Board 8 > Who are the candidates to replace Obama?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Ron Paul is pro-gay rights, pro-drug legalization, and anti-war.

I'm not saying he isn't the most sensible candidate, but he has no chance in hell to take enough states to win the primary. Being alright with gay people is a great way to end your primary chance in about 20 states. He'd have to do something incredible in the others to pull it off.

--
Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Yeah, Huntsman would have a real shot, but he's not gonna win any primaries, which is a shame, because out of all of the Republican candidates, he's the only one who isn't terrible

Actually Ron Paul isn't too bad, but I would never in a million years want him in a position with more power than US Representative.

Apparently you have no idea what it means for a 3rd party candidate to hand the election to someone.

LOL

Actually no. I thought smartmuffin meant 'hand it to him' as in beat the crap out of him. Like when someones in a fight or some sort of competition and you say 'Joey really handed it to Mike.' If he meant it as giving the election to Obama by splitting the vote. My bad.

edited because it was smartmuffin who said it originally and not you.

--
Conformity and rebellion...both ways are simple-minded--they are only for people who cannot cope with contradiction and ambiguity.

Suprak the Stud posted...
Ron Paul is pro-gay rights, pro-drug legalization, and anti-war.

I'm not saying he isn't the most sensible candidate, but he has no chance in hell to take enough states to win the primary. Being alright with gay people is a great way to end your primary chance in about 20 states. He'd have to do something incredible in the others to pull it off.

He's also pro-destroying lots of government institutions, like the Departments of Pretty Much Everything, and anti-Civil Rights Act of '64. He's a wingbat, but a wingbat who occasionally says things that have some clarity to them, which is a much better type of wingbat than Michelle "My Husband Thinks You Can Pray The Gay Away, and Black People Were Better Off in the 1860's" Bachmann.

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Guru winnah Explicit Content, that's quis.

I like Rick Santorum, and if it were up to me he'd be the front runner for the nomination. Sadly, he's not.

Mitt Romney's certainly got the war chest for winning, but I'm not sold on his appeal within the Republican party. His government health care thing in Massachusetts is strikingly similar to Obama's thing, and a lot of people don't like that about him. Further, he hasn't really backed away from it. That may be enough to lose him the nomination.

Michelle Bachman has some support, but since I haven't followed her, I can't really comment.

Wait, people who like Rick Santorum actually exist? I thought that was just a Margin of Error thing.

Yeah, we're here. We're just not nearly in the majority.

May I ask why? I mean, this is the guy who said:

A controversy arose following Santorum's statements about homosexuality in an interview with the Associated Press that was published on April 20, 2003. In response to a question about how to prevent sexual abuse of children by priests, Santorum said the priests were engaged in "a basic homosexual relationship" , and went on to say that he had "[...] no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts"; that the right to privacy, as detailed in Griswold v. Connecticut, "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution"; that, "whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, whether it's sodomy, all of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family"; and that sodomy laws properly exist to prevent acts that "undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family". When the Associated Press reporter asked whether homosexuals should not then engage in homosexual acts, Santorum replied, "Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality".

To tl;dr that, he literally compared homosexuality to bestiality. Also, dude questioned teaching evolution in schools, and proposed a bill that would keep the government from releasing Weather Service warnings, because commercial outfits already do it.

yoshifan823 posted...
May I ask why? I mean, this is the guy who said:

To tl;dr that, he literally compared homosexuality to bestiality. Also, dude questioned teaching evolution in schools, and proposed a bill that would keep the government from releasing Weather Service warnings, because commercial outfits already do it.

1. No, he said marriage wasn't homosexuality, wasn't pedophilia, and wasn't bestiality. He didn't compare the two, he simply listed off things that marriage was not.

2. President doesn't have much authority when it comes to lesson plans in the schools. Yeah, I hear you saying, "Department of Education", but the fact remains that it is still largely the states that set the curriculum.

3. Not familiar with that. I'll look it up.

As to why I do like him? I liked him back when he was a senator, and I like the ideas he's espousing now, especially regarding the economy.

Marriage isn't heterosexuality either. The whole "one man, one woman" thing is terrible, but that's a problem with a lot of the Republican candidates. You're glossing over the whole "the right to privacy 'doesn't exist in [his] opinion in the United States Constitution'" thing, too.

Also, it seems he's a bit prone to stretching the truth: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rick-santorum/

Politifact is a partisan hack joke-website.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

yoshifan823 posted...
Marriage isn't heterosexuality either. The whole "one man, one woman" thing is terrible, but that's a problem with a lot of the Republican candidates.

We could get into that, but this isn't the topic to do it. Hell, the way the mods are here, I'd be loathe to get into any sort of discussion on GameFAQs.

You're glossing over the whole "the right to privacy 'doesn't exist in [his] opinion in the United States Constitution'" thing, too.

Examples?

Also, it seems he's a bit prone to stretching the truth: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rick-santorum/

I don't put much stock in Politifact.

Yes, Smuffin, I'm sure that it's a "partisan hack joke-website" that just happened to win a Pulitzer because they want to troll Republicans. You're just mad because they show the connection between "Republicans" and "lying".

And here's an editorial that Santorum wrote about the "right to privacy" thing: http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/santorum200507190728.asp

Ooh, and Santorum also uses/coined the term "Islamic fascism", which is a terrible way to promote the already far too dangerous/bad religious persecution against muslims. Sure, he's defended the use of the term, but really, why can't we just use "fascism"? Is non-Islamic fascism better, or not a thing that we should fight?

yoshifan823 posted...
Yes, Smuffin, I'm sure that it's a "partisan hack joke-website" that just happened to win a Pulitzer because they want to troll Republicans. You're just mad because they show the connection between "Republicans" and "lying".

And here's an editorial that Santorum wrote about the "right to privacy" thing: http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/santorum200507190728.asp

It reads like a commentary on the use of case law to, as he put it, legislate from the bench. I'm not sure where the problem is.

yoshifan823 posted...
Ooh, and Santorum also uses/coined the term "Islamic fascism", which is a terrible way to promote the already far too dangerous/bad religious persecution against muslims. Sure, he's defended the use of the term, but really, why can't we just use "fascism"?

Because he wants to specify a particular group of hard-liners who've shown a desire to kill us? Just throwing that out there.

Is non-Islamic fascism better, or not a thing that we should fight?

Find me the non-Islamic fascist group that has recently attacked US interests.

Yeah, but he also disagreed with the law in it's meaning as well, he says that multiple times in there. Do you honestly believe that the government's right to legislate what you do in the privacy of your own home is a good thing?

And there aren't any "fascist" groups that have attacked us. Fascism is a governmental and political position, and the only groups that have actually attacked US interests have been radical terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, which I wouldn't exactly describe as "fascist" and more as "terrorist". I mean, Saddam was a fascist, but it's pretty fair to say that we attacked him first, and that's only after helping him out a little. Fascism is bad, certainly, but associating that with a religion serves no purpose other than to further intolerance against that religion. It would be like saying we fought the Revolutionary War against our Protestant Former Leaders. The fact that they're protestant has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we're fighting them, just like the fact that whoever we're fighting is Muslim has nothing to do with why we're fighting them. We aren't fighting a war against Islam, despite what many people have said, we're fighting a war against people who happen to be Muslim, which is completely different.

Yes, Smuffin, I'm sure that it's a "partisan hack joke-website" that just happened to win a Pulitzer because they want to troll Republicans

Actually yeah, trolling conservatives is a GREAT way to win awards. Just look at Paul Krugman!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

I as an Obama supporter almost hope Bachmann wins the nomination because she'll get even more extremely negative reactions from anyone outside the Tea Party than Palin did. Obama would wipe the floor with her.

Then again, there isn't a Republican candidate I'm scared of. I think Obama wins this one by a higher margin than in '08.

--
Black Turtle shoots the lights out

I am curious now, SMuffin, why is Politifact a partisan hack joke website? They were essentially founded in order to keep track of Obama, they just happened to spread out because a great majority of politicians, regardless of party, are liars.

yoshifan823 posted...
Yeah, but he also disagreed with the law in it's meaning as well, he says that multiple times in there. Do you honestly believe that the government's right to legislate what you do in the privacy of your own home is a good thing?

His problem was the wholesale invention of a constitutional right by the Supreme Court followed by its expanded use to devalue life. He blatantly states that the first two laws were bad, but it was his argument that they should have been removed through the legislative process, not by judicial review by way of smoke and mirrors. I happen to agree with him on that point.

And there aren't any "fascist" groups that have attacked us. Fascism is a governmental and political position, and the only groups that have actually attacked US interests have been radical terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, which I wouldn't exactly describe as "fascist" and more as "terrorist". I mean, Saddam was a fascist, but it's pretty fair to say that we attacked him first, and that's only after helping him out a little. Fascism is bad, certainly, but associating that with a religion serves no purpose other than to further intolerance against that religion. It would be like saying we fought the Revolutionary War against our Protestant Former Leaders. The fact that they're protestant has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we're fighting them, just like the fact that whoever we're fighting is Muslim has nothing to do with why we're fighting them. We aren't fighting a war against Islam, despite what many people have said, we're fighting a war against people who happen to be Muslim, which is completely different.

You're splitting hairs here. Our assailants are terrorist groups that are supported by hard-liners. They closely identify their cause with Islam, whether or not they actually follow its tenets.

Uglyface2 posted...
1. No, he said marriage wasn't homosexuality, wasn't pedophilia, and wasn't bestiality. He didn't compare the two, he simply listed off things that marriage was not.

As to why I do like him? I liked him back when he was a senator, and I like the ideas he's espousing now, especially regarding the economy.

if you think that he wasn't trying to equate homosexuality with stuff like pedophilia and bestiality you're kidding yourself.

also how do you excuse him blaming the liberal atmosphere of Boston for the Catholic sex abuse scandal? or him attacking evolution?

he's pretty much a pile of santorum.

--
Black Turtle shoots the lights out

But he was still against the rulings because he was for the laws. He believes that the government should be able to regulate sexual activities that go on in private. The right to privacy isn't a right granted exclusively given by the Constitution, it's a basic human right, and a tenet of society since basically forever. It's on the same road that leads to banning what people say or do non-sexually in private. The whole "legislating from the bench" thing is just another word for "protecting rights that aren't spelled out in plain letters in the constitution" like the right to whatever sexuality that you choose, or the right to do what you want with your body, so long as it doesn't hurt anything else. Those aren't amendments -1 and -2, but they're rights nonetheless. I'm in Iowa, I hear a lot about "Judicial Activism" and "legislating from the bench", and it's all bull****. They're protecting rights, whether they're spelled out in black and white or not.

They don't identify their cause with Islam, they simply are Muslims. The reason that they're attacking us isn't because their religion tells them to, rather it's because we're a big giant power that has interfered in their region of the world a lot. It's as incidental as a soldier of ours claiming they're doing this "with God behind them", or "praying to win the war".

yoshifan823 posted...
But he was still against the rulings because he was for the laws.

Rick Santorum wrote...
In that case, a Connecticut law that outlawed the use of contraceptives, even by married couples, was ruled unconstitutional. Now, before you jump to conclusions, let me clearly state that this law was badly written, and I would not have supported it or its intent.

So, yeah.

He believes that the government should be able to regulate sexual activities that go on in private. The right to privacy isn't a right granted exclusively given by the Constitution, it's a basic human right, and a tenet of society since basically forever.

Hardly. A basic review of history will show you that there have been governments that have been thoroughly intrusive of their citizen's affairs. Note especially the former Soviet Union.

It's on the same road that leads to banning what people say or do non-sexually in private. The whole "legislating from the bench" thing is just another word for "protecting rights that aren't spelled out in plain letters in the constitution" like the right to whatever sexuality that you choose, or the right to do what you want with your body, so long as it doesn't hurt anything else. Those aren't amendments -1 and -2, but they're rights nonetheless. I'm in Iowa, I hear a lot about "Judicial Activism" and "legislating from the bench", and it's all bull****. They're protecting rights, whether they're spelled out in black and white or not.

There is nothing in the Constitution that even comes close to mentioning privacy. I should know, I had to read the thing several times over while I was in college.

They don't identify their cause with Islam, they simply are Muslims. The reason that they're attacking us isn't because their religion tells them to, rather it's because we're a big giant power that has interfered in their region of the world a lot. It's as incidental as a soldier of ours claiming they're doing this "with God behind them", or "praying to win the war".

Do you even listen to them? Allah Akbar? Spread Sharia law? These guys define their cause by their religion, not by their location.

Uglyface2 posted...
He believes that the government should be able to regulate sexual activities that go on in private. The right to privacy isn't a right granted exclusively given by the Constitution, it's a basic human right, and a tenet of society since basically forever.

Hardly. A basic review of history will show you that there have been governments that have been thoroughly intrusive of their citizen's affairs. Note especially the former Soviet Union.


you'll notice that the governments who are intrusive of their citizens' affairs have remarkably poor human rights records. and are you really aligning yourself with the Soviet Union's stance on privacy? not only does that not make sense to me, it sounds hypocritical considering that one of the epithets I've most often seen hurled at Obama is "communist" or the like.

--
Black Turtle shoots the lights out

WalrusJump posted...
you'll notice that the governments who are intrusive of their citizens' affairs have remarkably poor human rights records. and are you really aligning yourself with the Soviet Union's stance on privacy? not only does that not make sense to me, it sounds hypocritical considering that one of the epithets I've most often seen hurled at Obama is "communist" or the like.

Are you even reading what I'm posting, or are you getting bored halfway through and filling in the blanks with whatever you want to see?

Uglyface2 posted...
Do you even listen to them? Allah Akbar? Spread Sharia law? These guys define their cause by their religion, not by their location.

Spreading Sharia law? Who does that? They can follow it all they like, but I'm pretty sure their mission isn't to spread it. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if more people trying to incite fear in their constituents mentioned it than actual Muslims. On the same kind of note, Allahu Akbar (which is on the Iraqi flag) means "God is Great" or "God is Greatest". You're afraid of people saying that their God is great? Better get out of America, then. Again, they're not attacking us because of their faith.

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Guru winnah Explicit Content, that's quis.

Ron Paul is a racist and not a true libertarian. Screw him.

--
Warning_Crazy
i am not black turtle as i did not win the guru

Uglyface2 posted...
Hardly. A basic review of history will show you that there have been governments that have been thoroughly intrusive of their citizen's affairs. Note especially the former Soviet Union.

You're not helping your case, here. A good government, like a healthy majority of first-world governments today, including our, gives their people a right to privacy. A bad government, like the former Soviet Union, or Communist China, can imprison (or worse) their people for what they say or do in private.

Do you, personally, believe that laws like sodomy laws, or laws preventing use of contraceptives are A: not granted by the constitution, and B: laws that should be passed? If yes to either of these, why?

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Guru winnah Explicit Content, that's quis.

And as far as it not explicitly being in the constitution, it may not be the US Constitution, but in a remarkably similar document, the Declaration of Independance, it is said that the unalienable rights of man are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Wouldn't privacy fall into the latter two of those?

Well, Santorum and Paul and whoever else are technically correct in that the "right to privacy" is NOT explicitly spelled out in the constitution. What IS spelled out is that the government is forbidden from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. This has since been spun as "right to privacy" the same way the establishment clause has been spun to "separation of church and state" (another phrase that does not actually appear in the constitution).

You know who is making our right to avoid unreasonable search and seizure TONS worse? Barack Obama. The TSA is only the beginning. Do your research.

As far as politifact goes, well, it's just a joke really. If you read them on any regular basis, you'll notice massive inconsistencies, and the fact that their ultimate judgment as to whether something is "truthful" or not is usually either based on semantics, a whim, or a personal interpretation. Furthermore, they unquestionable suffer from "exclusion bias" in that the selection of which statements to evaluate and which ones not to can create a bias in and of itself.

Here's a couple examples, which I'm sure you won't read simply because you hate the source.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/michele-bachmann-vs-politifact/

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/politifail-factchecking-politifact%E2%80%99s-claims-about-the-muslim-brotherhood-and-glenn-beck/

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

I am glad I am not the only one who would vote for this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathon_Sharkey

sadly I'm not American so I can't contribute to his greatness.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/VincentLauw/WHATCHUMEANgifym.gif

wait...did someone say radical islamic fundamentalists arent attacking us because of their faith? are you crazy? we are 'great satan' to the fundamentalists, because we back israel and because of our 'moral depravity'. and if you dont think these people want to spread sharia law (not most individual muslims, but the organizations and governments are lunatic fundamentalists), maybe you should read up on the purpose of 'jihad' and try to imagine being a lunatic fundamentalist stuck in the dark ages.

religion is so dangerous because it allows the strong to control the multitudes of weak minded individuals.

--
.

I'd vote for The Huntsman!



--
77 FAQs for games never covered at www.GameFAQs.com.
Redemption is only three fights away

Here's a couple examples, which I'm sure you won't read simply because you hate the source.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/michele-bachmann-vs-politifact/

I really don't use politifact, but that example is not nearly as bad as Beck is arguing. They say that she probably just left off an important detail in their rating, and even mention that she has used the correct phrasing before but argue that it is still somewhat misleading. Is it a technicality? Yes. Honestly, I think they should just have a "misleading" rating for situations like this. Or some kind of inbetween. Or just not do it at all.

I do find the fact that they even bothered doing all that for a technicality to be kind of silly though. But again, I don't use politifact to know how many of these they do a day.

How do they decide what to fact check? Do people request a check on things? Is it whatever is controversial or being argued? Is it completely their discretion? I really am interested to know that.

--
(Maniac64 at work) [Browncoat] ~Board 570901~
All the proteins, vitamins, and carbs of your grandma's best turkey dinner, plus 15% alcohol.

I said it during the 2008 primaries and I'll say it again now. If Mitt Romney wins the election I will always and forever refer to him as President Mittens.

Seriously though, my current position when it comes to the GOP is not Palin and not Bachmann. Based on the her part in the McCain '08 run and basically everything that's happened since then I just cannot take her seriously. As for Bachmann, as someone who live in the district she represents I was embarrassed when she won her reelection in '10. Terrible, terrible shame. I'd sooner vote for Pawlenty and he didn't exactly do the most bang up job as governor. Almost any other person I'll give consideration to.

yoshifan823 posted...
Spreading Sharia law? Who does that? They can follow it all they like, but I'm pretty sure their mission isn't to spread it. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if more people trying to incite fear in their constituents mentioned it than actual Muslims. On the same kind of note, Allahu Akbar (which is on the Iraqi flag) means "God is Great" or "God is Greatest". You're afraid of people saying that their God is great? Better get out of America, then. Again, they're not attacking us because of their faith.

It's clear to me that you're not at all familiar with the propoganda and agenda of the hard-liners. They frequently espouse their desire to spread Sharia law. This is not something they hide. You'll also notice that they frequently shout "Allahu Akbar" while committing acts of terrorism. Those two facts together clearly demonstrate that they identify themselves through Islam. I'd go into how Islam is an identity thing in the Middle East (take a class on Middle Eastern history to find out why), but I get the impression it would just be wasted on you.

You're not helping your case, here. A good government, like a healthy majority of first-world governments today, including our, gives their people a right to privacy. A bad government, like the former Soviet Union, or Communist China, can imprison (or worse) their people for what they say or do in private.

Alright, I know it's Wikipedia, but they source the following comments:

"The concept of privacy is most often associated with Western culture, English and North American in particular. According to some researchers, the concept of privacy sets Anglo-American culture apart even from other Western European cultures such as French or Italian.[1] Privacy, as the term is generally understood in the West, is not a universal concept and remained virtually unknown in some cultures until recent times. Most cultures, however, recognize certain forms of hidden or personal information that is not shared with wider society."

I know what you're going to want to do next, you're going to jump on that last sentence. That would be equivocation, as the privacy we're discussing is the one invented by the Court, not the one that says certain information shouldn't be spread around.

Do you, personally, believe that laws like sodomy laws, or laws preventing use of contraceptives are A: not granted by the constitution, and B: laws that should be passed? If yes to either of these, why?

Case law has rendered this moot. It's not even worth answering.

And as far as it not explicitly being in the constitution, it may not be the US Constitution, but in a remarkably similar document, the Declaration of Independance, it is said that the unalienable rights of man are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Wouldn't privacy fall into the latter two of those?

Setting aside the fact that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, you can read all kinds of things into "Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" if you try hard enough. A plain reading doesn't indicate the necessity of privacy as a Western concept. In fact, this privacy you espouse did not have nearly the same extention until the aforementioned court case.