SVreX
SuperDork
2/13/12 6:58 a.m.
novaderrik wrote:
science is also what makes the cars that we come here to discuss do what they do..
and also why we are able to even come "here" to discuss those cars, since "here" is just a bunch of 1's and 0's on a server somewhere, and we connect to "here" with machines that send a bunch of 1's and 0's thru a bunch of other machines- and sometimes thru a satellite that uses science to maintain it's position 25,000 miles above a certain point on the (mostly round) earth..
Umm... science doesn't make anything work. It only observes what does.
Let's not make the admiration of our own minds into some form of...wor(cough, cough)...
...never mind. 
That was clever, SVreX.
I was hoping the thread didn't get all Insane Clown Posse "don't trust science".
I honestly thought that video was a joke the first time somebody linked it to me.
Getting back on Topic, that is kind of the vibe I get from Santorm. Not the clown makeup, but the notion that he belongs to a completely different culture than the one I live in, even though we are both citizens of the same country.
SVreX
SuperDork
2/13/12 6:53 p.m.
Brett_Murphy wrote:
Getting back on Topic, that is kind of the vibe I get from Santorm. Not the clown makeup, but the notion that he belongs to a completely different culture than the one I live in, even though we are both citizens of the same country.
^ Wisdom. ^
I'm not much a part of the culture he is from either. I'd just like to learn a little more about the guy.
Not learning a lot in this thread, or other media sources.
the pic showed up kind of smallish, so here's the link to it..
bigger pic
Grizz
Dork
2/14/12 1:39 a.m.
novaderrik wrote:
All that tells me is Rick Santorum and anyone who identifies as a "Traditional Conservative" is a worthless piece of E36 M3 who has no business being anywhere near power.
I know exactly where he can go.
Grizz wrote:
novaderrik wrote:
All that tells me is Rick Santorum and anyone who identifies as a "Traditional Conservative" is a worthless piece of E36 M3 who has no business being anywhere near power.
I know exactly where he can go.
it tells me that Dan Savage is right about him, and that he deserves every "google problem" he gets.
SVreX
SuperDork
2/14/12 7:20 a.m.
Barry Goldwater was annihilated in his 1964 bid for President, winning only 6 states (the deep south plus his home state of AZ). The only reason he won the South was that they voted Republican in protest to the Civil Rights Act (passed by Johnson that year). I'm not sure he is a good measure (in of himself) of what Conservatism, or at least Republicanism was at the time. He influenced what it became, but he was not the mainstream. "The GOP Party Then and Now" is certainly misleading.
It's too easy to find lots of Liberal sites with repeater references to alleged Santorum quotes like that, without the actual source quote. I can't find anywhere where he actually said anything about the bedroom, except repeater references. Some legitimate links to real info would mean a lot more to me than fabricated sensationalism, feces comments, and violent references to dumpsters and tree grinders.
Looks to me like a lot of people are much more concerned with wetting their weinies in whatever way they choose then in trying to make intelligent decisions about choosing leadership.
SVreX wrote:
Looks to me like a lot of people are much more concerned with wetting their weinies in whatever way they choose then in trying to make intelligent decisions about choosing leadership.
I think most don't understand why it is anyone elses concern how I "wet my weinie," assuming one is doing nothing illegal.
He should focus on:
- Meaningful welfare and tax reform
- Reducing regulation to get the economy growing
- Dealing with threats such as nuclear equipped Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL9HrU6Y5-s
"
One of the criticisms I make is what I refer to as more of a Libertairanish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be alone to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, that we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."
So he may not represent a "true conservative" to you, but that's HIS view in HIS words, and many vehemently disagree with it.
SVreX wrote:
It's too easy to find lots of Liberal sites with repeater references to alleged Santorum quotes like that, without the actual source quote. I can't find anywhere where he actually said anything about the bedroom, except repeater references.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4784905
JoeyM
SuperDork
2/14/12 8:22 a.m.
SVreX wrote:
It's too easy to find lots of Liberal sites with repeater references to alleged Santorum quotes like that, without the actual source quote. I can't find anywhere where he actually said anything about the bedroom, except repeater references.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/opinion/obeidallah-santorum-sharia/index.html
"We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."
"our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."
Well, here's what Santorum had to say just last week when asked about his opposition to gay marriage: "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change."
Santorum could not be more unambiguous: His policy decisions will be based on "biblical truths," and as he noted, these "truths" will not change regardless of whether public opinion has evolved since the time the Bible was written thousands of years ago.
