# Santorum is bat-shit crazy



## USMarine75 (Jan 5, 2012)

TNR Staff: A Long List Of The Most Terrible Things Rick Santorum Has Ever Said | The New Republic

Which Is Creepier: President Santorum Or President Paul? A TNR Survey. | The New Republic


*Well I thought I was a Republican... but they're all nuckin futs. Especially this guy.*


----------



## Razzy (Jan 5, 2012)

It genuinely pisses me off he did as well as he did in the Iowa caucus.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 5, 2012)

I'll just leave this here:

OUR ABORTION WAS DIFFERENT: WHEN THE ANTI-CHOICE...


----------



## USMarine75 (Jan 5, 2012)

synrgy said:


> I'll just leave this here:
> 
> OUR ABORTION WAS DIFFERENT: WHEN THE ANTI-CHOICE...


 
WTF. 

Is Bachmann the _least crazy_ *crazy* on this ticket? ugh.






What's sad is these people are _crazier_ in real life then when SNL does a skit on them. The Rick Perry skit (re: oops) wasn't as funny/crazy as the real F-up!


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 5, 2012)

He's such a piece of shit, I hope someone firebombs his face


----------



## USMarine75 (Jan 5, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> He's such a piece of shit, I hope someone firebombs his face


 
Tell me how you really feel? Let it out...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 5, 2012)

I just dont know if I could sleep knowing I'd never be able to go to Drak's wedding


----------



## Randy (Jan 5, 2012)

USMarine75 said:


> Is Bachmann the _least crazy_ *crazy* on this ticket? ugh.



She dropped off after she came second to last in the Iowa caucus.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jan 5, 2012)

^ I'm going to have to start a "help find me a candidate" thread...

Maybe Trump will still run... at least he'll make the demise of the US entertaining. Plus I'd like to think I'm voting more for the First Lady than the prez... (she's no Eleanor Roosevelt but hey)


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 5, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I just dont know if I could sleep knowing I'd never be able to go to Drak's wedding


 
As if he actually gives a fuck about having permission. You know there'd just be a dark ritual at a location disclosed to a select few.


----------



## Randy (Jan 5, 2012)

As a NYS resident, I already have my "hot first lady" fix


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 5, 2012)

Good lordy... I didn't hear a word she said but that's a fine piece of woman.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 5, 2012)

Wow Canadian politicians suck


----------



## cwhitey2 (Jan 5, 2012)

synrgy said:


> I'll just leave this here:
> 
> OUR ABORTION WAS DIFFERENT: WHEN THE ANTI-CHOICE...



wow


----------



## Blind Theory (Jan 6, 2012)

I heard somewhere that Santorum and his wife gave birth to a premie that died shortly after and wouldn't let them take it. Instead they slept with it over night then took it home to show their children before disposing of it. I don't remember where I heard that or if I read it so it may not be true. I'm sure a quick google search would give us an answer.


Although, and I'll get bitched at for this, I do have to semi agree with some stuff he says. Obamacare is horrible, if it wasn't why don't the law makers have to abide by it and why did the majority of citizens try to stop it before it was jammed down our throats? And the global warming stuff, looking at our planets history on a long term basis makes it apparent that our climate has fluctuated up and down countless times. 

Other than that, Santorum and every single other god damn Republican candidate are horrible. Obama is horrible as well. Modern day politicians are really good at lubing us up and fucking us into the ground.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 6, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Wow Canadian politicians suck


 
There's always Marc Emery.
Oh wait, we took him away and jailed him so he wouldn't keep "hurting people".


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jan 6, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> Modern day politicians are really good at lubing us up and fucking us into the ground.



Right on except for the lube part.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> Modern day politicians are really good at lubing us up and fucking us into the ground.


 
Seems to me they always have been. They're just either getting worse at hiding it or we're finally wising up.

EDIT: And I agree with WickedSymphony... Since when has there been lube?


