Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Terrible Republican Candidates

Yarely
Posts: 329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 6:50:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am convinced that they are negative campaigning and trying to convince people that the only way to save the country would be to elect a Republican candidate, and claim to be "Conservative" but hypocritically seem to use some of Obama's tactics/or spend too much money which they say is the problem.
The only true fiscally Conservative candidate I can see is Ron Paul, except he's sort of a hypocrite too
Come on, Romney is truly not a real Conservative
I mean, "Romneycare?"
Doesn't that remind you of of oh-say a certain healthcare plan that Romney seems to criticize.
And it's funny the way he defends Romneycare, it is uncannily similar to the way Obama explains his Obamacare
These candidates are getting people to vote for them by criticizing Obama when they seem to emulate the exact things that Obama does.
Santorum is supposedly against healthcare reforms, but has a daughter with a disease who gets healthcare no one else has access to.
He says he wants to help the disabled, but yet cut out healthcare reforms. Which frankly, doesn't make any sense
Also, the idea of Newt Gingrich wanting the create a moon base is hilarious. I guess that Obama's healthcare plan is unnecessary and evil, but hey let's build a moon base! That will surely build jobs!
Ron Paul has the cleanest record, and do you know why? Because he requests the earmarks that he wants and votes against them, all the while knowing that they are going to get released regardless, so that he can have the record clean that he has "never voted for an earmark"
"Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals""
-Emma Goldman
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 9:59:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 8:18:19 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Gingrich 2012: Do it for the moon.

Santorums the front runner
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:06:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...

That is not the issue. Santorum is condemning the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare while using it to treat his ill child. I guess "big government" is only permissible when it helps him.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 1:02:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:06:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...

That is not the issue. Santorum is condemning the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare while using it to treat his ill child. I guess "big government" is only permissible when it helps him.

Source? Even so, if he state makes him use it then it is not his fault. If not then it may be an issue.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 1:48:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:06:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...

That is not the issue. Santorum is condemning the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare while using it to treat his ill child. I guess "big government" is only permissible when it helps him.

This is the equivalent of saying that I want water access made public while drinking water from corporations is bad. The second is almost unavoidable until the first one is accomplished.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 2:00:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 1:48:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:06:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...

That is not the issue. Santorum is condemning the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare while using it to treat his ill child. I guess "big government" is only permissible when it helps him.

This is the equivalent of saying that I want water access made public while drinking water from corporations is bad. The second is almost unavoidable until the first one is accomplished.

Indeed. When the slave accepts food from his master, does he consent to his slavery? Though Santorum is a hypocrite in other matters.
wingalbrave
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 2:20:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 2:00:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 1:48:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:06:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...

That is not the issue. Santorum is condemning the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare while using it to treat his ill child. I guess "big government" is only permissible when it helps him.

This is the equivalent of saying that I want water access made public while drinking water from corporations is bad. The second is almost unavoidable until the first one is accomplished.

Indeed. When the slave accepts food from his master, does he consent to his slavery?
Santorum is willingly taking public funds according to what I read. He is not being forced to.
Though Santorum is a hypocrite in other matters.
I agree. Romney is the best candidate.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 2:22:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 2:20:54 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:00:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 1:48:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:06:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...

That is not the issue. Santorum is condemning the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare while using it to treat his ill child. I guess "big government" is only permissible when it helps him.

This is the equivalent of saying that I want water access made public while drinking water from corporations is bad. The second is almost unavoidable until the first one is accomplished.

Indeed. When the slave accepts food from his master, does he consent to his slavery?
Santorum is willingly taking public funds according to what I read. He is not being forced to.
Though Santorum is a hypocrite in other matters.
I agree. Romney is the best candidate.

If you were the biggest capitalist on Earth and your child was dying, would you take them to a socialist hospital? Of course.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
wingalbrave
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 2:23:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 2:22:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:20:54 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:00:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 1:48:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:06:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...

That is not the issue. Santorum is condemning the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare while using it to treat his ill child. I guess "big government" is only permissible when it helps him.

This is the equivalent of saying that I want water access made public while drinking water from corporations is bad. The second is almost unavoidable until the first one is accomplished.

Indeed. When the slave accepts food from his master, does he consent to his slavery?
Santorum is willingly taking public funds according to what I read. He is not being forced to.
Though Santorum is a hypocrite in other matters.
I agree. Romney is the best candidate.

If you were the biggest capitalist on Earth and your child was dying, would you take them to a socialist hospital? Of course.

Santorum has enough money of his own to pay for his child's treatment. He is leeching of the state, which is unnacceptable.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 2:32:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 2:23:23 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:22:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:20:54 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:00:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 1:48:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:06:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...

