Support NeoGAF

[AzureNightmare]

Padded? Why on earth would we want to protect him from anything?

Its not about protecting him, its about making sure he can't kill himself so he suffers, at least until he somehow manages to cause grievous trauma to his body or starves to death.

 

[Open Source]

Its not about protecting him, its about making sure he can't kill himself so he suffers, at least until he somehow manages to cause grievous trauma to his body or starves to death.

Hmm. I have strong feelings on people who want to limit my freedom in various ways, many that have more of a practical effect on daily life than this issue, but I don't want to lock up, torture, and kill those people or draw crosshairs over them on a map or anything.

 

[Dead Man]

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

He is one trip and fall from Romney (figurative or literal) away from being the Repub nomination

 

[AzureNightmare]

Hmm. I have strong feelings on people who want to limit my freedom in various ways, many that have more of a practical effect on daily life than this issue, but I don't want to lock up, torture, and kill those people or draw crosshairs over them on a map or anything.

So you'd rather give those ultra fanatical zealots a chance to dehumanize a group of people?

 

[Puddles]

Yes, I think you have the idea. But obviously it goes beyond the extreme circumstances you describe into more mundane and less obviously necessary areas. And my moral code is most likely right in line with yours - I just draw the line at a different place in terms of where to forcibly take money from others to fund those moral imperatives - the reasons being that 1) economic freedom (keeping your money) should be maintained as much as possible, because economic freedom provides incentives for productivity and thus a society's long-term prosperity 2) dependence on entitlements others takes away those same incentives, whether it's a corporation slumming it with earmarked defense contracts or a person dependent on the social safety net who realizes that the marginal improvement in his life for working hard and educating himself isn't worth the effort and 3) too often entitlements are treated as jobs programs for the agents who deliver the benefits (esp. in education), and thus the efficiency of those programs is compromised.

I'm certainly not in favor of abolishing the safety net altogether and even favor expanding it in some places.

This sounds reasonable. I think that if you and I were to sit down and discuss things, we'd end up in agreement on at least 75% of the major issues. There aren't many conservatives I can say that about. You and AlteredBeast are the two on GAF.

 

[Open Source]

So you'd rather give those ultra fanatical zealots a chance to dehumanize a group of people?

Yes, so they can get voted down and their ideas swept into the dustbin of history.

That's how democracy works. When you lock up, beat up, torture, or intimidate your political opponents to silence them, you don't win the battle of ideas, and you make yourself the bad guy.

 

[Puddles]

I'm sure we've all had those kinds of feelings. Lord knows I read comments on Politico and think to myself that if I could jump through the computer screen, I would beat the shit out of the person on the other end.

You can't actually wish physical harm on people with opposing viewpoints though. Thinking it is okay; really wanting it isn't.

 

[Dead Man]

Yes, so they can get voted down and their ideas swept into the dustbin of history.

That's how democracy works. When you lock up, beat up, torture, or intimidate your political opponents to silence them, you don't win the battle of ideas, and you make yourself the bad guy.

Easy to say if you aren't the one being dehumanised, and you have faith they will get voted down.

Edit: Look, I am not advocating violence, but that was a pretty flippant response man. People are able to express frustation by saying those things knowing they will never happen.

 

[Yagharek]

So you'd rather give those ultra fanatical zealots a chance to dehumanize a group of people?

I'd rather not see people make comments wishing death on others, no matter how abhorrent their ideals.

All it does is contribute to validating the persecution complex that outspoken fundamentalist christian bigots like Santorum have.

 

[Open Source]

Easy to say if you aren't the one being dehumanised, and you have faith they will get voted down.

One of the reasons I favor strong state governments is that it allows people to shop for the policies they prefer. When power is concentrated in the national government, then it's monolithic, and if you don't like it, you have to move to another country rather than another state.

Obviously, picking up and moving isn't always easy, but it's better than being dehumanized, right?

 

[Dead Man]

One of the reasons I favor strong state governments is that it allows people to shop for the policies they prefer. When power is concentrated in the national government, then it's monolithic, and if you don't like it, you have to move to another country rather than another state.

Obviously, picking up and moving isn't always easy, but it's better than being dehumanized, right?

I favour strong federal governments so regions are not free to pusue radical ideaologies. If a law applies to everyone it is harder to pass extreme legislation.

I think theUS Federal model was correct when it was designed, but I think society has now reached a point where uniformity of legislation is more beneficial.