----------



## JazzandMetal (Jan 6, 2012)

All the Catholics love Rick Santorum, and I think he stinks. Going nuts on the world and spending all our money with Bush is hardly Catholic. 

His own nephew won't vote for him: Ron Paul | Rick Santorum | The trouble with my uncle, Rick Santorum | The Daily Caller

Ron Paul is . 

He isn't perfect, but he makes sure he always says exactly what he thinks. He bucks both parties and says so. He has the only real sanity in either party, excepting his son and maybe a couple others.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 6, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> Obamacare



That's my trigger word. Tread lightly. 

We've been down this road on this forum before, but let's do it again, I guess: There's no such thing as Obamacare. The health care legislation Obama proposed (which I fully supported) was DOA in the Senate. The legislation which actually passed into law included _more_ than _two hundred_ amendments introduced by Republican representatives. If you feel the desperate need to blow hot air, then call it Boehnercare. It'd be a more accurate description.

Also:


----------



## USMarine75 (Jan 6, 2012)

Please read Griftopia by Matt Taibbi if you want a good inside view of what really derailed "Obamacare". The whole Republicans vs Democrats idea is BS and has been BS for 50 years. The insurance companies are not federally regulated at all. They had a law pushed through 50 years ago that was indefinitely extended that puts them outside the domain of any federal regulation. They are only barely state regulated and they are in bed with every state legislature.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

synrgy said:


> That's my trigger word. Tread lightly.
> 
> We've been down this road on this forum before, but let's do it again, I guess: There's no such thing as Obamacare. The health care legislation Obama proposed (which I fully supported) was DOA in the Senate. The legislation which actually passed into law included _more_ than _two hundred_ amendments introduced by Republican representatives. If you feel the desperate need to blow hot air, then call it Boehnercare. It'd be a more accurate description.


 
You know anything that goes wrong for anyone is Obama's fault.


----------



## Fiction (Jan 6, 2012)

I just can't take a politician seriously unless they're going to be shot upon election 

Also, I don't know whethers it just cause i'm now 18, and dabbling into reading about politics or its always been like this, but there are some truly crazy views in politics.


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

VOTE RON PAUL!!


----------



## synrgy (Jan 6, 2012)

NickDowe said:


> VOTE RON PAUL!!



 

No thanks. 

He has a lot of _great_ ideas, but - IMHO - most of them are cancelled out by his _completely crazy_ ideas.


----------



## Randy (Jan 6, 2012)

AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS, BRO


----------



## sell2792 (Jan 6, 2012)

NickDowe said:


> VOTE RON PAUL!!



Hell yeah! 


I'll just leave this here:

Rick Santorum-Linked Universal Health Services Facility: Fraud, Assault And Alleged 'Exorcism'

Rick Santorum Iowa Speech - YouTube

Mitt Romney Iowa Victory Speech - YouTube

And last but definitely not least.
Fake "Mitt Romney" Endorses Ron Paul - YouTube


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

I dont want to make this a flame war and I respect everyones opinion, but may I ask which of his ideas do you find crazy?

I hear a lot of people in the media chuckle everytime they mention Ron Paul's name and i cant seem to rap my head around why his ideas sound so crazy. He has been right 100% about our economy for the last 30 years. 

is it the fed reserve stuff? the gold standard? or his foreign policy?

Ron Paul&#39;s Words of Warning From 1983 to 2008 - YouTube

I ask you to just watch this video.. not trying to change anyone's mind just want you to hear him out and see that for 30 years where he has NEVER flip flopped or changed his story.


----------



## Murmel (Jan 6, 2012)

Santorum

I lol'd so hard


----------



## synrgy (Jan 6, 2012)

Let me google that for you 

Also, this:
The Real Ron Paul: In His Own Words &#124; MyFDL


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 6, 2012)

I don't vote, at all. I've never seen a presidential candidate that I thought was good enough.

About the republican candidates:
They're all a little off kilter, especially Ron Paul.