That is not the issue. Santorum is condemning the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare while using it to treat his ill child. I guess "big government" is only permissible when it helps him.

This is the equivalent of saying that I want water access made public while drinking water from corporations is bad. The second is almost unavoidable until the first one is accomplished.

Indeed. When the slave accepts food from his master, does he consent to his slavery?
Santorum is willingly taking public funds according to what I read. He is not being forced to.
Though Santorum is a hypocrite in other matters.
I agree. Romney is the best candidate.

If you were the biggest capitalist on Earth and your child was dying, would you take them to a socialist hospital? Of course.

Santorum has enough money of his own to pay for his child's treatment. He is leeching of the state, which is unnacceptable.

Should we therefore punish everybody who takes State money?

Also, Santorum isn't that rich.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
wingalbrave
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 2:39:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 2:32:01 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:23:23 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:22:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:20:54 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:00:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 1:48:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:06:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...

That is not the issue. Santorum is condemning the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare while using it to treat his ill child. I guess "big government" is only permissible when it helps him.

This is the equivalent of saying that I want water access made public while drinking water from corporations is bad. The second is almost unavoidable until the first one is accomplished.

Indeed. When the slave accepts food from his master, does he consent to his slavery?
Santorum is willingly taking public funds according to what I read. He is not being forced to.
Though Santorum is a hypocrite in other matters.
I agree. Romney is the best candidate.

If you were the biggest capitalist on Earth and your child was dying, would you take them to a socialist hospital? Of course.

Santorum has enough money of his own to pay for his child's treatment. He is leeching of the state, which is unnacceptable.

Should we therefore punish everybody who takes State money?

No. We should not allow anybody to take the State's money. They should earn it.
Also, Santorum isn't that rich.

"Since his 2006 re-election defeat, the former Pennsylvania lawmaker has gone from being one of the poorer members of the U.S. Senate to earning $1.3 million between January 2010 and August 2011. In 2007, he spent $2 million to buy a 5,000-square foot home in Great Falls, Virginia, according to property records."

Yeah, he is very poor.

http://www.bloomberg.com...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 3:32:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 2:20:54 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:00:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 1:48:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:06:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...

That is not the issue. Santorum is condemning the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare while using it to treat his ill child. I guess "big government" is only permissible when it helps him.

This is the equivalent of saying that I want water access made public while drinking water from corporations is bad. The second is almost unavoidable until the first one is accomplished.

Indeed. When the slave accepts food from his master, does he consent to his slavery?
Santorum is willingly taking public funds according to what I read. He is not being forced to.

Re-read it. The slave takes the food willingly too. My point is that even if someone was against something, they still can take its benefits if it is forced upon them without being hypocritical.
wingalbrave
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 3:41:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 3:32:31 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:20:54 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:00:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 1:48:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:06:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...

That is not the issue. Santorum is condemning the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare while using it to treat his ill child. I guess "big government" is only permissible when it helps him.

This is the equivalent of saying that I want water access made public while drinking water from corporations is bad. The second is almost unavoidable until the first one is accomplished.

Indeed. When the slave accepts food from his master, does he consent to his slavery?
Santorum is willingly taking public funds according to what I read. He is not being forced to.

Re-read it. The slave takes the food willingly too. My point is that even if someone was against something, they still can take its benefits if it is forced upon them without being hypocritical.

Nobody is forcing it upon him. He is taking it willingly; he could easily stick to his principles and use his own money.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 3:48:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 3:41:38 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/14/2012 3:32:31 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:20:54 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:00:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 1:48:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:06:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...

That is not the issue. Santorum is condemning the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare while using it to treat his ill child. I guess "big government" is only permissible when it helps him.

This is the equivalent of saying that I want water access made public while drinking water from corporations is bad. The second is almost unavoidable until the first one is accomplished.

Indeed. When the slave accepts food from his master, does he consent to his slavery?
Santorum is willingly taking public funds according to what I read. He is not being forced to.

Re-read it. The slave takes the food willingly too. My point is that even if someone was against something, they still can take its benefits if it is forced upon them without being hypocritical.

Nobody is forcing it upon him. He is taking it willingly; he could easily stick to his principles and use his own money.

The existence of state sponsored healthcare which he has to pay is forced upon him. He's already paid the downside, it isn't hypocritical to take advantage of benefit.
wingalbrave
Posts: 201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 3:53:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 3:48:45 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 3:41:38 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/14/2012 3:32:31 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:20:54 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:00:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 1:48:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:06:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...

