Romney vs. Santorum; It's ON!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sloth old pal like I told you THEY ALL SAY ON THING AND DO ANOTHER! Santorum and Gingrich are no better or worse than Mitt Romney. But better one of our whores than one of theirs.

                              [b]ABO[/b]

Andybody But Obama!
[/quote]

No, Mitt is by far the worst.[/quote]

That’s funny I think Rick “Sanctimonious” Santorum is the worst. But if he pulls off a miracle and beats Romney for the nomination I’ll give the maximum amount allowed by law to his campaign.

You gotta stop this Sloth…let’s just focus on beating Obama. He needs to be defeated regardless of who the republican nominee is.[/quote]

I’m just not interested in helping the republicans manage the decay a bit better than the Democrats. I’m interested in them fighting the most important fight, the cultural one. These stupid fantasies about low taxes (or at least, taxes that won’t go up from the present) and small government need to die. You’ve got the wrong people to implement those ideas on. Norms and morals are going to have to change. And, it needs to happen pretty damn quickly. Like, now. Otherwise, demographically, you might as well start retooling the GoP to be a permanent minority party. One, that only occasionally says something about running cradle to grave social programs a bit more…efficiently.

When the debate moderators asked the candidates about socioeconomic mobility and inequality, the only person to bring up the family was Santorum (mentioning Charles Murray’s new book, too). He gets it. He understands that the libertarianesque small government tripe coming out of the GoP is nothing more than fantastical wishful thinking, misplaced on an American public that barely exists anymore. Stop hiding from the cultural war, it’s being fought whether you’re participating or not. And it does, and will continue to more and more, undermine the resurgence of an upright and self-governing/responsible people that would actually accept, much less be able to function with, a greatly reduced nanny state.

362

And yes, I know Santorum is pushing lower taxes and debt reduction, too. Which, face it, is a pipe dream in our current society. But at least he’s not embarrassed to point out the obvious moral component of a self-governing/responsible (and prosperous) people. There won’t be a smaller government with whites hitting 30% out-of-wedlock, hispanics at 50%, and blacks at 60+%. And at least he touches on that truth, even arguing it in the public sphere.

363

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And yes, I know Santorum is pushing lower taxes and debt reduction, too. Which, face it, is a pipe dream in our current society. But at least he’s not embarrassed to point out the obvious moral component of a self-governing/responsible (and prosperous) people. There won’t be a smaller government with whites hitting 30% out-of-wedlock, hispanics at 50%, and blacks at 60+%. And at least he touches on that truth, even arguing it in the public sphere. [/quote]

Okay, Sloth:

Santorum becomes President.

What exactly does he “do” to help change those statistics?

Mufasa

364

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And yes, I know Santorum is pushing lower taxes and debt reduction, too. Which, face it, is a pipe dream in our current society. But at least he’s not embarrassed to point out the obvious moral component of a self-governing/responsible (and prosperous) people. There won’t be a smaller government with whites hitting 30% out-of-wedlock, hispanics at 50%, and blacks at 60+%. And at least he touches on that truth, even arguing it in the public sphere. [/quote]

Okay, Sloth:

Santorum becomes President.

What exactly does he “do” to help change those statistics?

Mufasa[/quote]

He actually talks about them. He actually talks about RIGHT and WRONG behaviors. He talks about material wealth, or immediate pleasures, not being the end all and be all of free peoples, of the United States. He talks about the family being the end all be all of the United States. He talks about our connection to both our ancestors and descendents. That we owe those descendents continued prosperity. To the progressives, he talks about the fantasy of balancing an exploding, elderly laden, welfare-state base on a shrinking apex of self-governing, self-responsible, tax producing (not consuming) citizens. To the libertarian he points out the outright fantasy of a socially liberal society accepting a libertarian economic system (little to no welfare state).

365

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And yes, I know Santorum is pushing lower taxes and debt reduction, too. Which, face it, is a pipe dream in our current society. But at least he’s not embarrassed to point out the obvious moral component of a self-governing/responsible (and prosperous) people. There won’t be a smaller government with whites hitting 30% out-of-wedlock, hispanics at 50%, and blacks at 60+%. And at least he touches on that truth, even arguing it in the public sphere. [/quote]

Okay, Sloth:

Santorum becomes President.

What exactly does he “do” to help change those statistics?

Mufasa[/quote]

He actually talks about them. He actually talks about RIGHT and WRONG behaviors. He talks about material wealth, or immediate pleasures, not being the end all and be all of free peoples, of the United States. He talks about the family being the end all be all of the United States. He talks about our connection to both our ancestors and descendents. That we owe those descendents continued prosperity. To the progressives, he talks about the fantasy of balancing an exploding, elderly laden, welfare-state base on a shrinking apex of self-governing, self-responsible, tax producing (not consuming) citizens. To the libertarian he points out the outright fantasy of a socially liberal society accepting a libertarian economic system (little to no welfare state).
[/quote]

So he [i]preaches[/i].

Then to me, Sloth, his talents are much better served being in the Pulpit; the Provost of a Religious Institution; or a Religious Councillor who happens to not be one full of “psycho-babble” taught to them by some Liberal Institution…not President of the United States.

Why?

I just don’t think that the Presidency of the United States is the “pulpit” to preach or spread what many view as his very narrow interpretation of Catholicism. (NOTE: this is a view held by many Catholics).

Mufasa

366

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

So he [i]preaches[/i].[/quote]

No, he speaks.

The president of the United States can speak.

367

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And yes, I know Santorum is pushing lower taxes and debt reduction, too. Which, face it, is a pipe dream in our current society. But at least he’s not embarrassed to point out the obvious moral component of a self-governing/responsible (and prosperous) people. There won’t be a smaller government with whites hitting 30% out-of-wedlock, hispanics at 50%, and blacks at 60+%. And at least he touches on that truth, even arguing it in the public sphere. [/quote]

Okay, Sloth:

Santorum becomes President.

What exactly does he “do” to help change those statistics?

Mufasa[/quote]

He actually talks about them. He actually talks about RIGHT and WRONG behaviors. He talks about material wealth, or immediate pleasures, not being the end all and be all of free peoples, of the United States. He talks about the family being the end all be all of the United States. He talks about our connection to both our ancestors and descendents. That we owe those descendents continued prosperity. To the progressives, he talks about the fantasy of balancing an exploding, elderly laden, welfare-state base on a shrinking apex of self-governing, self-responsible, tax producing (not consuming) citizens. To the libertarian he points out the outright fantasy of a socially liberal society accepting a libertarian economic system (little to no welfare state).
[/quote]

So he [i]preaches[/i].

Then to me, Sloth, his talents are much better served being in the Pulpit; the Provost of a Religious Institution; or a Religious Councillor who happens to not be one full of “psycho-babble” taught to them by some Liberal Institution…not President of the United States.

Why?

I just don’t think that the Presidency of the United States is the “pulpit” to preach or spread what many view as his very narrow interpretation of Catholicism. (NOTE: this is a view held by many Catholics).

Mufasa[/quote]

Preaches? I ask you then who said this:

“It has seemed to me fit and proper that they (gifts of God) should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people. I do, therefore, invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.”

Many Presidents, like Lincoln above, have invoked their beliefs and faith in their speeches.

Santorum does inject his beliefs into his campaign, what candidate doesn’t? His beliefs come from a belief in God, not faith in the government. But what does he say that is actually unreasonable? The opposite of licentiousness? He has never said that he will force his beliefs on others and has clearly stated the opposite that he believes that people have the right to worship as they please. This is quite the opposite of the liberal progressive secularism that is constantly forced upon us, that we should worship the government, that government knows what is best for us, that government will create the utopia that we all desire.

What we are seeing is the slow creep of tyranny upon us as the government erodes our “inalienable rights”

369

When Obama talks about our obligation (even a state enforced obligation) to the poor, is that ‘preaching,’ Mufasa? Color me curious.

If the health of the nation depends on intact homes, the President damn sure better speak about it. We’re going bankrupt, period. To some degree–a very large degree if we wait too long–cold hard reality will bring the welfare state low through a chaotic storm of financial ruin, under ‘safety nets’ we can’t possibly maintain. You better demand that your President start telling you, us, the damn truth. The family and it’s local institutions must be reinvigorated to prevent and/or survive that future. To give them the best socio-economic circumstances. To give them mobility. To give them academic, familial, and civic educations. To give them law-abiding behavior. To give them a sense of local and self governance and institutions.

370

Tim Geithner to Paul Ryan: "We don't have a definitive solution... We just don't like yours" - YouTube!

371

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291383/contraception-misdirection-mark-steyn

Think on it, Mufasa.

372

Actually try to fix this, without fixing the culture, and you’ll do one term in office.

373

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Muf, since Day One of G. Washington’s first term presidents have been publicly speaking about their faith and beliefs.[/quote]

And (most) Americans always have, and always will, embrace a leader with a moral compass…even one who invokes the Powers of Heaven to bless this Nation and it’s people.

I certainly do, and so do many on this Forum. Those beautiful words of Lincoln; and the words spoken from Washington to Roosevelt; and from Jefferson to Truman speak to that.

But when those words and blessings become “us” and “them”…with “us” being both the judge and blessed; and “them” being the judged and dammed; you aren’t invoking anything but divisiveness for us as a Nation.

Mufasa

374

Pay close attention at the 30 sec mark. He’s talking about a nationalized Romneycaresque solution. Listen carefully, and you’ll hear him bring up Wyden-Bennett act as a solution.

375

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sloth old pal like I told you THEY ALL SAY ON THING AND DO ANOTHER! Santorum and Gingrich are no better or worse than Mitt Romney. But better one of our whores than one of theirs.

                              [b]ABO[/b]

Andybody But Obama!
[/quote]

No, Mitt is by far the worst.[/quote]

That’s funny I think Rick “Sanctimonious” Santorum is the worst. But if he pulls off a miracle and beats Romney for the nomination I’ll give the maximum amount allowed by law to his campaign.

You gotta stop this Sloth…let’s just focus on beating Obama. He needs to be defeated regardless of who the republican nominee is.[/quote]

I think your money would be better spent on attempts to reorganize the GOP into something that resembles fiscal conservatism and purging the party of the zealots.

376

[quote]Christine wrote:

I think your money would be better spent on attempts to reorganize the GOP into something that resembles fiscal conservatism and purging the party of the zealots.

[/quote]

In other words, a hopeless and ineffectual libertarian party the II. Yeah, sell libertarian economics to unwed mothers, rapidly growing population of elderly, the masses of college students looking for loans (and loan relief) instead of a significant others. Basically, an economic philosophy that has no chance at the national level.

377

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Muf, since Day One of G. Washington’s first term presidents have been publicly speaking about their faith and beliefs.[/quote]

And (most) Americans always have, and always will, embrace a leader with a moral compass…even one who invokes the Powers of Heaven to bless this Nation and it’s people.

I certainly do, and so do many on this Forum. Those beautiful words of Lincoln; and the words spoken from Washington to Roosevelt; and from Jefferson to Truman speak to that.

But when those words and blessings become “us” and “them”…with “us” being both the judge and blessed; and “them” being the judged and dammed; you aren’t invoking anything but divisiveness for us as a Nation.

Mufasa

[/quote]

Most people see Obama no less moral than anyone else trying to run so that isn’t the issue here. So you are correct because people embrace Obama. Santorum will just come off as preaching which will turn people off even more. The demographics that lack family values that Sloth mentioned are not the ones who usually take advice from rich white republicans.

378

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

I think your money would be better spent on attempts to reorganize the GOP into something that resembles fiscal conservatism and purging the party of the zealots.

[/quote]

In other words, a hopeless and ineffectual libertarian party the II. Yeah, sell libertarian economics to unwed mothers, rapidly growing population of elderly, the masses of college students looking for loans (and loan relief) instead of a significant others. Basically, an economic philosophy that has no chance at the national level.
[/quote]

Well, that is the only other option that seams to be there now, but perhaps they could get creative.

I don’t think libertarians have a chance either.

I know that you will never believe it, but the Democrats have been moving further and further right in the last 20 years. This has been forcing Republicans to move even further to the right.

It’s my POV, and if you want to ridicule me for being stupid, dumb or having the inability to think, so be it.

380

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Muf, since Day One of G. Washington’s first term presidents have been publicly speaking about their faith and beliefs.[/quote]

And (most) Americans always have, and always will, embrace a leader with a moral compass…even one who invokes the Powers of Heaven to bless this Nation and it’s people.

I certainly do, and so do many on this Forum. Those beautiful words of Lincoln; and the words spoken from Washington to Roosevelt; and from Jefferson to Truman speak to that.

But when those words and blessings become “us” and “them”…with “us” being both the judge and blessed; and “them” being the judged and dammed; you aren’t invoking anything but divisiveness for us as a Nation.

Mufasa

[/quote]

Most people see Obama no less moral than anyone else trying to run so that isn’t the issue here. So you are correct because people embrace Obama. Santorum will just come off as preaching which will turn people off even more. The demographics that lack family values that Sloth mentioned are not the ones who usually take advice from rich white republicans.[/quote]

They will, or you might as well elect a ham sandwich.