By saying you favour strong state governments, you are basically admitting you don't care if a fellow countryman in another state, maybe just a few miles away, is oppressed.

 

[Open Source]

Easy to say if you aren't the one being dehumanised, and you have faith they will get voted down.

Edit: Look, I am not advocating violence, but that was a pretty flippant response man. People are able to express frustation by saying those things knowing they will never happen.

Of course, I know the feeling. But if you were running for office against me, my campaign manager would be making sure your quote was in the media ever day for the rest of the campaign, paying thugs to attack my supporters at political rallies, and blaming the uptick in violence on you to score cheap political points. I would feign outrage while at the same time telling my supporters not to retaliate, thus appearing to be above the fray. Bloggers and twitterers would go crazy with the manufactured outrage.

That is why I look at the various "outrages" committed by political candidates with a jaundiced eye.

Not this one, though. Santorum seems to be stuck in the 20th century, when anti-sodomy laws were not only on the books but enforced in some places and porn was printed.

 

[Wazzim]

We can't regulate corporate spending but we can regulate people's relationships.

 

[Dead Man]

We can't regulate corporate spending but we can regulate people's relationships.

Why isn't marriage considered speech?

 

[Open Source]

I favour strong federal governments so regions are not free to pusue radical ideaologies. If a law applies to everyone it is harder to pass extreme legislation.

I think theUS Federal model was correct when it was designed, but I think society has now reached a point where uniformity of legislation is more beneficial.

By saying you favour strong state governments, you are basically admitting you don't care if a fellow countryman in another state, maybe just a few miles away, is oppressed.

States can't override the Bill of Rights or anything else in the national constitution. Therefore, "oppression" by a state is not the kind of oppression that you'd see in China, Syria, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and many other countries around the globe.

The ability for gays to get married only in a certain (slowly increasing) number of states doesn't rise to the level of serious oppression, just like the issue of eminent domain (see Kelo vs New London) does not. They are both infringements of personal freedom, but the benefits of bring able to shop for a government you like far outweighs them, in my opinion.

 

[Joni]

It is a good idea to have one marriage law for the entire country. You just need one that allows same-sex marriage.

 

[Dead Man]

States can't override the Bill of Rights or anything else in the national constitution. Therefore, "oppression" by a state is not the kind of oppression that you'd see in China, Syria, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and many other countries around the globe.

The ability for gays to get married only in a certain (slowly increasing) number of states doesn't rise to the level of serious oppression, just like the issue of eminent domain (see Kelo vs New London) does not. They are both infringements of personal freedom, but the benefits of bring able to shop for a government you like far outweighs them, in my opinion.

There's plenty of fucked up shit that can be done while still following the constitution. You are basically saying it is not as bad as this screwed up thing, so its okay. Not good enough to me.

And the argument that you can 'shop for a government you like' seems facetious. Who has moved states becuase they did not like the situation in their current one? I would suggest not many have the means to do so. Did black folks leave the south during segregation?

 

[Open Source]

There's plenty of fucked up shit that can be done while still following the constitution. You are basically saying it is not as bad as this screwed up thing, so its okay. Not good enough to me.

And the argument that you can 'shop for a government you like' seems facetious. Who has moved states becuase they did not like the situation in their current one? I would suggest not many have the means to do so. Did black folks leave the south during segregation?

Are you suggesting that people who can't get gay married are suffering violation of rights to the same degree as blacks before the Civil Rights Act? And the answer to your question is "yes", although discrimination was just as rampant in the north, unfortunately.

I actually have quite a few friends here in California who moved here because of the protections afforded to "domestic partners". And I have some in Texas who could move but who, after weighing the pros and cons, don't feel it's important enough.

Also, keep in mind that a strong national government can enact policies you don't like. It's not always going to be under control of the people you want to be in charge. In that case, all of a sudden you have nowhere to go to escape the laws being passed that you don't like, as you could if the powers in question belonged to states instead.

 

[Dead Man]

Are you suggesting that people who can't get gay married are suffering violation of rights to the same degree as blacks before the Civil Rights Act? And the answer to your question is "yes", although discrimination was just as rampant in the north, unfortunately.

I actually have quite a few friends here in California who moved here because of the protections afforded to "domestic partners". And I have some in Texas who could move but who, after weighing the pros and cons, don't feel it's important enough.