Everytime I see him on TV, doing a debate or whatnot, it all just sounds like he's saying what everyone wants to hear, especially the young/new voters. Hell just saying legalize drugs or pot, or whatever he's advocating, will get the attention of stoners everywhere, and get them to vote for him, simply because of that.

As far as I can tell, he's saying whatever he can to try and get nominated, and will not do a single thing he says when he's in office, as is the type for anyone running, really.

Rick Santorum really is a piece of shit though. The stuff he's said about the gay community, is just appaling, the same for Michelle Bachman, and I'm so glad she's done.

About Obama: I think he came in with a bit of a naive perspective. He was able to do a lot the first year or so, and actually had the most productive congress in a few decades. Right now, I don't think he or the other democrats are trying hard enough, they've bent over time and time again, to show they're either willing to try to work with the Conservatives, or they just don't know how to fight back. You can only do so much when the people on your side are useless, and the people you're up against have an "immoveable mountain" complex.

If he gets re-elected, I hope he's learned something the last 3 years, and knows how to handle the conservatives, because I don't think enough will be voted out to have a super majority for the Dems again. Even then, they'd probably screw that up, too.

Also, can we please stop saying the country is going down the shitter? This is nothing like it was in the 30s, nor is it like any low income country, where they're severely underdeveloped. Seriously people, reality check is that we're still doing pretty decently with the way things have transpired over the last decade or so.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jan 6, 2012)

NickDowe said:


> I dont want to make this a flame war and I respect everyones opinion, but may I ask which of his ideas do you find crazy?
> 
> I hear a lot of people in the media chuckle everytime they mention Ron Paul's name and i cant seem to rap my head around why his ideas sound so crazy. He has been right 100% about our economy for the last 30 years.
> 
> ...



well.. being off the gold standard didn't kill us, it was the housing bubble that burst (government responsible). basically his economic policies are pretty good, but i believe fractionalized banking has done good things since it was implemented, and i also believe you can effectively run the fed without doing away with it. so there are our basic disagreements, not enough to normally get me to not vote for someone but whatever. 

its his foreign policy... oh my god is it bad. i've been accused of being an idiot because i dont agree with him (paulbots) so i'll lay out my opinion first: 

-yes i dont think we need to police the world and i do think we should start closing every non-vital base in foreign countries 

-the fact that we are waging any current conflicts is insane (Libya) 

-i think we should give up on our current efforts in Afghanistan, the peace in the country cannot be kept because there in no centralized power in that region. that being said there some good things happening in the country that could not happen if we weren't there (look at what Tom Freston has being doing in the area). 

however Paul has no foreign policy. zip. zero. nadda. he tries to say he would be non-confrontational, but even the presidents in years past who never engaged in foreign conflicts had a foreign policy. every time he's asked he goes on tirade about how the middle-east is messed up.. no mr. paul we wanted to know your plans going forward, not what makes you mad. the people want detailed motherfucking policy decisions, not a high school term paper on why we're in the middle east. 

which brings us to mother fucking Iran. "i dont have problems with countries getting nuclear weapons because they get more respect"............ ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????? you have no problem with a crazy man having a nuke? think whatever you want about Israel as a country, but when a man constantly says he wants to take out whole country full of people (y'know human lives and such) you think its ok for him to have a weapon of nuclear capability???? "Israel can defend itself, and their weapon would be no threat to us" well no shit sherlock thats not the point, with a weapon like that, Iran can do something worse for the world economy than attacking Israel. he's right about us being more timid around countries with nuclear capability, so why would you want regime having a nuclear weapon around the largest fucking oil producing sector known to man? if they tie up distribution in that region you are going to see global oil prices skyrocket. im taking 1970s era gasoline rationing you-can-only-fill-up-on-even-days bad. and pretending America starts its own oil production domestically tomorrow, we dont have the ten years to wait for our own energy to come to capacity to affect the global markets. we will be hit hard, Europe will be hit harder. 

