Republicans, Where Art Thou? (Redux)

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby Swordsman_Of_The_Tower » Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:11 am

Jnyusa wrote:
Toby wrote:It should be interesting to see how Mitt "the trees are just the right height" Romney does in Michigan.


Was that hilarious?!! How could anyone be so at a loss for words? You know what happened ... he got into the middle of a sentence praising the forests of Michigan and suddenly realized he would be excoriated as a radical environmentalist by Santorum if he finished the sentence ... it's a save! No, it's a fumble! It's a ... tree exactly the right height.
:rofl:

vison wrote:A slight change of tack here: I recall when JFK was running and there was a lot of concern about a Catholic being POTUS.


Possibly with good cause. I do think that Kennedy's determination to bring us to the brink of WWIII was because of an intractably anti-Communist, Catholic upbringing. Remember all that stuff about the Lady of Fatima and her letter to be opened in 1960? There were a lot of people who thought that letter was going to predict an end-of-the-world-war between the god-fearing nations and the commie atheists.

Romulus wrote:Romney will ultimately be the nominee, of course.


I agree with you. The republican party got really weird lately, but I don't think they're suicidal. Yet.

CG wrote:the Theory of Evolution is, regrettably, one of the causes for that.


I think you mean their ignorance of the theory of evolution is the cause for that ...
LOL, poor Charles gets blamed for everything.


If the economy continues to improve slowly, the Republicans will have no choice but to run on the "guns, gays and abortions" platform. I can already see this starting to happen. Santorum is the guy they want for that, he can bring out the Jesus camp folks in droves.
User avatar
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 3:40 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

Postby Griffon64 » Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:40 am

Swordsman_Of_The_Tower wrote:If the economy continues to improve slowly, the Republicans will have no choice but to run on the "guns, gays and abortions" platform. I can already see this starting to happen. Santorum is the guy they want for that, he can bring out the Jesus camp folks in droves.

But he'll also push away the moderates in droves, won't he?

I know the moderate Republican is considered a largely mythical beast by many, but for what it's worth, I doubt that the "Jesus camp" outnumbers the moderates and the Democrats in this country.

If Santorum wins the nomination, that'd better serve to galvanize every moderate and Democrat in the country to turn out and vote against him, scouring the idea that you can expect that platform to gain serious traction in this day and age from the Republican party once and for all. If not, then everybody'd deserve what they'd get with Santorum as president.
User avatar
Griffon64
Mariner

 
Posts: 7276
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 11:47 pm
Top

Postby Faramond » Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:22 pm

Everyone, relax. Noted San Franciscan Michael Savage recently praised Santorum's Satanic Sermon so it turns out it's all quite mainstream and harmless.
User avatar
Faramond
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:06 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:41 pm

Swordsman_Of_The_Tower wrote:If the economy continues to improve slowly, the Republicans will have no choice but to run on the "guns, gays and abortions" platform. I can already see this starting to happen. Santorum is the guy they want for that, he can bring out the Jesus camp folks in droves.


I don't see economic improvement any time in the future. Unemployment went down, because many people dropped off the end and out of the pool. Gas prices are hitting summer prices in February, and gas prices were a trigger of the 2008 crash. Yes, the stock market is up, but that's because all the newly created money has to go somewhere and all markets are bad right now.

I don't think a bad economy will stop Obama though, so there's no reason to hype it up and talk it up.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby oldtoby » Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:33 pm

Jnyusa wrote:
Toby wrote:It should be interesting to see how Mitt "the trees are just the right height" Romney does in Michigan.


Was that hilarious?!! How could anyone be so at a loss for words? You know what happened ... he got into the middle of a sentence praising the forests of Michigan and suddenly realized he would be excoriated as a radical environmentalist by Santorum if he finished the sentence ... it's a save! No, it's a fumble! It's a ... tree exactly the right height.
:rofl:
.


You know what he reminds me of when he makes these attempts to sound like he knows ANYTHING about the state he's currently in?

He's like a sitcom kid who has to get up in front of class and give a book report on "War & Peace" only he hasn't read it. But he desperately needs a grade for the assignment so he tries to fake and bluff his way through it, only its TOTALLY obvious to everyone that he doesn't know a dang thing.
User avatar
oldtoby
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 15281
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 10:40 pm
Top

Postby Swordsman_Of_The_Tower » Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:35 pm

Griffon64 wrote:
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower wrote:If the economy continues to improve slowly, the Republicans will have no choice but to run on the "guns, gays and abortions" platform. I can already see this starting to happen. Santorum is the guy they want for that, he can bring out the Jesus camp folks in droves.

But he'll also push away the moderates in droves, won't he?