And, once again, as long as the GOP puts the "our country should be a religious theocracy, because my God hates fags" candidate up as the nominee, they'll keep losing potential GOP voters.
If Santorum and the rest of them are so interested in God's law as the law of the land, why aren't they pushing for legislation to stone people to death who shop on the sabbath?
rotard
HalfDork
2/14/12 10:46 a.m.
poopshovel wrote:
And, once again, as long as the GOP puts the "our country should be a religious theocracy, because my God hates fags" candidate up as the nominee, they'll keep losing potential GOP voters.
If Santorum and the rest of them are so interested in God's law as the law of the land, why aren't they pushing for legislation to stone people to death who shop on the sabbath?
This is pretty much what isolates me from them. I could never vote for someone like Santorum.
poopshovel wrote:
And, once again, as long as the GOP puts the "our country should be a religious theocracy, because my God hates fags" candidate up as the nominee, they'll keep losing potential GOP voters...
Not only will they be losing some of the GOP voters, they will be losing almost all the independent voters!
And lets be real here, the left and the right can yell and scream as much as they want. They can vote straight down party lines, but I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) still won't decide the president, it's the independents!
aircooled wrote:
poopshovel wrote:
And, once again, as long as the GOP puts the "our country should be a religious theocracy, because my God hates fags" candidate up as the nominee, they'll keep losing potential GOP voters...
Not only will they be losing some of the GOP voters, they will be losing almost all the independent voters!
And lets be real here, the left and the right can yell and scream as much as they want. They can vote straight down party lines, but I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) still won't decide the president, it's the independents!
Actually its the Electorate College, but populace vote, sure.
Ron Paul or Gary Johnson will recieve my vote. The rest are clowns.
Taiden
SuperDork
2/14/12 1:01 p.m.
stuart in mn wrote:
I don't like the guy either but this is a link to a blog, not a real news story.
Is there a large difference in credibility?
N Sperlo wrote:
aircooled wrote:
poopshovel wrote:
And, once again, as long as the GOP puts the "our country should be a religious theocracy, because my God hates fags" candidate up as the nominee, they'll keep losing potential GOP voters...
Not only will they be losing some of the GOP voters, they will be losing almost all the independent voters!
And lets be real here, the left and the right can yell and scream as much as they want. They can vote straight down party lines, but I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) still won't decide the president, it's the independents!
Actually its the Electorate College, but populace vote, sure.
It is up to the independents of BATTLE GROUND states that decide. Namely PA, OH, and FL, the 3 largest.
Take a look. Electoral map/poll.
pilotbraden wrote:
Ron Paul or Gary Johnson will recieve my vote. The rest are clowns.
In the general election? If so, I hope you'll change your mind.
poopshovel wrote:
pilotbraden wrote:
Ron Paul or Gary Johnson will recieve my vote. The rest are clowns.
In the general election? If so, I hope you'll change your mind.
If it is Santorum or Gingrich vs. Obama, I can not vote for either one. It will take a very persuasive argument that Romney is better than Obama. I have rarely voted for the ruling class parties.
Grizz wrote:
pilotbraden wrote:
poopshovel wrote:
pilotbraden wrote:
Ron Paul or Gary Johnson will recieve my vote. The rest are clowns.
In the general election? If so, I hope you'll change your mind.
If it is Santorum or Gingrich vs. Obama, I can not vote for either one. It will take a very persuasive argument that Romney is better than Obama. I have rarely voted for the ruling class parties.
Romney is Obama.
I believe that as well. That is why it would take a very persuasive argument to make me vote for him.
I hate thinking this but if we elect Obama again there will be a better chance that the GOP leaders might remove their cranium from their anus and nominate someone electable in 2016. If Romney wins we are stuck with him in the next election also.
Grizz
Dork
2/14/12 2:36 p.m.
pilotbraden wrote:
I hate thinking this but if we elect Obama again there will be a better chance that the GOP leaders might remove their cranium from their anus and nominate someone electable in 2016. If Romney wins we are stuck with him in the next election also.
But it's so warm up there!
O will get reelected, and then we will have an R for 8 years, and everything will continue as it has for the last few decades and get progressively worse.
I think it's kinda silly to say R-money is the same as Obama. But I'm tickled that Republicans hate their candidate so much.
O'romney? Robamna? Hate shmate. I'll be pleased as pie with anyone but a democrat. Personally, the only person I think has a shot at picking up independent voters is Newt. I'm dumbfounded as to who the hell is voting for Romney or Santorum. Certainly no one I know, which was also the case with McCain.