that is why he's fucking insane. and that is why he has a strong under-25 years old following. because this is the age group is the most selfish known to america. then think primarily inwardly. "hell yeah ron paul doesnt wanna fight wars more money for us america fuck yeah!" they have no concept of global markets and how our unwillingness to act affects other countries. 

basically Pandora's Box was opened after the spanish american war. we entered the world stage as a military power (despite the fact that an army could've defeated the Spanish but whatever). now if ron paul was truly a student of history (he's not, he's a student of selective history), he would know that once a country makes this step there is no turning back... unless there's a financial meltdown.. but trust me, we aren't near to that as others would make you think. and if any GOP candidate wins, the domestic budget is being cut, so no problem. 

then there's the matter of a stalemate in congress. if RP is elected he will get nothing done. why? too many people in congress dont like him. his own party doesn't like him. the democrats dont like him. if he wants anything done he'll write executive orders which OMG!! thats not a libertarian position!! so yeah 8 straight years of deadlock, that sounds awesome. 

and then i should say as a man of jewish decent, RP has bothered me. well there's good reason. those articles he published were in bad taste but not actually that racially offensive. however his constant association with white supremacists is slightly concerning 

Archived-Articles: The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jan 6, 2012)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> well.. being off the gold standard didn't kill us, it was the housing bubble that burst (government responsible). basically his economic policies are pretty good, but i believe fractionalized banking has done good things since it was implemented, and i also believe you can effectively run the fed without doing away with it. so there are our basic disagreements, not enough to normally get me to not vote for someone but whatever.
> 
> its his foreign policy... oh my god is it bad. i've been accused of being an idiot because i dont agree with him (paulbots) so i'll lay out my opinion first:
> 
> ...




that being said, Santorum is his own worst enemy


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

The value of the dollar has dropped 93% since the introduction of the federal reserve system of 1913 and that is fact. The value of gold has been pretty steady. The idea that you have to print more money to stave off an economic collapse has been proven to be flawed time and time again as it only temporarily re-inflates the bubble while growing our national debt. The idea that a slow growing economy backed by "any standard" has no way to protect itself against a recession is a myth created by bankers to force us into a system where we allow a private bank to print our money for us and dictate the % rates at which we must repay this process. The reason America fought for it's independence was because we refused to let the Bank of England print our money for us at a % rate that they would control. It only took 200 years for us to throw out the beliefs of our founding fathers for which this country was created. For the record both monetary systems work well on paper and has been debated by economic scholars for generations. The thing is you need a Pro-active Economy not a Reactive Currency to solve our debt crisis. 

For the record this isnt the regurgitation of some article i read or a Ron Paul speech. I have always been fascinated by economics and would have continued my major if I had not switched to Engineering. My younger brother has 2 business degrees and we live for this shit lol. As the older brother I have to stay on my game so he doesnt make an ass out of me at Xmas dinner!

Politics and Economics will always be debated and as long as you stay open minded and dont take anything personally I am always up for debates.


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 6, 2012)

The value of Gold has skyrocketed recently due to fear mongering from the conservative camp. "INVEST IN GOLD, IT'S THE ONLY STABLE CURRENCY" Price goes up and up and up, for inflated, bullshit reasons.

We fought for our independence because we weren't getting representation in the House in England. We were being taxed, with no say in the matter. It had nothing to do with the bank of england.

Also: Business degrees are a dime a dozen, it's the go to degree for people that can't do Engineering, or can't decide on anything else. That's why most any corporation will take a Business degree, since it's the most common. Just saying.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 6, 2012)

^ your last paragraph really says something about you


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> well.. being off the gold standard didn't kill us, it was the housing bubble that burst (government responsible). basically his economic policies are pretty good, but i believe fractionalized banking has done good things since it was implemented, and i also believe you can effectively run the fed without doing away with it. so there are our basic disagreements, not enough to normally get me to not vote for someone but whatever.
> 
> its his foreign policy... oh my god is it bad. i've been accused of being an idiot because i dont agree with him (paulbots) so i'll lay out my opinion first:
> 
> ...


 


His demographic is a bit over hyped, he has supporters of all ages hailing from both parties. He is disliked in congress because he is one of the few Congressman that isn't influenced by "Special Interest Groups" and disliked by the republican party because he is actually a Liberitarean which conflicts whith some of the parties views.

As for his foreign policy, I get it. If you are a hardcore humanitarian it bothers you to see a region ruled by oppression and you believe it is the duty of the United states to come to their Aid. That is a completely admirable thing and i do not fault your beliefs. However, we have completely thrusted ourselves into this part of the world and into this role of peace keeper over and over and over the past 20-30 years we have supported people like Saddam and Osama when it was to our benefit and then flipped when it's not. (Fact) We have sunk trillions of dollars funding wars and unrest in the region from every angle. Nothing was ever accomplished there. We have made enemies in the region now for our constant occupation of the area. Everytime it back fires the US gets egg in the face from a global stance and we have lost the respect of the world as a super power. We can not continue to sustain this foreign policy of humanitarianism while our own Economy is in dire need of reform. So the argument is what is better for our country a foreign policy based on Isolationism or one of Interventionism? To say that pulling out of a region that hates our guts, rebuilding our military defense programs, protecting our own borders, while re establishing a solid monetary system in a free market economy that promotes growth and trade is a worse idea then constant occupation and sustaining multiple campaigns against idealists on foreign soils while battling a failing economy is complete horse shit. Which path do you think makes us a stronger presence in the global economy? 

Lastly, I don't have the exact figures but i am sure someone could look them up for me, but i believe there is something like 4,000 off shore drilling sites in the gulf of Mexico and something like 200 refineries in and around New Orleans... Its not the amount of oil we have that makes us dependent on foreign oil but the Regulations and bureaucracy surrounding the oil we have that makes us dependent. We probably could not sustain a global oil market for very long but how does the world's need for oil make us the major player in the region when we have oil under our feet?


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

oh, and i am 33 not 25 lol

sarcasm:


----------



## ElRay (Jan 6, 2012)

synrgy said:


>


If this is what you want, fine, but do it right: Amend The Constitution. Nowhere in the document has the Federal Government been given the authority to force citizens to purchase insurance from private corporations (What Pelosicare -- a more accurate label -- requires), nor has it been given the authority to run a tax-payer/government-debt funded healthcare system.

Ray


----------



## Randy (Jan 6, 2012)

The Constitution isn't a list of what the government _can_ do, it's a list of what it _cannot_ do. /OT


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> Also, can we please stop saying the country is going down the shitter? This is nothing like it was in the 30s, nor is it like any low income country, where they're severely underdeveloped. Seriously people, reality check is that we're still doing pretty decently with the way things have transpired over the last decade or so.


 
Ahh but you forget that it's en vogue to say otherwise. Hell every company on the TV and/or radio is saying... "With the economy being how it is, we all know what you want... MORE OF OUR SHIT!!!! And it's only slightly more expensive than it used to be!" Most people just use it as a buzz word. Things aren't as good as they've been but not as bad as they could be at the same time.


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 6, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> ^ your last paragraph really says something about you


 Because I'd value the BA I'm working on in Computer Science - Computer Information Systems, with a focus in network security higher than someone going for the business management degree everyone else is working for?

edit:
damn those buzz words!


----------



## synrgy (Jan 6, 2012)

I'm sure we'll just agree to disagree here, and I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else, but I couldn't possibly care less whether or not a document written a few hundred years ago was adequately prepared for modern insurance companies to deny service to Citizens in desperate need of care. Further, I don't see why it's an issue of Constitutionality in the first place. We're legally required to do all kinds of things that aren't explicitly allowed or disallowed by the Constitution. What makes health care special?

Further, I'm pissed right the fuck off that we didn't get anywhere close to the solution the majority of us voted in support of when electing Obama to the White House.

