It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:44 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
Displaced Fan
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:24 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
Crosscheck wrote:
For sheer volume, there's just as much left wing media as there is right wing media.
It's just people on the right consume more of it and seem to be easier to convince to carry water for a particular ideology or candidate.


Well said.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:24 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
But you can see what I'm saying. It's just assumed that taxes and spending need to be cut as some sort of moral requirement. The only debate is how and how much to cut. Play like that and you've already conceided worth debating IMO. I don't want to play like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:28 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Well here's the rub; You can talk about taxing and spending all day long in 1999 and have a rational debate about both.
Here in 2012 we're fucking broke and spending borrowed money at an ever accelerating pace. So any sort of increased spending argument is going to be met with incredulity, and any decreased spending argument inherently makes sense.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
daz28
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:29 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:31 pm
Posts: 3363
Crosscheck wrote:
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
Problem with this is that NO ONE for at least 15 years has campaigned on increasing entitlements, democrat or republican


uh....
I'd classify giving health insurance coverage to everyone without it, at no charge, an increase of entitlements.
Obama campaigned on that and so did did Democratic members of congress.

These people were already receiving health care. They just weren't paying their health care bills, which drove up the cost of the people with coverage's premiums.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:35 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
To put this another way:

We all know about Grover Norquist and the tea baggers' pledge not to raise taxes for any reason. Well, what would the public reaction have been if either instead, or in response, Congressional deomcrats all promised not to cut spending for any reason? Just tell me honestly if you think that would have drawn more bad press? I know it would have. And I say why? What the tea baggers did was just as stupid and childish as that would have been.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:36 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
daz28 wrote:
Crosscheck wrote:
uh....
I'd classify giving health insurance coverage to everyone without it, at no charge, an increase of entitlements.
Obama campaigned on that and so did did Democratic members of congress.

These people were already receiving health care. They just weren't paying their health care bills, which drove up the cost of the people with coverage's premiums.

Right, which is why I said "giving health insurance coverage to everyone without it" instead of "giving everyone health care".

Not sure what point you're trying to make, it's still an entitlement.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
daz28
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:38 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:31 pm
Posts: 3363
Crosscheck wrote:
daz28 wrote:
Crosscheck wrote:
uh....
I'd classify giving health insurance coverage to everyone without it, at no charge, an increase of entitlements.
Obama campaigned on that and so did did Democratic members of congress.

These people were already receiving health care. They just weren't paying their health care bills, which drove up the cost of the people with coverage's premiums.

Right, which is why I said "giving health insurance coverage to everyone without it" instead of "giving everyone health care".

Not sure what point you're trying to make, it's still an entitlement.

I wasn't arguing with you. Just trying to point out it's going to get paid for one way or the other no matter what you want to call it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:38 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
To put this another way:

We all know about Grover Norquist and the tea baggers' pledge not to raise taxes for any reason. Well, what would the public reaction have been if either instead, or in response, Congressional deomcrats all promised not to cut spending for any reason? Just tell me honestly if you think that would have drawn more bad press? I know it would have. And I say why? What the tea baggers did was just as stupid and childish as that would have been.


Again, you have to take the fiscal climate into account.
When there's a big recession and skyrocketing unemployment, telling everyone you promise not not raise their taxes is a good PR move.
Whether it's childish or not.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:23 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
A bad economic climate is just as much a reason NOT to cut spending as it is to cut taxes, and that's not even mentioned. I mean, the 99% gets far more value out of their tax dollars in services than they have to shell out. Only people who don't get more bang from their buck in taxes are the super-wealthy and the uber-wealthy. Cutting government spending is not in the majority's self-interest.


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:59 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
A bad economic climate is just as much a reason NOT to cut spending as it is to cut taxes, and that's not even mentioned. I mean, the 99% gets far more value out of their tax dollars in services than they have to shell out. Only people who don't get more bang from their buck in taxes are the super-wealthy and the uber-wealthy. Cutting government spending is not in the majority's self-interest.

You don't think we need to pare back our defense budget? Since 2002, we've spent $600B on defense alone. That's a lot of coin. Government contracts are the biggest waste of money you can imagine - you have people getting paid 200k/yr to do something that an active duty service member would/could/used to do for 60k/yr (including adjustment for benefits).

I don't think cuts in government spending need to be in services, but the majority of services you receive are from local government anyways!

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:25 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
Cutting government spending is not in the majority's self-interest.


Yeah? Let's ask some Greeks about that.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:38 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
NYIntensity wrote:
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
A bad economic climate is just as much a reason NOT to cut spending as it is to cut taxes, and that's not even mentioned. I mean, the 99% gets far more value out of their tax dollars in services than they have to shell out. Only people who don't get more bang from their buck in taxes are the super-wealthy and the uber-wealthy. Cutting government spending is not in the majority's self-interest.

You don't think we need to pare back our defense budget? Since 2002, we've spent $600B on defense alone. That's a lot of coin. Government contracts are the biggest waste of money you can imagine - you have people getting paid 200k/yr to do something that an active duty service member would/could/used to do for 60k/yr (including adjustment for benefits).

I don't think cuts in government spending need to be in services, but the majority of services you receive are from local government anyways!

Yes, I do think defense spending, and specifically contracts should be cut. But that's not what "cutting spending" usually means these days. In fact, I believe defense was specifically off the table in the tea baggers' plans, even though they wanted to cut 50 bagillion dollars that they couldn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:06 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
And it's not just defense contracts where a private contractor gets paid far more to do the same job as a civil servant. That's what "privatization" is all about. You take something seen as a public good, and you run it for profit because somehow that's going to cost less. But just like with the defense contractors, same thing has to get done. Only now you have a company skimming a profit off the top of the same operation with the same costs. How's that gonna cost less? It's not. Only way it could is by slashing the labor costs. So you end up with a situation where the people on top are syphoning most of the resources for themselves, and the worker gets less. That's the way private business runs, it isn't for the people, it's for the few. Government is for the people, it ain't a fucking business.


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:26 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
And it's not just defense contracts where a private contractor gets paid far more to do the same job as a civil servant. That's what "privatization" is all about. You take something seen as a public good, and you run it for profit because somehow that's going to cost less. But just like with the defense contractors, same thing has to get done. Only now you have a company skimming a profit off the top of the same operation with the same costs. How's that gonna cost less? It's not. Only way it could is by slashing the labor costs. So you end up with a situation where the people on top are syphoning most of the resources for themselves, and the worker gets less. That's the way private business runs, it isn't for the people, it's for the few. Government is for the people, it ain't a fucking business.

I think we're arguing the same point here?

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:31 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Not arguing, just expanding the point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:12 am 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/12/s ... ve-people/

Okay, Santorum thinks that the endangered species act is putting "critters on a pedestal".

i can't even begin to say how wrong this is. i spend a lot of time working under it. preserving biodiversity is a big deal. ugh. the only time it even is a REAL issue is when the critical habitat is being destroyed. and for a species to have critical habitat, it's usually not a big area. avoid it with development, dick.


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:28 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
So what your saying here Pat, and now I'm paraphrasing, is that you are planning on voting for Santorum right?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:37 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
So what I'm taking away from his comments is that because the bible says god gave us dominion over the earth, we can basically just steam roll it for our needs. All impacts on biodiversification and pollution aren't as important as the immediate gain we get from exploiting a resource. Okay....loud and clear. The earth is our bitch.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:49 am 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
there are a lot of people who are polarized on what the original translation was: dominion or stewardship. the part i am most pissed about is that he used them interchangeably like they are the same word. stewardship is NOT dominion.

I'm a christian, i believe in God. if i were responsible for the extinction of an animal, when I die, I'd expect God to ask me if I thought I was being a good steward of HIS creatures by permitting a pipeline through critical habitat for an endangered species. i'd be embarrassed as all hell and would be ashamed.

his rhetoric is absolutely disgusting. i can understand viewpoints that conflicted with mine. had he said "we were granted dominion over the beasts" and stayed consistent with that, i wouldn't be as mad. to do stuff like this is reprehensible. i'd love to punch him right in his stupid pretty boy face.


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
 Post subject: Re: Rick Santorum
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:54 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
Christians love him. We, as a country, are fucked. Because there is no other hope, people have turned to "God".

The world depicted in V for Vendetta isn't so far fetched...

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron