or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Rick Santorum
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rick Santorum - Page 6

post #201 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
It's not a diss, it's reality. Look at you, you are out of control. You are calling names, detesting our culture, disagreeing with those who support your own views and see you as a likeable young man at times. (which I suppose you still are even if you don't want any IM's again)

Lawyers first and foremost must understand that it isn't just about the evidence and what you think about it. You are in this forum declaring that people hate homosexuals and that your Senator should lose his job for nothing more than thinking out loud about a court case. That is facist.

If you think that acting like a facist and flying off the handle at one small personal jab is going to make you a good lawyer, you are wrong. If a simple little comment is going to throw you off of your game plan (of which you have none to be thrown off of in this thread) then good luck defending people.

If you were to go back and look at all your posts, they are simple little one - three sentence assertions. They have no proof, they have no reasoning, they have nothing.

You know Shawn you are helping me become a little more liberal. I seriously doubted "white privelege" and that people in this country would get ahead just because they are white. With you supposedly being a student receiving a scholarship and being on your debate team because of your supposed intellectual brilliance, I've had to reconsider that view because I see nothing within your intellect that makes you deserving of those things.

There are many more deserving women and minorities that I have encountered that are much brighter, lucid, and deserving than you. I think you should give back these items you obviously received for no other reason than being white.

It is obvious there is some real talent out there and perhaps they are pushing you along because they know it takes a white face to get some place. I suppose they will be the talent behind the blank eyes staring at the teleprompter someday. Perhaps you will have some truly gifted paralegals who help you figure out and win cases since you expose your own limits here. It is obvious that you have what you have because of your parents owning a $400k home and not because of merit.

Nick

YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME.
post #202 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge


It was a serious question actually. No one should lose their job for what they say. There should be no law that says you're immediately fired for saying X, Y, or Z. But the political party has to support what the politician says. He's a spokesperson for the Republican party.

What he said is 'gay bashing'. What he meant might be legally justifiable, but what he said was derogatory. Does the party stand by what he says? The President does. His party apparantely does. Fine. He won't lose his job.

But don't twist the meaning of his words to pretend they weren't derogatory.

Sorry , real life cancelled on me.

There was nothing about his statement that was "gay-bashing." Please feel to quote the statement and show how it made gays out to be bad.

The Supreme Court has ruled in the past, that the state has an interest in legislating sexual actions that overides the right to privacy.

This is just like Roe v. Wade because they are seeking a federal case to dictate all state law. In doing so they are likely to throw out the baby with the bathwater if they prevail on both counts. (equal protection and privacy)

As I posted from LAMBDA, 37 states no longer have any sort of law against sodomy. That means they could target those remaining 13 states and create change in them that would allow sodomy without fear of legal repercussions.

Instead they want the whole enchalada and that is saying that the federal government has no right to govern sexual relations between adults (including number of adults) due to privacy concerns.

Pointing out that it could affect other groups does not equal hate for that group.

I pointed out that this case law could affect whether adultery could be used to grant a divorce and also in alimony and child custody hearings.

If you don't agree with my position on how this could harm women are you a sexist pig?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #203 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
He can keep his position, but the party should be held accountable. They should be honest and just admit that they don't believe gays should be legally allowed to have sex.

I'll accept that position

Even Better.
post #204 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Isn't it a bit different for one individual to 'bash' another individual rather than an individual to 'bash' a group or race or whatever? Is there a psychological or simple vocabulary term for attacking a group in this manner?

Actually the Dixie Chick's statements did relate to a group. They said that they were ashamed to admit that the President was from Texas.

That means they alone are allowed to determine what a proper "Texan." is regarding beliefs and actions.

Very intolerant if you ask me.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #205 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME.

(He says staring blankly at the teleprompter)

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #206 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
In any case, individuals in the country should decide if they do or don't want to listen to the Chicks' albums, not Clear Channel Communications.

I kinda think they do, bunge. I'm not aware of Clear Channel banging on doors with guns, forcing Dixie Chicks fans to come out into the front yard and give up their CDs and memorabilia.