What pisses me off more than anything is that - for the life of me - I can't even begin to imagine what the fuck is wrong with my countrymen that they don't WANT their fellow Americans to have access to health care. Seriously? Why not? To me, good health is the most basic of human rights. Perhaps that makes me a "bleeding heart"; so be it.

Also, "Pelosicare"? Maybe you missed the part about the 200+ Republican amendments?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 6, 2012)

ElRay said:


> If this is what you want, fine, but do it right: Amend The Constitution. Nowhere in the document has the Federal Government been given the authority to force citizens to purchase insurance from private corporations (What Pelosicare -- a more accurate label -- requires), nor has it been given the authority to run a tax-payer/government-debt funded healthcare system.
> 
> Ray



Indeed, the Constitution says nothing of the sort. However, Congress has pretty expansive authority under the Commerce Clause to pass legislation that affects interstate commerce. Fairly invasive legislation that affects individuals has passed Supreme Court scrutiny (see Wickard v. Filburn, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Ollie's BBQ, Gonzalez v. Raich, et al.) so the individual mandate is by no means slam-dunk unconstitutional.


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 6, 2012)

synrgy said:


> I'm sure we'll just agree to disagree here, and I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else, but I couldn't possibly care less whether or not a document written a few hundred years ago was adequately prepared for modern insurance companies to deny service to Citizens in desperate need of care. Further, I don't see why it's an issue of Constitutionality in the first place. We're legally required to do all kinds of things that aren't explicitly allowed or disallowed by the Constitution. What makes health care special?
> 
> Further, I'm pissed right the fuck off that we didn't get anywhere close to the solution the majority of us voted in support of when electing Obama to the White House.
> 
> ...


Mostly misinformation.

It's been ingrained in people's minds for the longest time that anything the government wants to do comes out of YOUR pocket, and it's going to the lazy welfare people that just sit around all day doing nothing. 

So people get pissed off, because all they're shown are the people ripping off the system, and not the ones it's actually helping. Hell, my mom was on it for a few months when she and my dad got divorced. But she still thinks it needs to go away, so the worthless bums are forced to get jobs.

She's also a Birther, so there you go. 

The problem is that no one actually knows what the Health Care reform bill is. There are still a lot of people that think there are Death Panels in the bill, and that it's a universal socialist program and that the government is the one issuing the insurance. And it's none of those things. Just like NDAA, "IT IMPRISONS US CITIZENS, WE'RE GONNA BE IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS"
When it doesn't, at all, but people still believe it, because that's what people like Ron Paul, having been saying to the people.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 6, 2012)

NickDowe said:


> I dont want to make this a flame war and I respect everyones opinion, but may I ask which of his ideas do you find crazy?
> 
> I hear a lot of people in the media chuckle everytime they mention Ron Paul's name and i cant seem to rap my head around why his ideas sound so crazy. He has been right 100% about our economy for the last 30 years.
> 
> ...



Hmm. The Fed Reserve, the Gold Standard, his foreign policy, the fact that he thinks that the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, the fact that he wants to completely destroy actual functioning parts of our government while leaving the paralyzed parts intact... the list goes on and on.

Consistency is not admirable if the position is insanity. It's like saying a serial rapist is admirable because he is consistent.


----------



## Randy (Jan 6, 2012)

synrgy said:


> I'm sure we'll just agree to disagree here, and I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else, but I couldn't possibly care less whether or not a document written a few hundred years ago was adequately prepared for modern insurance companies to deny service to Citizens in desperate need of care. Further, I don't see why it's an issue of Constitutionality in the first place. We're legally required to do all kinds of things that aren't explicitly allowed or disallowed by the Constitution. What makes health care special?
> 
> Further, I'm pissed right the fuck off that we didn't get anywhere close to the solution the majority of us voted in support of when electing Obama to the White House.
> 
> ...



I don't understand, therefore, death panels.


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

People love this scenario.. what if Billy gets into a car accident and goes into a coma and has no insurance, do we just let him die? My question is why does Billy not have Health Insurance? Why did that woman not get Health Insurance prior to needing it? If someone does not provide it for you that means you should go with out it or burden other hard working Americans with the task of providing it for you? 

Health Care cost needs to be addressed first before we can ever hope to curtail outrageous Insurance policy standards. Putting pressure on pharmaceutical companies and placing a cap on malpractice suits is a good start. Raise the age limit for dependents so that a child can be covered on his parents insurance until the age of 25. These are the things government is supposed to protect us from, controlling these policies and governing how a free market economy can set its rates and standards for health care in this country not the other way around. But these are the "Special interest groups" that fund campaigns and help politicians get into office so that they can ensure their own capitalist agenda. Obama is not going to turn around and slap restrictions on how the same people who got him elected do business. Instead he will turn us socialist and force the needs of the many onto an already over taxed middle class further separating the income inequality gap of this country!


FUCK IT! ELECT ME!


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 6, 2012)

Not to mention him wanting to remove the Citizen ship through birth on US soil.

That's part of what the country was founded on, coming to the US and trying to live the American Dream, and you wouldn't have to worry about your children, because if they were born here, they'd be Citizens of the US.

I don't know about you, but I don't think that's something the fore fathers would have wanted to be taken out. After all No one in this country would be a citizen if that weren't a law. 

Save for the Native Americans, and man did we screw that pooch.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 6, 2012)

I like how demonized public healthcare is in the US.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> Not to mention him wanting to remove the Citizen ship through birth on US soil.
> 
> That's part of what the country was founded on, coming to the US and trying to live the American Dream, and you wouldn't have to worry about your children, because if they were born here, they'd be Citizens of the US.
> 
> ...


 
You know damn well what that's about...


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 6, 2012)

NickDowe said:


> People love this scenario.. what if Billy gets into a car accident and goes into a coma and has no insurance, do we just let him die? My question is why does Billy not have Health Insurance? Why did that woman not get Health Insurance prior to needing it? If someone does not provide it for you that means you should go with out it or burden other hard working Americans with the task of providing it for you?
> 
> Health Care cost needs to be addressed first before we can ever hope to curtail outrageous Insurance policy standards. Putting pressure on pharmaceutical companies and placing a cap on malpractice suits is a good start. Raise the age limit for dependents so that a child can be covered on his parents insurance until the age of 25. These are the things government is supposed to protect us from, controlling these policies and governing how a free market economy can set its rates and standards for health care in this country not the other way around. But these are the "Special interest groups" that fund campaigns and help politicians get into office so that they can ensure their own capitalist agenda. Obama is not going to turn around and slap restrictions on how the same people who got him elected do business. Instead he will turn us socialist and force the needs of the many onto an already over taxed middle class further separating the income inequality gap of this country!
> 
> ...


Dude, the Government isn't providing the healthcare. No one is getting burdened, I don't have health insurance because I can't afford it working weekends and going to school full time. It's the same for a lot of people, It's simply out of reach, and that's what the bill tries to do. Put it in reach for families that otherwise can't get it.

That's part of the misinformation machine I was talking about, It's not a socialist anything. Trust me if this country were run by socialism, we'd be a bit better off than this flippity flop democracy that didn't work in Athens, and is starting to show it's 4000 year old age.

Edit:
If a doctor is getting sued for Mal-Practice, and it can be proven, Fuck that doctor. Sue him for everything you can get, and take his license to practice away.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 6, 2012)

NickDowe said:


> People love this scenario.. what if Billy gets into a car accident and goes into a coma and has no insurance, do we just let him die? My question is why does Billy not have Health Insurance? Why did that woman not get Health Insurance prior to needing it? If someone does not provide it for you that means you should go with out it or burden other hard working Americans with the task of providing it for you?



Because health insurance is prohibitively expensive. Have you gone shopping for plans recently? I have. $360+ a month for basic coverage is an awful lot for a full-time 26-year-old law student working part-time.