I know the moderate Republican is considered a largely mythical beast by many, but for what it's worth, I doubt that the "Jesus camp" outnumbers the moderates and the Democrats in this country.

If Santorum wins the nomination, that'd better serve to galvanize every moderate and Democrat in the country to turn out and vote against him, scouring the idea that you can expect that platform to gain serious traction in this day and age from the Republican party once and for all. If not, then everybody'd deserve what they'd get with Santorum as president.


When it comes down to it the moderates will largely vote for him because Obama is a Kenyan Marxist usurper.
User avatar
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 3:40 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

Postby Dave_LF » Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:43 pm

I agree with the editorialist in the LA times. The GOP needs to run Santorum so we can have a national referendum on whether we want this to be a radical right-wing country once and for all, and then whoever loses needs to drop it:
LA Times
User avatar
Dave_LF
Mariner

 
Posts: 7187
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:39 pm
Top

Postby Cerin » Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:35 pm

Dave_LF wrote:I agree with the editorialist in the LA times. The GOP needs to run Santorum so we can have a national referendum on whether we want this to be a radical right-wing country once and for all, and then whoever loses needs to drop it:

I was thinking that very thing after reading a comment about Santorum in another thread. I don't think they would 'drop it' afterwards, but it would expose how fringe the views really are and essentially delegitimize the notion that such a candidate is mainstream.
User avatar
Cerin
Mariner

 
Posts: 7350
Joined: Tue May 02, 2000 12:52 am
Top

Postby Swordsman_Of_The_Tower » Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:40 pm

Cerin wrote:
Dave_LF wrote:I agree with the editorialist in the LA times. The GOP needs to run Santorum so we can have a national referendum on whether we want this to be a radical right-wing country once and for all, and then whoever loses needs to drop it:

I was thinking that very thing after reading a comment about Santorum in another thread. I don't think they would 'drop it' afterwards, but it would expose how fringe the views really are and essentially delegitimize the notion that such a candidate is mainstream.


He is mainstream. That's the problem (well for a lot of people it isn't a problem)
User avatar
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 3:40 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

Postby vison » Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:50 pm

Swordsman_Of_The_Tower wrote:
Cerin wrote:
Dave_LF wrote:I agree with the editorialist in the LA times. The GOP needs to run Santorum so we can have a national referendum on whether we want this to be a radical right-wing country once and for all, and then whoever loses needs to drop it:

I was thinking that very thing after reading a comment about Santorum in another thread. I don't think they would 'drop it' afterwards, but it would expose how fringe the views really are and essentially delegitimize the notion that such a candidate is mainstream.


He is mainstream. That's the problem (well for a lot of people it isn't a problem)


No, he's not mainstream. He has more supporters than a rational person would think, but he's not mainstream.

*says that with bated breath*
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Swordsman_Of_The_Tower » Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:11 pm

vison wrote:
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower wrote:
Cerin wrote:
Dave_LF wrote:I agree with the editorialist in the LA times. The GOP needs to run Santorum so we can have a national referendum on whether we want this to be a radical right-wing country once and for all, and then whoever loses needs to drop it:

I was thinking that very thing after reading a comment about Santorum in another thread. I don't think they would 'drop it' afterwards, but it would expose how fringe the views really are and essentially delegitimize the notion that such a candidate is mainstream.


He is mainstream. That's the problem (well for a lot of people it isn't a problem)


No, he's not mainstream. He has more supporters than a rational person would think, but he's not mainstream.

*says that with bated breath*


He's a serious contender to be president, that's mainstream.
User avatar
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 3:40 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

Postby Dave_LF » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:02 am

Unfortunately (sort of), I don't think he really is a serious contenter. He's just the latest flavor du jour from the "anyone but Romney" wing of the GOP. His day may last longer than the others' since he's the last not-Romney standing and he only has to share that vote with Paul, but I'd bet it will still end before the primary.
User avatar
Dave_LF
Mariner

 
Posts: 7187
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:39 pm
Top

Postby vison » Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:39 am

I noticed that there was a Republican debate on tv last night and I thought, "OK, let's check these guys out."

I think I lasted one full minute the first time. Not sure. Mr. Santorum was speaking and my eyes glazed over and unconsciousness was imminent, so I quickly changed the channel. But even in that few seconds the atmosphere of snark and nastiness was so thick I wonder they could breathe.

I tried a couple more times, I even watched about 3 minutes of the aftermath, where they were wiping the blood off the canvas. Mr. Paul was chatting with that guy with the big face. John King? Mr. Paul is not at ease chatting with folks like that.

I pity you guys from the bottom of my heart. I don't see how anyone of any party could vote for any of these guys. Mr. Obama, for all his faults, looks like a combination of Solomon and Jesus Christ next to them.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby portia » Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:54 am

Dave_LF wrote:I agree with the editorialist in the LA times. The GOP needs to run Santorum so we can have a national referendum on whether we want this to be a radical right-wing country once and for all, and then whoever loses needs to drop it:
LA Times

That is amusing editorial, but here are several things wrong with it.
1. If Santorum losses decisively the Social Conservatives will not go away. They will just re-arm. (Goldwater lost decisively in '64 and Nixon won 4 years later, and Reagan won 16 years later).
2. The Social Conservatives will never admit that they were "wrong." Their theology is firmly entrenched, even though it is "not a Biblical theology."
3. The Social Conservatives do not care whether America wants what they want, Since they are sure they are right, they see no problem in imposing their ideas on unwilling sinners.

That said, it might be beneficial to have a real two-sided debate on Social Conservatism. That is not happening now, of course.

And as for where the Moderate Republican are. . . .
:hihi: :hihi:
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby Arvegil » Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:11 am

vison wrote:A slight change of tack here: I recall when JFK was running and there was a lot of concern about a Catholic being POTUS. There were a lot of people talking about the separation of church and state and how that was pretty important in the US.

That was 52 years ago.

How on earth have things got to the point where a man like Santorum is an actual, serious candidate?

It's horrifying.


The more I see him, the more the frothy one sounds like a fundie Protestant and not a fundie Catholic. Supporting the young-Earth ID crowd? Shoot, even the Vatican admits these days that the Earth was not, in fact, created in six 24 hour periods about 7,000 years ago.

Santorum certainly has his head firmly up the fundie Protestant community's colon. The great thing is, in 1960, the Protestant fundies hated JFK because they thought he would not recognize the separation of church and state. Now, they like Santorum precisely because he is contemptuous of that idea. Maybe that bizarre piece of sophistry where he blamed the "altarboy scandals" on secular liberals(!?) makes perfect sense to people who believe that biblical figures rode dinosaurs.

While I make a point of never underestimating the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Obama isn't that awful a campaigner. At least he understands that elections are won and lost in the center. Not too sure the frothy one does. He also appears to be thinking that this hardline Catholic approach will solidify his status amongst Catholics, but this isn't 1940, and both Al Smith and JFK played this issue better. The frothy one wants to push hard the social conservatism and church/state mixing that orthodox Catholicism endorses (even though most American Catholics actually take these positions with very large grains of salt), while conveniently ignoring the much more socialist aspects of the Catholic message (you know, those inconvenient missives from the hierarchy endorsing UHC and stating that capitalism should be less cutthroat and more harnessed for the good of society at large. A lot of non-Catholics didn't pick up on just how often John Paul II spoke out against unfettered capitalism).

Santorum doesn't look like he's a lock for the "Catholic vote" to the extent that such a thing really exists. Maybe he gets New Jersey out of it; he would take Pennsylvania anyways, and he will take Florida by virtue of his willingness to sling old people money and tell the Cuban exile community what they want to hear. However, too many of those Catholics in places like California and Arizona don't have English as a first language and don't share his obsession with abortion and birth control.*

On the extra special plus side, the fact that Sarah Palin is defending the frothy one against the meanies in the media who keep dragging up things that he said on the record, is interesting. If there ever was a symbol of someone who is a darling of the GOP hard right and absolutely unacceptable to the rest of the planet, it is the 2012 version of Ms. Palin. Not that she isn't laughing all the way to the bank over it...



* Not that many Catholics do, when the chips are down. I don't recall too many eight child families the last time I showed up at a Mass...
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Postby Arvegil » Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:25 am

portia wrote:
Dave_LF wrote:I agree with the editorialist in the LA times. The GOP needs to run Santorum so we can have a national referendum on whether we want this to be a radical right-wing country once and for all, and then whoever loses needs to drop it:
LA Times

That is amusing editorial, but here are several things wrong with it.
1. If Santorum losses decisively the Social Conservatives will not go away. They will just re-arm. (Goldwater lost decisively in '64 and Nixon won 4 years later, and Reagan won 16 years later).
2. The Social Conservatives will never admit that they were "wrong." Their theology is firmly entrenched, even though it is "not a Biblical theology."
3. The Social Conservatives do not care whether America wants what they want, Since they are sure they are right, they see no problem in imposing their ideas on unwilling sinners.

That said, it might be beneficial to have a real two-sided debate on Social Conservatism. That is not happening now, of course.

And as for where the Moderate Republican are. . . .
:hihi: :hihi:


Part of the current GOP problem is that, since Reagan, the message has been internally inconsistent. While it is not necessarily how they acted once in power, all national GOP candidates made all the necessary signs at the three stations of the GOP dogma:

Limited government/ fiscal conservatism
Strong military
Social conservatism

However, a couple of decades after this debate should have happened, the existence of both Santorum and Paul on the same stage highlights the inherent contradictions in the message. While the frothy one still genuflects at all three stations, his overt contempt for separation of church and state and his stated willingness to micromanage morality while using military force against anyone who looks at him askance makes his dedication to limited government and fiscal responsibility nominal at best.

Paul, on the other hand, makes a point of stating that there are contradictions in the trinity, and comes down rather quaintly on the side of limited government and balanced budgets.

On these issues, Newt has a great track record of saying one thing and doing another, while Romney appears to want to be on both sides of these issues, with the exception of his tax plan, which seems to be a shining example of why the USA needs better math and science education.

Maybe St. Ronald Reagan dealt with the fundies the best, in a crudely Machiavellian way. He paid lots of lip service to their issues, but when push came to shove, he did surprisingly little to push their agenda. He told them what they wanted to hear, and then ignored them.
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Postby portia » Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:54 am

And better economics education.

I don't think it would take much effort to give that education. a good one-semester basic principles course and a willingness to observe, later, would be much better than what we have, now.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby Arvegil » Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:12 am

portia wrote:And better economics education.

I don't think it would take much effort to give that education. a good one-semester basic principles course and a willingness to observe, later, would be much better than what we have, now.


Possibly the most obnoxious part is that I believe Romney is far smarter than that dysfunctional "tax reform" he has proposed. However, since most "economic plans" politicians spout are unworkable combinations of over-optimism and sympathetic magic, he figured that he might as well join the "tell the imbeciles what they want to hear" crowd. So, instead of just being wrong, his plan is indicative of both a deep cynicism and an utter contempt for the intellect of the American public.

I wish I could fault Romney for his utter contempt for the intellect of the American public, but he just might have truth on his side...
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Postby Griffon64 » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:53 am

Arvegil wrote:... while Romney appears to want to be on both sides of these issues, with the exception of his tax plan, which seems to be a shining example of why the USA needs better math and science education.

Hee hee.

It would be :D if it wasn't so :|, or even :angry: .
User avatar
Griffon64
Mariner

 
Posts: 7276
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 11:47 pm
Top

Postby Minardil » Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:33 pm

he would take Pennsylvania anyways


Do you mean in the Primary or in the General.

It's possible he could win the Primary here, but remember he was our Senator and we booted him out. He would face an uphill climb, since he hardly has "favored son" status here.

And I don't think he would take the General election against Mr. Obama at all. He would drive far too many people away. Which is why I really hope they run him.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby Arvegil » Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:28 pm

Minardil wrote:
he would take Pennsylvania anyways


Do you mean in the Primary or in the General.

It's possible he could win the Primary here, but remember he was our Senator and we booted him out. He would face an uphill climb, since he hardly has "favored son" status here.

And I don't think he would take the General election against Mr. Obama at all. He would drive far too many people away. Which is why I really hope they run him.


I place a higher value on the maxim "he may be a fool but he's our fool" when it comes to politics. Having a local, even the frothy one, in the Oval Office can't hurt from a "jobs for the boys" angle. You may be right, but I would place more hope on the frothy one losing by getting pounded in the Midwest and left coast (we know that he is a sure loser in NY and NE), and Obama holding on to a few states in the South but not counting on Penn.
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Postby GlassHouse » Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:12 am

vison wrote:.....

I pity you guys from the bottom of my heart. I don't see how anyone of any party could vote for any of these guys. Mr. Obama, for all his faults, looks like a combination of Solomon and Jesus Christ next to them.


Yeah every 4 years or so we have these obnoxious displays of hostility, buffoonery and cynicism...but you guys have Question Time much more often than that and the Brits have actual brawls in the Houses of Parliament bar (bar as in saloon, one of 11 on the premisses, or so of the I heard). All political classes are an embarrassment.
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Postby Swordsman_Of_The_Tower » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:21 am

Santorum wouldn't come close to winning New Jersey. Sure there is a lot of "get rid of the Kenyan" out there, but Obama would clean house against Santorum. The fact that his campaign is seriously thinking about Georgia and Texas being in play says something.
User avatar
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 3:40 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

Postby vison » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:51 am

GlassHouse wrote:
vison wrote:.....

I pity you guys from the bottom of my heart. I don't see how anyone of any party could vote for any of these guys. Mr. Obama, for all his faults, looks like a combination of Solomon and Jesus Christ next to them.