That is not the issue. Santorum is condemning the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare while using it to treat his ill child. I guess "big government" is only permissible when it helps him.

This is the equivalent of saying that I want water access made public while drinking water from corporations is bad. The second is almost unavoidable until the first one is accomplished.

Indeed. When the slave accepts food from his master, does he consent to his slavery?
Santorum is willingly taking public funds according to what I read. He is not being forced to.

Re-read it. The slave takes the food willingly too. My point is that even if someone was against something, they still can take its benefits if it is forced upon them without being hypocritical.

Nobody is forcing it upon him. He is taking it willingly; he could easily stick to his principles and use his own money.

The existence of state sponsored healthcare which he has to pay is forced upon him. He's already paid the downside, it isn't hypocritical to take advantage of benefit.

Oh, I see what you are saying.

I would rather see him stick to his principles, but I agree.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 3:53:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 3:48:45 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 3:41:38 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/14/2012 3:32:31 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:20:54 PM, wingalbrave wrote:
At 2/14/2012 2:00:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/14/2012 1:48:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/14/2012 10:06:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/14/2012 8:13:18 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually your knowledge of Santorum on healthcare is false.
http://www.ricksantorum.com...

That is not the issue. Santorum is condemning the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare while using it to treat his ill child. I guess "big government" is only permissible when it helps him.

This is the equivalent of saying that I want water access made public while drinking water from corporations is bad. The second is almost unavoidable until the first one is accomplished.

Indeed. When the slave accepts food from his master, does he consent to his slavery?
Santorum is willingly taking public funds according to what I read. He is not being forced to.

Re-read it. The slave takes the food willingly too. My point is that even if someone was against something, they still can take its benefits if it is forced upon them without being hypocritical.

Nobody is forcing it upon him. He is taking it willingly; he could easily stick to his principles and use his own money.

The existence of state sponsored healthcare which he has to pay is forced upon him. He's already paid the downside, it isn't hypocritical to take advantage of benefit.

Yep. Also, I want to see a source about the healthcare thing.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 5:58:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why hasn't anyone defended Ron Paul yet?

If Paul didn't earmark things for Texas, less stimulus money would have gone to Texas. The money was going to be spent evenly, so it should be distributed somewhat evenly around the country. Should only those who voted in favor of the stimulus package get to appropriate the funds, even though everybody has to pay?

Imagine that you're part of some club, and you have $100 in your treasury. Some guys propose that you spend $50 of it on a pizza party. You personally think such a use of the money would be irresponsible, and oppose it. One member starts polling the members of the club for what flavors of pizzas should be ordered. You request pepperoni. You vote against the entire thing, but are defeated by a significant majority. Was it wrong for you to ensure that even if you had the pizza party against your will, you still at least got some say in how things went down? Or to make a better analogy for splitting up stimulus money, would it be immoral to eat some of the pizza that you helped to pay for, but voted against?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 7:09:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 5:58:50 PM, mongeese wrote:
Why hasn't anyone defended Ron Paul yet?

If Paul didn't earmark things for Texas, less stimulus money would have gone to Texas. The money was going to be spent evenly, so it should be distributed somewhat evenly around the country. Should only those who voted in favor of the stimulus package get to appropriate the funds, even though everybody has to pay?

Imagine that you're part of some club, and you have $100 in your treasury. Some guys propose that you spend $50 of it on a pizza party. You personally think such a use of the money would be irresponsible, and oppose it. One member starts polling the members of the club for what flavors of pizzas should be ordered. You request pepperoni. You vote against the entire thing, but are defeated by a significant majority. Was it wrong for you to ensure that even if you had the pizza party against your will, you still at least got some say in how things went down? Or to make a better analogy for splitting up stimulus money, would it be immoral to eat some of the pizza that you helped to pay for, but voted against?

That is a good analogy, but I felt it such an inconsequential argument against him anyway that it was unnecessary to defend him.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 4:42:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is not hypocrisy to use the current system while advocating change. It's playing the cards you are dealt.

Suppose you are a libertarian and believe that highways ought to be privatized and paid for by tolls. Are you then a hypocrite for using the current road system? Nonsense. You don't control the system, so you deal with it. In the case of roads, you are paying taxes to support the road system, so it would just be foolish to not use what you are being forced to pay for.

The same applies to every other government program. You get to use them while advocating change.

I don't have a problem with refusing something as point of protest. For example, John McCain refuses to take earmark. The voters know he doing that and vote for him anyway, supporting his point. But he would also be justified in taking earmarks while trying to get the system changed. McCain's constituents are paying for them, so they are as entitled as anyone else.