Also, keep in mind that a strong national government can enact policies you don't like. It's not always going to be under control of the people you want to be in charge. In that case, all of a sudden you have nowhere to go to escape the laws being passed that you don't like, as you could if the powers in question belonged to states instead.

That's the point though, it is harder to enact mroe extreme measures when you are applying them to a larger group.

And no, I am not suggesting that about gay marriage and segregation, what makes you think that? All I am doing is pointing out that lots of people stayed in areas where they were disadvantaged and had massive reasons to move, and yet they did not. That was with a major violation of rights like segregation. How many people do you think (your firends notwithstanding) have the ability or the knowledge or the job skills to be able to move states? If you are young, no kids, well educated, it is not too hard. If you miss out on any of those categories it can be moch more difficult.

 

[Monocle]

Are you suggesting that people who can't get gay married are suffering violation of rights to the same degree as blacks before the Civil Rights Act? And the answer to your question is "yes", although discrimination was just as rampant in the north, unfortunately.

I actually have quite a few friends here in California who moved here because of the protections afforded to "domestic partners". And I have some in Texas who could move but who, after weighing the pros and cons, don't feel it's important enough.

Also, keep in mind that a strong national government can enact policies you don't like. It's not always going to be under control of the people you want to be in charge. In that case, all of a sudden you have nowhere to go to escape the laws being passed that you don't like, as you could if the powers in question belonged to states instead.

"At least they don't have it as bad as the blacks did" is the implication here, and it's a shameful way to slither out of an unqualified repudiation of bigotry. Oppression is oppression.

 

[Open Source]

"At least they don't have it as bad as the blacks did" is the implication here, and it's a shameful way to slither out of an unqualified repudiation of bigotry. Oppression is oppression.

There are varying degrees of oppression. That is obvious on its face. The fact that gay people have the ability to move to a state where they can get married and the fact that many gay people do not feel the need to move to a state where gay marriage is legal suggest that the infringement on personal liberty is not a severe one, all things considered.

Bigotry isn't the issue we're discussing, since that refers to a person's attitude, not government policy. Discrimination? Yes, but much more mild discrimination than say, poll taxes, literacy tests, or other Jim Crow laws, and probably even less severe an infringement of rights than having your property forcibly purchased from you and handed over to private developers.

Laws like DOMA would not exist without a strong national government. Even still, states that legalize gay marriage are in a gray area because of that law. Contrary to another poster's opinion, a strong national government is more likely to limit freedom on a large scale than a weak one, because it has longer reach and a monopoly-like hold on legislative power.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

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

He's 2nd most likely to receive the GOP nomination, which puts him at 3rd most likely to become president in our political system.

And regardless of how batshit insane he is, he would get at least 40, no, 45% of all votes in November, simply because he has an R next to his name.

So yes, he has a very good shot at becoming president. More than anyone except for Obama or Romney at this point.

"If you torture the statistics for long enough, they will confess."

Rick Santorum has lead in the polls. So has Donald Trump. As have Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich. His campaign is sorely underfunded, SuperPAC not withstanding, and he's only produced wins in caucuses where Romney hasn't bothered to compete. Romney has not taken this as convincingly as I thought he might, but he has always been the inevitable Republican nominee, and trying to assert that he's the "third most likely person" is hysterical bullshit.

And people don't vote for vice president. How many people do you think voted for Obama because of Joe Biden?

 

[WARP10CK]

I´m beginning to think that Santorum might be a Democratic plant in the Republican party that will make sure that Obama get´s four more years.

 

[WedgeX]

There are varying degrees of oppression. That is obvious on its face. The fact that gay people have the ability to move to a state where they can get married and the fact that many gay people do not feel the need to move to a state where gay marriage is legal suggest that the infringement on personal liberty is not a severe one, all things considered.

Not allowing marriages, just because they're between two people of the same sex, to be recognized from state to state is a clear violation of the full faith and credit clause of recognizing legal contracts between states, as guaranteed in the constitution.

DOMA really ought to be unconstitutional for trying to build an exclusionary exception.

 

[Randdalf]

The Joker in me wants to see him elected just to watch the fireworks.

 

[esquire]

Poor Rick, it must be hard having to live your entire life in the closet.

 

[Nekofrog]

The Joker in me wants to see him elected just to watch the fireworks.

you mean troll in you, because santorum would make for a FANTASTIC troll candidate

just watching him shrug his shoulders and go "umad lol"

 

[Boozeroony]

Poor Rick, it must be hard having to live your entire life in the closet.

The guy shoves things up his rectum. I can sense that.

 

[Alrix]

While he is a sad, sad little man, what I think is more pitiful is the people that cheer and vote for him. I don't know what to call this group of people but they are the same people who would cheer for Palin. You need to be some special kind of fucked in the head to think that these kinds of people would make good leaders in this country.

 

[Escape Goat]

While he is a sad, sad little man, what I think is more pitiful is the people that cheer and vote for him. I don't know what to call this group of people but they are the same people who would cheer for Palin. You need to be some special kind of fucked in the head to think that these kinds of people would make good leaders in this country.

did you just reuse a post from another thread? I swear I've read this before lol

 

[Alrix]

did you just reuse a post from another thread? I swear I've read this before lol

Nope.

 

[Synth_floyd]

Santorum is just a crazy person. Arguing with him or rationalizing his bizarre beliefs is pointless. Crazies gonna crazy.

 

[amrihua]

And I will unbaptize him when he dies.

 

[Jaffaboy]

And I will unbaptize him when he dies.

Make him a mormon first, then you can make him gay.

This is disgusting though. I think the worst thing about it is that he'll probably gain a lot of votes because of it, smh.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Make him a mormon first, then you can make him gay.

This is disgusting though. I think the worst thing about it is that he'll probably gain a lot of votes because of it, smh.

Make him gay?

teehee

 

[gutter_trash]

I thought Conservatives were stanch supporters of "States Rights" letting States be more autonomous on self-governance.

Santorum in the end just wants to control everything

 

[BigDes]

I thought Conservatives were stanch supporters of "States Rights" letting States be more autonomous on self-governance.

Santorum in the end just wants to control everything

But he said Jesus in that speech so he is clearly right for America

 

[bdouble]

seems kinda immoral.

btw, whats up with the all these right-wing Christian anti-gay groups with euphemistic names like "Family Research Council", "American Family Association" , "Focus On The Family" etc?

Oh you don't know? Gays, Rock and roll, internet, bikers, porno and abortion are all threats to good ole fashion nuclear families and the government has to protect them from these evil beings. We have to lock our doors and keep the bad men out of the country.

I thought Conservatives were stanch supporters of "States Rights" letting States be more autonomous on self-governance.

Santorum in the end just wants to control everything

Right thats the traditional way at looking at it the name "Republican". The definitions differe and the US conservative-liberal swing is so damn narrow it doesn't really matter what the name is. They both have agendas with slight differences.

 

[RobotMafia]

I thought Conservatives were stanch supporters of "States Rights" letting States be more autonomous on self-governance.

Santorum in the end just wants to control everything

Only straight-white christians deserve rights!

 

[Stinkles]

The guy shoves things up his rectum. I can sense that.

I suspect he may be shoving his ideas up there, because that is definitely where they come from.

 

[RELAYER]

"Just because public opinion says something doesn't mean it's right,"

Um, ok. I thought the point of democracy was that public opinion determines what is right.

 

[Bay Maximus]

He will be caught up in a gay, extramarital sex scandal with a blahhh Catholic in the next 10 years confirmed.

 

[Stinkles]

Um, ok. I thought the point of democracy was that public opinion determines what is right.

Why we still got slaves? Oh, we don't? OK then. Your argument is broke.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Not that I plan on getting married anytime soon, or hell have a b/f anytime soon, but I guess i'll move to Canada when that happens, lol

It's legal there, right?

 

[Ollie Pooch]

I still don't get this rampant conception in the US that marriage is some sort of sacred innocent institution. Historically, marriage is one of the least sacred institutions around. It's been used to gain power, money, abused over and over again. Not to mention divorce rates these days.

I just don't get it.

It's more a way for shitbag conservative politicians to use "the gays" as easy, outrage-inducing political fodder. Same shit here in Australia.

 

[Talon]

A new nullification crisis!

 

[KtSlime]

Why isn't marriage considered speech?

Not enough $ for lobbyists.

 

[XMonkey]

Um, ok. I thought the point of democracy was that public opinion determines what is right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

 

[Rapstah]

Why isn't marriage considered speech?

Marriages are people, my friend!

 

[WedgeX]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Also, the reason that the United States is a democratic-republic with a bicameral legislature and three seperate branches of government.