Yeah every 4 years or so we have these obnoxious displays of hostility, buffoonery and cynicism...but you guys have Question Time much more often than that and the Brits have actual brawls in the Houses of Parliament bar (bar as in saloon, one of 11 on the premisses, or so of the I heard). All political classes are an embarrassment.


All political classes are not an embarassment, IMHO. True that parliaments can be full of displays of idiotic behavior - manners that wouldn't be accepted in a junior high school. True that the American congress seems to be full of persons whose only mission in life is to impede progress or to posture for the folks back home. But somehow things have chugged along and we've managed.

But Mr. Santorum is in a special class, full of guys and gals like him. His brand of shiny-toothed sanctimony is very popular with a lot of people, even his hair is sanctimonious. :) He really does look like something made in the bowels of Disneyland.

I bet when he's alone, or maybe with the shiny-toothed missus, he takes off that carefully arranged and groomed head and upper body and there, inside, is a little gnomelike creature, blinking in the sudden bright light. It clambers out, plunks itself down, and demands a beer and a smoke and plans the next day.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Jnyusa » Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:21 am

Rick Santorum's priorities while he was in office:

• play golf
• make hate speeches
• show up for votes

I would be shocked to the root if he won Pennsylvania.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Postby JewelSong » Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:49 am

vison wrote:I bet when he's alone, or maybe with the shiny-toothed missus, he takes off that carefully arranged and groomed head and upper body and there, inside, is a little gnomelike creature, blinking in the sudden bright light. It clambers out, plunks itself down, and demands a beer and a smoke and plans the next day.


I love you, vison.

No, seriously. I love you. For many reasons, but most especially for statements like this one that make me grin like an idiot and guffaw in a most unladylike manner.

:D :D :D

:love:
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby basil » Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:21 am

oldtoby wrote:He's like a sitcom kid who has to get up in front of class . . . . .


Like this one?

http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2012/02/rom ... dium-daze/

b
User avatar
basil
Mariner

 
Posts: 8358
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 3:34 pm
Top

Postby basil » Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:34 am

portia wrote:That is amusing editorial, but here are several things wrong with it.

1. If Santorum losses decisively the Social Conservatives will not go away. They will just re-arm. (Goldwater lost decisively in '64 and Nixon won 4 years later, and Reagan won 16 years later).
2. The Social Conservatives will never admit that they were "wrong." Their theology is firmly entrenched, even though it is "not a Biblical theology."
3. The Social Conservatives do not care whether America wants what they want, Since they are sure they are right, they see no problem in imposing their ideas on unwilling sinners.


Yup, that is their strength. Faith as small as a mustard seed can move billions of tons of rock.

Also, from Suskind, quoting a unnamed Bush 2 administration staffer:

...that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

b
User avatar
basil
Mariner

 
Posts: 8358
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 3:34 pm
Top

Postby portia » Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:31 am

Rick Santirum has succeded in rendering me temporarily speechless.

When I hear two clips on the news this AM, I just stood there open mouthed.

1. He is against separation of church and state. You may have noticed that I am somewhat of a fanatic on this point, as I believe overlapping church and state hurts both. But then Santorum amended that point by showing that he hasn't a clue what separation of church and state means. He said people of faith need to be involved in politics (or governing; I do not recall which he said).

Separation of church and state permits people of faith or no faith to get involved in governing as long as they recall which is religion and which is civil government and do not try to get one to control or promote the other.

2. Then he criticized Obama for saying he thinks everyone should go to college. Santorum said that was an elitist point of view and an attempt to get people to places where they'd be indoctrinated to Liberal views.

There really is nothing appropriate to say to that except things that would violate the TOS.

It has been a long time since a serious(?) candidate for high office has openly espoused such know-nothing, anti-intellectual, reverse snobbery views. I have to wonder whether he means it, or is just grasping at straws looking for anything to use to criticize Obama, since he doesn't seem to want to address the economy.

(I happen to think that there is a lot of criticism of Obama coming from the 4 Republican candidates that is not really what they think. They just need to get mentioned on the major news outlets and will say whatever attention-getting thing they think will accomplish that. They assume people will remember their name, but forget what they said. They may be right.)
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby vison » Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:47 am

I wonder if Mr. Santorum's display panel reads "low batt"? :?

If a person takes this seriously, if a person realizes that someone like Rick Santorum is an actual real politician in an actual real country, aiming to be nominated for the highest political office on Earth, a person's head will go wuggawugga and apoplexy will ensue.

Please, Americans. Please. Do something about this.

We, the other peoples of Earth, beg you. :(
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron