Rick Santorum wants to ban porn

[Hokahey]

would end federal government intervention in to the lives of homosexuals etc.

But not State! Fuck that!

Right, which is good, because when states have the right to declare gay marriage legal and nothing the feds do can supercede that we're going to be in good shape. Just like drug legalization. This is a progressive nation, and states will fall in line with the will of the people and have. Maybe not all states, but that's better than allowing the feds to make universal policy that affect states that WANT to legalize gay marriage. Let the best state win and keep the fed out of it. The liberal social agenda would be advanced by leaps and bounds if the fed simply stopped superceding state law.

[Hype]

would end federal government intervention in to the lives of homosexuals etc.

But not State! Fuck that!

Right, which is good, because when states have the right to declare gay marriage legal and nothing the feds do can supercede that we're going to be in good shape. Just like drug legalization. This is a progressive nation, and states will fall in line with the will of the people and have. Maybe not all states, but that's better than allowing the feds to make universal policy that affect states that WANT to legalize gay marriage. Let the best state win and keep the fed out of it. The liberal social agenda would be advanced by leaps and bounds if the fed simply stopped superceding state law.

I'm not so sure that the United States is a very progressive nation, by comparison to the rest of the affluent Western nations... In the 60s and 70s, the New Left certainly pushed the country toward progress, but many of those things were done years after they'd already been accomplished in other countries (and with more opposition).

The US is also the most religious country in the first world, and has a massive evangelical minority (the size of the population of Canada...) that fights progress at every step. It should be embarassing that so few Americans believe in Evolution, and so forth.

I think it's interesting that you recognize that not all states will support minority rights, but you seem to think that's fine because this is better than federal control... Wait... what? How does that work? Why is regional inequality better than federally mandated equality across the entire country? I gotta say, I just don't get it... and your last sentence makes no sense to me either.

You're not alone in thinking like this... a libertarian colleague of mine did his Masters work at the LSE (or as I fondly refer to it "Hayekistan"), in London... and we argue about this all the time... but he has ceded quite a bit of ground to me over the year and my aim is to turn him into at least a centrist liberal within the next 3 years.

[Pure Method]

Hoka, you know they are closing a bunch of US army bases in Europe as part of the Pentagon spending cuts? But I won't try and give Obama too much credit for that, since it doesn't support your claims...amidoingitright?

[Hokahey]

Hoka, you know they are closing a bunch of US army bases in Europe as part of the Pentagon spending cuts? But I won't try and give Obama too much credit for that, since it doesn't support your claims...amidoingitright?

Nope. You're doing it wrong. You can't take one anectdotal circumstance and declare Obama successful at reducing defense spending. As Obama himself said when defending the cuts:

Even after the strategy is fully implemented, he said, "the defense budget will still be larger than it was at the end of the Bush administration."

Some spending cuts.

[Hokahey]

Obama is essentially rearranging chairs. The cuts are to active war spending. Not hard to do with the preplanned draw down in Iraq.

[Pure Method]

It wasn't about the money, just reducing our foreign presence. Or wait is it really ALL about the money?

EDIT: the fact that it's bundled with a package for spending cuts is incidental more than anything, the bases closing is a big deal.

[Hokahey]

It wasn't about the money, just reducing our foreign presence. Or wait is it really ALL about the money?

EDIT: the fact that it's bundled with a package for spending cuts is incidental more than anything, the bases closing is a big deal.

Why are these bases closing a "big deal?"

[creep]

i just read this. i thought it was funny. i took two american history courses in a california college.

Santorum made the claim at a Wisconsin campaign stop on Monday, telling an audience, "I was just reading something last night from the state of California that...seven or eight of the California system of universities don't even teach an American history course. It's not even available to be taught."

[mockbee]

i just read this. i thought it was funny. i took two american history courses in a california college.

Santorum made the claim at a Wisconsin campaign stop on Monday, telling an audience, "I was just reading something last night from the state of California that...seven or eight of the California system of universities don't even teach an American history course. It's not even available to be taught."

By God, he is absolutely right?!!!!! But not for why he thinks... what a moron and disgrace to Americans.........

Of the big ten (+1 including UC-Hastings) campuses one is UCSF, exclusively a graduate and post-grad/medical school, so no, no American History courses. And UC Hastings is exclusively a law school, so no, no American History.
And of the 23 Cal State campuses, you have a whole range of schools, one being the California Maritime Academy where you can only major in:
Transportation & Engineering Management (M.S.)[3]
Marine Transportation (B.S.)[4]
Marine Engineering Technology (B.S.)[5]
Facilities Engineering Technology (B.S.)[6]
Mechanical Engineering (B.S.)[7]
Global Studies and Maritime Affairs (B.A.)[8]
International Business and Logistics (B.S.)[9]

So no, no American History.......

What a dolt.

[Hype]

Those are not universities in the normal sense, which I think is more like "liberal arts college", right? Americans use the words weirdly.

[creep]

one being the California Maritime Academy where you can only major in:
Transportation & Engineering Management (M.S.)[3]
Marine Transportation (B.S.)[4]
Marine Engineering Technology (B.S.)[5]
Facilities Engineering Technology (B.S.)[6]
Mechanical Engineering (B.S.)[7]
Global Studies and Maritime Affairs (B.A.)[8]
International Business and Logistics (B.S.)[9]

So no, no American History.......

What a dolt.

i was all set to go there a few years ago. got admitted, bought a boat to live on, moved to vallejo, paid my deposit and then decided at the last minute to wait one more year. i then screwed everything up and bought a house. there is a good chance i still may go in 2013. i'm taking a calculus course right now just in case.

[mockbee]

one being the California Maritime Academy where you can only major in:
Transportation & Engineering Management (M.S.)[3]
Marine Transportation (B.S.)[4]
Marine Engineering Technology (B.S.)[5]
Facilities Engineering Technology (B.S.)[6]
Mechanical Engineering (B.S.)[7]
Global Studies and Maritime Affairs (B.A.)[8]
International Business and Logistics (B.S.)[9]

So no, no American History.......

What a dolt.

i was all set to go there a few years ago. got admitted, bought a boat to live on, moved to vallejo, paid my deposit and then decided at the last minute to wait one more year. i then screwed everything up and bought a house. there is a good chance i still may go in 2013. i'm taking a calculus course right now just in case.

Do you go out in the bay often? My wife paid this Russian guy to take us out on his sail boat on my birthday, it was a lot of fun. I steered under the GG bridge and just about capsized the boat....

[creep]

one being the California Maritime Academy where you can only major in:
Transportation & Engineering Management (M.S.)[3]
Marine Transportation (B.S.)[4]
Marine Engineering Technology (B.S.)[5]
Facilities Engineering Technology (B.S.)[6]
Mechanical Engineering (B.S.)[7]
Global Studies and Maritime Affairs (B.A.)[8]
International Business and Logistics (B.S.)[9]

So no, no American History.......

What a dolt.

i was all set to go there a few years ago. got admitted, bought a boat to live on, moved to vallejo, paid my deposit and then decided at the last minute to wait one more year. i then screwed everything up and bought a house. there is a good chance i still may go in 2013. i'm taking a calculus course right now just in case.

Do you go out in the bay often? My wife paid this Russian guy to take us out on his sail boat on my birthday, it was a lot of fun. I steered under the GG bridge and just about capsized the boat....

the boat i bought didn't move. it was strictly a liveaboard. my neighbors had sailboats and i went out with them a few times. we never went under the golden gate. it was great...i miss that. i want to make it out to the farallones some day.

[chaos]

Rick Santorum has finally dropped out of the race.

Some highlights during his campaign:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ap ... lican?CMP=

"You're not gonna use the pink ball. We're not gonna let you do that. Not on camera."

Santorum, as overheard by a Reuters journalist, intervening to stop a young Republican picking up a pink bowling ball.

"My concern is being in combat in that situation. Instead of being focused on the mission, they may be more concerned with protecting someone who may be in a vulnerable position, a woman in a vulnerable position."

On the reaction of male soldiers to women in combat roles.

"The reason was the British national health system. Since people have the dependency they are never ever really free again."

On why he believes Margaret Thatcher left office lamenting she had not matched the achievements of Ronald Reagan.

"Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's OK, contraception is OK. It's not OK. It's a licence to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

On birth control.

"All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they're not Palestinians. There is no 'Palestinian'. This is Israeli land."

On the Palestinians.

"Is anyone saying same-sex couples can't love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?"

On gay marriage.

"Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?"

On the religion of the Republican frontrunner, Mitt Romney

"The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs [US General Educational Development tests] move up the economic ladder is just wrong."

On unmarried mothers, taken from his book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good

[Hype]

Fuck that guy so hard in the ass that he shits out his mouth. Seriously.

"The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs [US General Educational Development tests] move up the economic ladder is just wrong."

No it isn't. Now get the fuck out of the way and let the grown-ups play Politics. Gah.

[Pandemonium]

Glad he's out, but Romney is no stellar choice either. It's astonishing how the Republicans have failed to come up with any sort of serious contenders the past two elections. There's just no way anyone's gonna beat Obama this election. Hopefully it'll lead to serious rebooting of the amazingly fucked up Republican party.

[Matz]

so no banning of porn this time around? damn, that would have freed up a good amount of time for me

[Hokahey]

Hopefully it'll lead to serious rebooting of the amazingly fucked up Republican party.

I believe that's what's happening with Ron Paul and his supporters. Republicans are going to have to lean away from "values voters" and focus on courting the Libertarian vote instead. By doing so they will attract one time Democrats such as myself who identify with their platform of social liberty.

As it stands, the Republicans stand for nothing but big defense spending and being anti-gay. Not going to win a lot of elections that way.

[Hype]

While I'd be cool with them doing something like that, Hoka (though not Paul's libertarianism, but rather, just social libertarianism generally), I can't imagine they'll actually do that, since there aren't enough libertarians to win an election.

There are 30+ million evangelical voters... Are there 30+ million Ron Paul supporters?

[Hokahey]

While I'd be cool with them doing something like that, Hoka (though not Paul's libertarianism, but rather, just social libertarianism generally)

Paul's Libertarianism is Libertarianism in America which includes Social Libertarianism.

I can't imagine they'll actually do that, since there aren't enough libertarians to win an election.

There are 30+ million evangelical voters... Are there 30+ million Ron Paul supporters?

There doesn't need to be 30 million Ron Paul supporters.

There needs to be as many of the evangelicals voting for the Libertarian/Republican candidate as possible with the number of drop outs compensated by traditional Democratic voters who support this candidate because of his Social Libertarianism.

Polls suggest evangelicals WILL vote for a Libertarian/Republican and will choose them over Neo-Con/Republicans actively courting them.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/ ... erwise.php

I am inclined to believe that a Republican/libertarian candidate that were to also point out their socially liberal views in an effort to then court over liberal democrats could make up the numbers for any lost evangelicals.

[creep]

While I'd be cool with them doing something like that, Hoka (though not Paul's libertarianism, but rather, just social libertarianism generally)

Paul's Libertarianism is Libertarianism in America which includes Social Libertarianism.

I can't imagine they'll actually do that, since there aren't enough libertarians to win an election.

There are 30+ million evangelical voters... Are there 30+ million Ron Paul supporters?

There doesn't need to be 30 million Ron Paul supporters.

There needs to be as many of the evangelicals voting for the Libertarian/Republican candidate as possible with the number of drop outs compensated by traditional Democratic voters who support this candidate because of his Social Libertarianism.

Polls suggest evangelicals WILL vote for a Libertarian/Republican and will choose them over Neo-Con/Republicans actively courting them.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/ ... erwise.php

I am inclined to believe that a Republican/libertarian candidate that were to also point out their socially liberal views in an effort to then court over liberal democrats could make up the numbers for any lost evangelicals.

at this point i would probably vote a libertarian candidate over obama.

[Hokahey]

While I'd be cool with them doing something like that, Hoka (though not Paul's libertarianism, but rather, just social libertarianism generally)

Paul's Libertarianism is Libertarianism in America which includes Social Libertarianism.

I can't imagine they'll actually do that, since there aren't enough libertarians to win an election.

There are 30+ million evangelical voters... Are there 30+ million Ron Paul supporters?

There doesn't need to be 30 million Ron Paul supporters.

There needs to be as many of the evangelicals voting for the Libertarian/Republican candidate as possible with the number of drop outs compensated by traditional Democratic voters who support this candidate because of his Social Libertarianism.

Polls suggest evangelicals WILL vote for a Libertarian/Republican and will choose them over Neo-Con/Republicans actively courting them.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/ ... erwise.php

I am inclined to believe that a Republican/libertarian candidate that were to also point out their socially liberal views in an effort to then court over liberal democrats could make up the numbers for any lost evangelicals.

at this point i would probably vote a libertarian candidate over obama.

It's widely reported as the third largest and fastest growing party, so you're not alone. It appeals to both fiscal conservatives, anti war types, social liberals etc.

I'd go so far as to guess that the majority of Americans would identify as "fiscally conservative/socially liberal", and should a candidate come along that speaks to that, appears viable in a general election, and speaks more eloquently about what they're trying to accomplish than Ron Paul they could win as a Republican.

And in my opinion, unless the Democrats do something so ridiculous the country swings away in reaction, it's the only hope the Republicans have.

The loony evangelicals can't carry a general election alone. A big tent comprised of half the Dems (socially liberal) and half the Repubs (fiscally conservative) labeled "Republican" is what the Repubicans need.

[Hype]

I'd go so far as to guess that the majority of Americans would identify as "fiscally conservative/socially liberal"

I suspect there are conflicting beliefs and intuitions at work in most people's minds about these issues.

The Cato Institute does a lot of work trying to figure this out... Here's one bit of it:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/more-dat ... al-voters/

Tarrance found that 23 percent of likely voters declare themselves conservative on fiscal issues but not on social issues (and only 7 percent say they’re socially but not fiscally conservative, and they’re almost all Democrats), and that number is very close to numbers found by other pollsters. But when Zogby asked people, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” 59 percent said yes. That’s a much larger number.

This suggests to me that people are somewhat conflicted about how to arrange their beliefs. They self-ascribe those views perhaps because they think it sounds nice, but it remains to be seen whether and how they actually vote, or rather, on what the people or policies they actually tend to vote for actually amount to in practice.

The actual working out of socially libertarian viewpoints can be tricky since there are conflicting intuitions about when people are wronged or to be left alone in many scenarios.

There's a CLASSIC scene on The Simpsons where the teachers are going to strike, and there's a meeting in which Principal Skinner keeps telling the townspeople that in order to give the teachers what they want, they will have to raise taxes, and then Mrs. Krabbapel steps up and says "But you'll be mortgaging your children's future!", and the voices you hear in the audience keep saying "Oh yeah, the taxes!", "Oh right, children are important!"... and so on. I think they hit the nail on the head.

[crater]

at this point i would probably vote a libertarian candidate over obama.

You live in California. It doesn't matter how you vote for President, when the only elections that really matter are state and local.

[Hokahey]

I'd go so far as to guess that the majority of Americans would identify as "fiscally conservative/socially liberal"

I suspect there are conflicting beliefs and intuitions at work in most people's minds about these issues.

The Cato Institute does a lot of work trying to figure this out... Here's one bit of it:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/more-dat ... al-voters/

Tarrance found that 23 percent of likely voters declare themselves conservative on fiscal issues but not on social issues (and only 7 percent say they’re socially but not fiscally conservative, and they’re almost all Democrats), and that number is very close to numbers found by other pollsters. But when Zogby asked people, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” 59 percent said yes. That’s a much larger number.

This suggests to me that people are somewhat conflicted about how to arrange their beliefs. They self-ascribe those views perhaps because they think it sounds nice, but it remains to be seen whether and how they actually vote, or rather, on what the people or policies they actually tend to vote for actually amount to in practice.

The actual working out of socially libertarian viewpoints can be tricky since there are conflicting intuitions about when people are wronged or to be left alone in many scenarios.

There's a CLASSIC scene on The Simpsons where the teachers are going to strike, and there's a meeting in which Principal Skinner keeps telling the townspeople that in order to give the teachers what they want, they will have to raise taxes, and then Mrs. Krabbapel steps up and says "But you'll be mortgaging your children's future!", and the voices you hear in the audience keep saying "Oh yeah, the taxes!", "Oh right, children are important!"... and so on. I think they hit the nail on the head.

So in essence that proves my point. And certainly there are finer points to each belief, but I think most people in America have a live and let live mentality so long as you're not forcibly taking what I've earned to support poorly managed entitlement programs/bailouts etc.

Yes that is an oversimplification of complex belief systems/political theories but I also think presidential races are often won on overly simplified platforms.

I would suspect that if the numbers were analyzed, most presidentail races are won by uninformed voters. Each party has their base and their fringe that are probably not enough to put them over the top. What does are all of the "average" voters that show up and vote for who they like best and have very little working knowledge of the actual issues. These are the kind of voters that would respond to someone saying "I'm the do-what-you-want-so-long-as-you-dont-take-what's-mine candidate." They don't need to and possibly cant understand that platform being broken down in to specifics.

Anecdotal story - I work with a lot of highly educated people that handle complex lending transactions. On a whim, a politically savvy friend of mine and I attempted to prove my theory by quizzing the dozen or so people around us that all voted in the last election on political platforms. When that quickly proved how uninformed they were, we went to questions like "who is the current VP?" The vast majority of them couldn't name Joe Biden.

This is an uninformed country that votes for who they like the best based on soundbites and general ideas. I'm guessing the majority of the 59% that are fiscally conservative/socially liberal would vote for someone that is good looking and charismatic and simply proclaims that they are the same.