No one made or forced anyone to destroy or trash their CDs. People aren't sheep. I'm sure many more Chicks fans kept their stuff. Those that chose to go the other route did so either completely on their own or gathered, en masse, at a radio station to join other like-minded folks.

I very, very seriously doubt that people are honestly making a decision on this matter based on Clear Channel. I'm more inclined to believe that political and worldview issues played the role in their decision, whatever it was. Maybe they had a teenage son in the military? Maybe their husband was a disable vet? Maybe they're passionate Republicans or fans of the President? Maybe they don't like celebrities mouthing off? Maybe they think it was a low-blow or in poor taste (considering the time and location).

It's probably a hundred other reasons too...ALL of them more real and pressing and legit than some radio station.

My favorite station here in town could come on today and go "we hate Tom Petty and we're not playing him and we're going to hold a Petty CD smashing rally today at Miller Park...".

Would I be inclined to give up my Heartbreakers CDs and go along with that?

No.

Give people some credit.
post #207 of 275
Unedited Section of the Interview
Quote:
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

Interesting.

Quote:
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?


SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their action
post #208 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
I kinda think they do, bunge. I'm not aware of Clear Channel banging on doors with guns, forcing Dixie Chicks fans to come out into the front yard and give up their CDs and memorabilia.



No one made or forced anyone to destroy or trash their CDs. People aren't sheep. I'm sure many more Chicks fans kept their stuff. Those that chose to go the other route did so either completely on their own or gathered, en masse, at a radio station to join other like-minded folks.

I very, very seriously doubt that people are honestly making a decision on this matter based on Clear Channel. I'm more inclined to believe that political and worldview issues played the role in their decision, whatever it was. Maybe they had a teenage son in the military? Maybe their husband was a disable vet? Maybe they're passionate Republicans or fans of the President? Maybe they don't like celebrities mouthing off? Maybe they think it was a low-blow or in poor taste (considering the time and location).

It's probably a hundred other reasons too...ALL of them more real and pressing and legit than some radio station.

My favorite station here in town could come on today and go "we hate Tom Petty and we're not playing him and we're going to hold a Petty CD smashing rally today at Miller Park...".

Would I be inclined to give up my Heartbreakers CDs and go along with that?

No.

Give people some credit.

Give them also a place to congregate for mass-cd smashing.

It's all about organization.
post #209 of 275
Exactly. But so are PETA rallies, gay rights marches, anti-war demonstrations (organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. and other groups of strong, noted political leanings), etc.

So?

People still weren't forced to show up. No one HAD to. They showed up because they wanted to. Just like all the people in my examples above. But yeah, oftentimes in a large situation, there probably is some sort of overall, organizing entity.

There probably has to be, for reasons of logistics, equipment, facilities, permits, etc.

But sometimes people just gather to gather.

It can go either way, I'd imagine.

post #210 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
I kinda think they do, bunge.

Now that we're done with that tangent, did I address your question? This tangent and my off the cuff comment about CCC has side tracked my brain. Too much red wine last night.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #211 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Unedited Section of the Interview

Interesting.

The whole statement, for those who can read and write more than a sentence or two...

Quote:
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy - you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

Hey Santorum is saying if states don't want sodomy laws and if they want abortion provide that is.... FINE.

Sounds just like what I have reiterated several dozen times. States rights and speaking about this particular case.

He wants... imagine this now... I know it is hard... THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS...to decide these issues instead of a court opinion forcing it on everyone.

Scary thing that democracy is to people who prefer thought police and facism.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #212 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
He can keep his position, but the party should be held accountable. They should be honest and just admit that they don't believe gays should be legally allowed to have sex.

Quote:
Originally posted by Santorum
I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

I stand by what I said.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #213 of 275
Shawn, take two steps back and just listen (this is VERY clear cut and no tricks or doubletalk involved at all):

Why would you see Clear Channel (a group you believe tilts to the right) organizing some sort of silly CD-smashing thing as wrong or dumb...

BUT you probably aren't too bothered by A.N.S.W.E.R., Not In Our Name or any number of other left-leaning groups "organizing" events and get-togethers?

If big, political-oriented groups "organizing" events or rallies is the thing, then wouldn't you, theoretically - if standards were equally applied by you - a lot of these peace marches and war protests give you the same feeling that you get by having Clear Channel orgazine these radio things? I would think so.

Do you not see the rub here? Seriously?

One group does it = bad.

Another (that just happens to mirror your views) does it = okay.

Basic, simple little things like that are, I'd imagine, what get you in trouble the most. I think that's what trumptman and alcimedes were getting at.

You (and others) seem so eager to bash one side, no questions asked, but the others get a pass and are never held to the same standards or level of questioning or doubt.

That's all I'm saying here. Do you not, intelligent and read as you are, see just that?

Can't you concede that, at the very least, you're going a bit out of your way to see/play one side only?

I think you are.

Not the end of the world, but it gets pretty blatant and I think that's what rankles people the most. If you didn't fight it tooth and nail (pointing out all the bad on one side, ignoring it all on yours), people would probably give you more credit and take what you have to say - and how you say it - more to heart.
post #214 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

Scary thing that democracy is to people who prefer thought police and facism.

Not really. What he wants is to be able to get his way. The Supreme Court is against him, so he's against the Supreme Court. You might not have noticed but the Supreme Court is already part of the democratic process.

Scary thing the entire democratic process is to people who want to impose their beliefs on others.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #215 of 275
post #216 of 275
Okay, I get it. Clear Channel bad. Fine.



That's not really what I was talking about above (or asked you). But that's okay. I guess that kinda, in an odd, detached kind of way, my question was answered.

post #217 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Not really. What he wants is to be able to get his way. The Supreme Court is against him, so he's against the Supreme Court. You might not have noticed but the Supreme Court is already part of the democratic process.

Scary thing the entire democratic process is to people who want to impose their beliefs on others.

He was asked to speak about the case. He didn't suggest that the court be "fired" or "step down" for their speech. That is what others here have suggested. Since the court is likely to rule in the manner he prefers, I don't see how the court is "against" him.

I didn't really speak to the issue of the court because the court has already ruled on this in the past and they are likely to rule along the same lines as their previous precident. They will likely rule that the state does have a right to infringe on privacy issue when it has a compelling interest.

Again I don't equate speculation about the ruling to equal hate speech. I can see the difference. As for this....


Originally posted by Santorum

I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions


People are allowed to still have beliefs and disagreements in this country right? I thought my rights ended at your nose. He is speaking about actions. In his state they are currently legal and he stated that if others wanted to make sodomy and abortion legal, that is there perogative though he would disagree with it.

Until he is in someone's bedroom pulling them apart or seeking to have someone arrested, he is just expressing disapproval.

I thought that was still allowed, or did the ministry of correct thinking not send me a memo again?

I have heard homosexuals themselves say that they wouldn't desire homosexuality for their own children and that if the had a choice about who they loved, they would choose to be heterosexual because it is very hard to live outside of the mainstream. This is not because they were necessarily persecuted for who they are, but because they themselves grew up with ideas of what their lives would be like and they had to change their own thinking about themselves.

But I suppose they are just homophobes too.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #218 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
Okay, I get it. Clear Channel bad. Fine.



That's not really what I was talking about above (or asked you). But that's okay. I guess that kinda, in an odd, detached kind of way, my question was answered.


If you say so.

(Wrong Thread, 2, 3) anyway. Whoops!

I think it's more Britney vs. Christina in that context...

Damn! That means I have to be Christina (no southern accent)

Alright I have to take a break from the fun here. Sadly I have to write so many papers in just three days.

(Although it shouldn't matter because my career prospects have already been decided... )

Just kidding.
post #219 of 275
Wrong thread?
post #220 of 275
well, when reading through the entire text of the interview, i'm at a loss as to what people are getting worked up about. (i still don't have any problem with the original quote).

there has been more than enough information posted in this thread for everyone to make an informed decision. i personally believe that anyone capable of logging on to the internet and posting in a message forum posses the intelligence to understand the information available.

however, that doesn't mean that everyone is necessarily willing to actually read this information, especially if it disagrees with preconcieved notions. everyone can try to explain through examples, quotes etc., but it won't do any good at this point. no one is so blind as a man who won't open his eyes.
post #221 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
The only difference is that I along with many many others think that he should step down from his leadership position. It's certainly not me alone here.

Which just goes back to you wanting him to lose his position because you disagree with him and his motivations. How about christians telling agnostics or atheists to step down from their positions because they don't like where their views come from and stated something they disagreed with? That fair? NO!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #222 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
(He says staring blankly at the teleprompter)

HA!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #223 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Which just goes back to you wanting him to lose his position because you disagree with him and his motivations. How about christians telling agnostics or atheists to step down from their positions because they don't like where their views come from and stated something they disagreed with? That fair? NO!

Do you support Senator Lott's stepping down from his position? I think it's the same thing.

As bunge asked, "How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people?'"

Senator Santorum doesn't believe that homosexual acts should be legal; therefore, I believe that he should step down for being intolerant of homosexuals. I am intolerant of intolerance. That's what it comes down to. If he believes it as part of his religion- fine, but don't tell me that homosexual acts should be illegal. Don't enforce your beliefs on me.

He's talking about wanting to criminalize consensual gay sex in states where it's still legal. He's talking about upholding the laws against consensual gay sex in states where it is not legal.

Does he want to criminalize adultery?
Contraception too?

I don't think that's a very inclusive message for someone who has been pegged by the President through the words of Ari Fleischer as such.

Should tolerance be a criteria by which we should judge our leaders? Certainly. It is my opinion and that of many others that he should step down. Just deal with it. I'm certainly not requiring it. I'm not saying he must step down either.

In fact, I acknowledge that perhaps he shouldn't step down- that it would be better for his views to be representative of the party.

Fine then.

I think the best course of action, as a PA voter would be to just vote him out of office. Satisfied?
post #224 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Do you support Senator Lott's stepping down from his position? I think it's the same thing.

As bunge asked, "How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people?'"

Senator Santorum doesn't believe that homosexual acts should be legal; therefore, I believe that he should step down for being intolerant of homosexuals. I am intolerant of intolerance. That's what it comes down to. If he believes it as part of his religion- fine, but don't tell me that homosexual acts should be illegal. Don't enforce your beliefs on me.

He's talking about wanting to criminalize consensual gay sex in states where it's still legal. He's talking about upholding the laws against consensual gay sex in states where it is not legal.

Does he want to criminalize adultery?
Contraception too?

I don't think that's a very inclusive message for someone who has been pegged by the President through the words of Ari Fleischer as such.

Should tolerance be a criteria by which we should judge our leaders? Certainly. It is my opinion and that of many others that he should step down. Just deal with it. I'm certainly not requiring it. I'm not saying he must step down either.

In fact, I acknowledge that perhaps he shouldn't step down- that it would be better for his views to be representative of the party.

Fine then.

I think the best course of action, as a PA voter would be to just vote him out of office. Satisfied?

I didn't even have to reply to get you to waffle and then admit you are wrong. Wow. That was my best work ever.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #225 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Do you support Senator Lott's stepping down from his position? I think it's the same thing.

As bunge asked, "How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people?'"

Senator Santorum doesn't believe that homosexual acts should be legal; therefore, I believe that he should step down for being intolerant of homosexuals. I am intolerant of intolerance. That's what it comes down to. If he believes it as part of his religion- fine, but don't tell me that homosexual acts should be illegal. Don't enforce your beliefs on me.

He's talking about wanting to criminalize consensual gay sex in states where it's still legal. He's talking about upholding the laws against consensual gay sex in states where it is not legal.

Does he want to criminalize adultery?
Contraception too?

I don't think that's a very inclusive message for someone who has been pegged by the President through the words of Ari Fleischer as such.

Should tolerance be a criteria by which we should judge our leaders? Certainly. It is my opinion and that of many others that he should step down. Just deal with it. I'm certainly not requiring it. I'm not saying he must step down either.

In fact, I acknowledge that perhaps he shouldn't step down- that it would be better for his views to be representative of the party.

Fine then.

I think the best course of action, as a PA voter would be to just vote him out of office. Satisfied?

Like you ever voted for him in the first place... yeah he sure could count on your vote Shawn.

BTW, as I recall you aren't exactly the most "tolerant" person with regard to drug use.

I suppose you would show "tolerance" toward a husband beating his wife?

Intolerant of intolerance... you draw your lines just like everyone else. If you circle of what you support is a little larger in some areas than in others then that makes you human just like the rest of us.

Some people draw their circles wider than you and I am sure they are properly "bad" in your book.

I for example believe men should be allowed to decide if they want their paternal rights much like women decide if they want their maternal rights.

If you don't agree with me are you intolerant?

Because... you know... I am intolerant of intolerance.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #226 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
I didn't even have to reply to get you to waffle and then admit you are wrong. Wow. That was my best work ever.

I admit that I agree with you on this issue. Now on to trumptman who seems to disagree with us...
post #227 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Like you ever voted for him in the first place... yeah he sure could count on your vote Shawn.

BTW, as I recall you aren't exactly the most "tolerant" person with regard to drug use.

I suppose you would show "tolerance" toward a husband beating his wife?

Intolerant of intolerance... you draw your lines just like everyone else. If you circle of what you support is a little larger in some areas than in others then that makes you human just like the rest of us.

Some people draw their circles wider than you and I am sure they are properly "bad" in your book.

I for example believe men should be allowed to decide if they want their paternal rights much like women decide if they want their maternal rights.

If you don't agree with me are you intolerant?

Because... you know... I am intolerant of intolerance.

Nick

You're really an a**hole.

"Like I ever voted for him in the first place."

I never said I voted for him in the first place. I said that the best course of action would be to vote him out of office. I can do that you know. I don't need to reach your grand age or amount of experience to vote someone out of office with whom I disagree.

I suppose you're right, that the dictionary definition of tolerance includes absolutely anything.

I'm not really sure how I would go about that then.

Any takers?
post #228 of 275
I guess you could throw all your support behind whoever opposes him next time around, like normal people do. Campaign for the other guy, wear a button, try to influence friends, family and fellow students that Santorum isn't the right choice.

And when you step into the booth, be sure not to have a "Florida moment" and vote for Santorum by mistake.

That pretty much wraps it up. You do what you can within the system, just like we all do.
post #229 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
I guess you could throw all your support behind whoever opposes him next time around, like normal people do. Campaign for the other guy, wear a button, try to influence friends, family and fellow students that Santorum isn't the right choice.

And when you step into the booth, be sure not to have a "Florida moment" and vote for Santorum by mistake.

That pretty much wraps it up. You do what you can within the system, just like we all do.

Word!

I have a question:

If any of you guys were Pennsylvanians, would you vote to re-elect Santorum?
post #230 of 275
SPJ:

Quote:
You're really an a**hole.

NO!

trumptman:

Quote:
He wants... imagine this now... I know it is hard... THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS...to decide these issues instead of a court opinion forcing it on everyone.

Have you ever read the Constitution?

It's a lovely document, let me give you a passage from Article III.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

I don't know what country you live in, trumpetman, but here in the United States it's the JOB of the judicial brance to check the power of the legislative and executive and "force their opinions" on us.

Why in blue hell do conservatives wave the Constitution in everyone's face about the 2nd amendment but love to ignore Article III when bitching about "judicial activism"?



"This here kunntry should be run bah good 'merican men like Trent Lott, Rick Santorum and Strom Thurmond. And I don't want no hippie faggot judge tellin' me shit about mah stars 'n' bars or mah guns! I knows my Constitutional rights!"
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #231 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Word!

I have a question:

If any of you guys were Pennsylvanians, would you vote to re-elect Santorum?

I don't know. As I said earlier, I know very little about him, but I've seen him on various shows ("Hannity & Colmes", C-Span, etc.) over the years.

I'll say this: I'd weigh everything out and put it all into some proper context. If I'm happy with his performance and he reflects my beliefs in fiscal, educational, etc. matters, I doubt I'd throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm not being difficult or obtuse or trying to stir anything up, but this whole hubbub regarding him has, honestly, kinda gone over my head. I read the interview again and again and it just sounds like political/legal boring talk and speaking about some law or situation. I never attached much more to it because it never really jumped out at me.

Maybe I need to be on the other side of the ideological fence? Maybe I need to be gay? I don't know.

I don't think I'd be into hanging him on this issue. I really don't. But that's just me.

If he routinely stepped in it, made tacky, idiotic remarks, was caught on some sort of regular basis bashing certain groups and all, then yes...I'd probably look at him and go "what's this guy's deal? Does he not know he's on TV or that people are listening?"



I'd vote for someone else JUST based on his apparent stupidity and lack of "getting it".
post #232 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
"This here kunntry should be run bah good 'merican men like Trent Lott, Rick Santorum and Strom Thurmond. And I don't want no hippie faggot judge tellin' me shit about mah stars 'n' bars or mah guns! I knows my Constitutional rights!"

Hey, that's pretty good! I trust you were holding a can of Pabst Blue Ribbon and were polishing your Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Limited Edition belt buckle when you were saying that, right? I mean, hell! Get on it, sumbitch!

post #233 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
SPJ:



NO!

trumptman:



Have you ever read the Constitution?

It's a lovely document, let me give you a passage from Article III.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

I don't know what country you live in, trumpetman, but here in the United States it's the JOB of the judicial brance to check the power of the legislative and executive and "force their opinions" on us.

Why in blue hell do conservatives wave the Constitution in everyone's face about the 2nd amendment but love to ignore Article III when bitching about "judicial activism"?



"This here kunntry should be run bah good 'merican men like Trent Lott, Rick Santorum and Strom Thurmond. And I don't want no hippie faggot judge tellin' me shit about mah stars 'n' bars or mah guns! I knows my Constitutional rights!"

Grove,

How did you know I talked that way? I mean sure I live in California, and I'm 32, but you're right. I talk just a like a no teeth, drunk, white klansman?!?!

Who woulda knew?

Stating that you want to court to leave to the states those rights reserved for the states does not mean you are against the courts, hate the courts, or anything else.

As I stated in other posts the court has already previously ruled on this matter and found that the state has a right to legislate sexual matters that overrides the right to privacy. They are likely to rule this way again.

However you do have to admit that there are those parties out there, both conservative and liberal, that simply seek to ignore the legislative process and find sympathetic judges to hear there cases and rule creating laws out of the air or over turning laws with no good basis.

If a new law is created out of the air, I do not consider that to be a resolution of a controversy between two parties.

My own view is that the courts are basically political just like all the other branches. They are just the slowest to change. The executive branch and legislative branch change relatively quickly, but as we have alll read and seen, it is possible to make the way a the Supreme Court will rule, change over time as well.

Again don't come after me because I wasn't bashing the court. In this particular instance it is currently up to the states. Stating that there is no compelling reason to make it a federal issue does not mean I hate the courts.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #234 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
Hey, that's pretty good! I trust you were holding a can of Pabst Blue Ribbon and were polishing your Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Limited Edition belt buckle when you were saying that, right? I mean, hell! Get on it, sumbitch!




I tried to battle it out for three pages, but it's probably true that I lost this battle. What this thread needed was some good humor!

Keep em coming, grove and pscates.
post #235 of 275
trumptman:

Quote:
However you do have to admit that there are those parties out there, both conservative and liberal, that simply seek to ignore the legislative process and find sympathetic judges to hear there cases and rule creating laws out of the air or over turning laws with no good basis.

It happens, sure, but it's far from being a real problem.

Quote:
If a new law is created out of the air, I do not consider that to be a resolution of a controversy between two parties.

Name one law that the courts have made.

Quote:
My own view is that the courts are basically political just like all the other branches. They are just the slowest to change. The executive branch and legislative branch change relatively quickly, but as we have alll read and seen, it is possible to make the way a the Supreme Court will rule, change over time as well.

Yet the courts are usually the most progressive. Seems a bit of a disengenuous argument on your part.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #236 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:



It happens, sure, but it's far from being a real problem.



Name one law that the courts have made.



Yet the courts are usually the most progressive. Seems a bit of a disengenuous argument on your part.

During the election of 2000 for president. The Florida Supreme Court acted in this manner. There was a clearly mandated procedure regarding elections that had been followed. Regardless of how you feel about the outcome of that election, the process had been followed. The whole hand counting of ballots and things of that nature were ordered by the court without precident within the law. The state secretary had certified the results after being ordered to wait even longer than the law allowed and then because the results weren't what they liked, they simply again without a law there, ordered more and selective recounts.

The Secretary of State is the executive branch, however the legislative branch was upset as well by the clear fact that the court was not interpreting their laws, but ignoring them. They choose and were going to send their electoral college voters when the Florida Supreme Court was causing a near constitutional crisis by simply refusing to end the election until the ballots could be counted to get a result they liked. The U.S. Constitution demanded the results and the electoral college meet by a certain date, and the Florida Supreme Court just ignored it.

When the court began ordering the recount, the dissenting opinion written by one of the justices admitted that the court had no authority to order a recount. The court ordered hand recounts in selective counties when there was a clear procedure for determining when a hand count was needed and why.

The Supreme Court was declared to be handing Bush the election on a 5-4 vote. That vote was not the deciding vote though. By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court had overridden the equal protection clauses of both their own state and also the Constitution by ordering selective recounts and also throwing out ballots selectively. The 5-4 vote was was about whether there was enough time for a statewide recount before the electoral college had to meet.

As for whether court has been progressive in it's decisions, it has been argued that the court has engaged in activism for the left and the right. The Florida example above is seen as activist on the left, but liberal critics will contend that the court was activist for the right.

Likewise many liberal critics have contended that the court is decidedly conservative and seeking out cases for decisions that reaffirm conservative laws and values. The best examples of this has been the overturning of quotas also that you must have a clear, compelling reason for use of affirmative action. Likewise the case we have been mentioning for several pages will likely be seen as conservative activism because the left believes in a strong right to privacy which it will be argued the court has eroded with this decision.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #237 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
Okay, I get it. Clear Channel bad. Fine.

If you want to play games, that's fine. I clearly stated that my off the cuff comment about CCC was off-topic. I was referring to the rest of my point. I was asking if the non-CCC comment was enough to satisfy your curiosity. Enough about the CCC. We can start a thread about that if you like.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #238 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
If you want to play games, that's fine. I clearly stated that my off the cuff comment about CCC was off-topic. I was referring to the rest of my point. I was asking if the non-CCC comment was enough to satisfy your curiosity. Enough about the CCC. We can start a thread about that if you like.

Hey, I was responding to Shawn this afternoon after he mentioned Clear Channel and posted an article about them. I read the article, couldn't see its connection to what I'd asked him a couple of posts prior to that and that's when I wrote what I wrote. Had NOTHING to do with you, bunge. Scroll up and read for verification that that is the case before you jump on me. I wasn't even talking to you, or responding to anything you wrote or said. It was a back-and-forth with Shawn from earlier today.

\

I just scrolled way up toward the top of this page (6). He'd linked an article about it. He said "wrong thread" and it confused me at first (I understand what he was saying now), but he still posted the article in this one.
post #239 of 275
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
I wasn't even talking to you, or responding to anything you wrote or said. It was a back-and-forth with Shawn from earlier today.

\

Whoops, my bad. We had a CCC tangent going earlier and I had been trying to end it. When you brought it back up (in relation to SPJ) I thought you were talking to me.

Sorry 'bout that. No harm no foul?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #240 of 275
Cool. I was hoping you'd scroll up and see it

Damn this Santorum/Dixie Chicks cross-contamination!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Rick Santorum