

God damn. I'm fucking ashamed to profess the same religion as this man. Perhaps it's time I reevaluate my position.

Come on. Choosing to change you religion over an asshole is like choosing to stop gaming because of spawn campers. Condemn the assholes, but don't let them change you.

If there's one thing that the government has reasonable reason to be involved in, it is patient's privacy rights. Married = family. we don't want our doctors to tell anyone who comes waltzing in to tell them of our conditions right? I guess marriage is like a contract. So then, if you marry someone, you're at least willing to be with them through thick and thin.

as for tax and inheritance and stuff like that, maybe just get rid of tax benefits for married ppl.

I think its possible to come up with ways to do it without it being managed by the government. But again, its a moot point. The government will get out of religion right after it gets money out of politics and enacts term limits.

Romney better win the Election. Because Santorum will just be back with a vengeance and an "I told you so" attitude if he loses the nomination and then Romney loses the general.

Maybe, but its looking like the 2016 field will look a LOT different than the 2012 one for republicans. Assuming Obama wins, that is, which is certain with a Santorum nomination, and still close even with Romney.

 

[Enron]

Romney wins Wash. caucuses. Eat it Rick

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

Well, I know who I'm voting for this election.

 

[Enron]

Why do you keep on saying this? He lead the polls just a few weeks ago.

And ever since he started talking more in those two weeks, he's fallen.

Democrats SO VERY BADLY want Rick Santorum to be the face of the Republican Party, but its not going to happen.

 

[XMonkey]

There are plenty of Republicans that want Santorum to be the face of the party, Enron. It cuts both ways so don't try and play it off like he's some fringe lunatic of the GOP.

 

[Clevinger]

And ever since he started talking more in those two weeks, he's fallen.

If only it was just that and not also or mainly Romney/Romney's PACs throwing millions of dollars of negative ads at each state. If Santorum had as much money to spend as Romney things would be very, very different.

The same thing happened to Gingrich. He was up by a lot in Flordia, then Romney pours $$$$$$ into the state through negative ads and wins handily.

edit: Just think about this. Romney almost lost Michigan, his home state, to an insane POS like Santorum when he was outspending him by god knows how much. If that doesn't scare you about your party, then I don't know what will.

 

[JJD]

You also share the same religion as the KKK, there are kooks in all walks of life.

I agree with you, but for the record KKK were majorly protestant, which itself is one of the major groupings within christianity.

Come on. Choosing to change you religion over an asshole is like choosing to stop gaming because of spawn campers. Condemn the assholes, but don't let them change you.

I know, but everywhere I look christians are becoming more and more fundamentalist. Disregarding other people faith, disrespecting anyone that don't agree with their beliefs.

How can we christians dictate how a person should live, what a woman can or cannot do with her body? Have they ever considered that many of those people don't even profess the same religion as ourselves? Doesn't God teaches us to respect other people?

I would much rather have God in my heart and not profess a religion than profess any religion at all and live with such hate in my heart.

 

[outunderthestars]

Well yeah, the fact that he is in second place as a republican nominee shows that many people are voting for him.

Or that the field of Republican candidates is terrible this cycle. It also shows how unpopular Mittens is to his own party.

 

[Amir0x]

And ever since he started talking more in those two weeks, he's fallen.

Democrats SO VERY BADLY want Rick Santorum to be the face of the Republican Party, but its not going to happen.

the implication here being that if Romney is nominated, the modern Republican party still aren't disjointed nutcases, incapable of consistency of messages they actually believe in? A party for whom destruction of the country is preferable than allowing Obama to score a political point in the countries best interest?

We just want Santorum elected because it guarantees we win in November. Romney has a little better chance of winning, but I still like our odds with him at the helm. But one nutcase being exchanged for another transparent robot programmed to consistently say everything and anything possible to fool people into believeing he's something he is not is noooot exactly the Monica Bellucci face the Republican party needs to not continue to be seen as a bunch of hypocritical lunatic fringe psychos.

 

[JoeBoy101]

I know, but everywhere I look christians are becoming more and more fundamentalist. Disregarding other people faith, disrespecting anyone that don't agree with their beliefs.

How can we christians dictate how a person should live, what a woman can or cannot do with her body? Have they ever considered that many of those people don't even profess the same religion as ourselves? Doesn't God teaches us to respect other people?

I would much rather have God in my heart and not profess a religion than profess any religion at all and live with such hate in my heart.

Fair questions, abounding. I don't have answers, or presume to have them. To me, religion is something personal. I have my own personal understanding and acceptance of God and it does fine for me. I don't push it one iota on anyone else and don't feel threatened by other people's views on it, because I see it as personally relevant.

Sad truth is, alot of people don't define their religion based on themselves and their beliefs, but base themselves and their beliefs on their religion. Same thing with politics these days. Most of the time, its not ideology, but whether our religion/politics/identity is in the lead or beating the opposing ones.

I dislike organized religion because, though it does a lot of good and I respect that, it entrenches a lot of thinking as well.

So, TLDR, my best response is, gotta be cool with your God or applicable deity (or non) in your own heart and soul. If so, the organized religion part, though useful at times (answering specific questions, resources, etc.), isn't all that necessary. At least, that's what I think.

But one nutcase being exchanged for another transparent robot programmed to consistently say everything and anything possible to fool people into believeing he's something he is not

Sorry, I lost track there. You talking about Romney there or Obama?

 

[Puddles]

For once I agree wholeheartedly with Amir0x.

Social conservatives are the lowest of scum.

Anyone who promises to bring the hammer down on furries will get my vote.

 

[Enron]

the implication here being that if Romney is nominated, the modern Republican party still aren't disjointed nutcases, incapable of consistency of messages they actually believe in? A party for whom destruction of the country is preferable than allowing Obama to score a political point in the countries best interest?

We just want Santorum elected because it guarantees we win in November. Romney has a little better chance of winning, but I still like our odds with him at the helm. But one nutcase being exchanged for another transparent robot programmed to consistently say everything and anything possible to fool people into believeing he's something he is not is noooot exactly the Monica Bellucci face the Republican party needs to not continue to be seen as a bunch of hypocritical lunatic fringe psychos.

Oh good lord.

I'm out.

 

[lunchtoast]

wut a jerk.

 

[Amir0x]

Sorry, I lost track there. You talking about Romney there or Obama?

Obama presented himself as a center left politician and has been a center left politician for his entire time in office. He made many promises, and as with every president, political realities or change of hearts or whatever always make it impossible to keep every promise. But for those who have kept track, he has far and away kept more promises (and compromises on more) by far than those he has failed to keep. With few exceptions, he presented himself quite accurately based on how he has run his first term.

Oh good lord.

I'm out.

Probably for the best. I don't think anyone wants to see yet another painful, strained attempts to defend the modern GOP's offensively transparent bullshit.