> Health Care cost needs to be addressed first before we can ever hope to curtail outrageous Insurance policy standards.



Okay. The problem is, health care cost is in fact partially due to insurance policies, as uninsured people going to the emergency room drives up the costs of everyone's medical care dramatically.



> Putting pressure on pharmaceutical companies and placing a cap on malpractice suits is a good start.



You realize that something like 3-5% of all cases where malpractice actually occurs are actually even filed as lawsuits, right? The percentage that are actually litigated and result in high damage amounts are even smaller. "Tort Reform" is bullshit.



> Raise the age limit for dependents so that a child can be covered on his parents insurance until the age of 25.



Already done, under "Obamacare."



> Instead he will turn us socialist and force the needs of the many onto an already over taxed middle class further separating the income inequality gap of this country!



Scare tactics. Spare me.  Also, I don't think "socialism" means what you think it means.


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 6, 2012)

The easiest way to ease the tax burden on the middle class is to raise the taxes on the upper most earners to pre-Bush tax cuts.

which is only a raise of 3-5%, right? That's not so damaging. Especially when most of the earnings are from corporate gains which are taxed at something like 15-17%.

tl;dr Bring back old Bills economic policies.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

Slick Willy likes fellatio and was thereby never fit to run a country. Quit with the crazy talk...


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

so you are saying that you dont think that this new health care bill will show up on your paycheck as a deduction like any other payroll tax? If i worked hard and got great coverage for myself and my family through a provider of my choice that best suited my needs in a free market society where insurance companies are competing to provide better rates to their customers, I should still have to pay into a healthcare system that i dont want or need? There is already enough coming out of my check every week, and i am supporting a family and struggling to make ends meet like everyone else. I agree 100% that it is priority number 1 to have health insurance for every man woman and child in this country, but not if it means piling the burdens of said insurance on an already burdened middle class.

i think there is a better way to solve the issue of health care in this country we just havent seen it yet...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

If EVERYONE is paying for healthcare doesn't that lower the overall cost to everyone? I thought that was the point ppl were trying to make. Plus federal taxes fluctuate anyway and they dont tell you every little reason. You just happen to know one and wanna flip out about it. 

Let's look at healthcare as a pie... Everyone has to have a piece but some are paying and some aren't. So what it sounds like is that those who are paying for healthcare NOW are paying for those that don't when/if they need some sort of medical assistance. The bill would be requiring that everyone pays so that the amount each individual pays is less.

Am I off base here?

Don't want or need healthcare? Well what happens when you fall and break an arm or leg? What happens when and if you need medication? What happens when and if you start a family? ... grow old...? There are plenty of reasons to need insurance. Paying for insurance doesn't guarantee that you'll need it but it [kind of] guarantees you have it when you do (we all know how dealing with insurance companies can be).


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

btw i think you all make really great arguments, and i think it is great that we can have it out like this on this forum. You are all some fart smellas... i mean smart fellas! hats off to you!


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 6, 2012)

NickDowe said:


> so you are saying that you dont think that this new health care bill will show up on your paycheck as a deduction like any other payroll tax? If i worked hard and got great coverage for myself and my family through a provider of my choice that best suited my needs in a free market society where insurance companies are competing to provide better rates to their customers, I should still have to pay into a healthcare system that i dont want or need? There is already enough coming out of my check every week, and i am supporting a family and struggling to make ends meet like everyone else. I agree 100% that it is priority number 1 to have health insurance for every man woman and child in this country, but not if it means piling the burdens of said insurance on an already burdened middle class.
> 
> i think there is a better way to solve the issue of health care in this country we just havent seen it yet...


It's not going to show up on my pay check because the government isn't charging me for health care coverage, nor is it providing coverage. It is trying to work at getting health care coverage from an insurance provider for an affordable rate. If the family makes too little, or cannot afford it they're given a tax credit in order for them to try and get it. They don't care who you chose, or how you get it, so long as you're covered. 

If you go out of your way to find your own coverage, then more power to you, and great show for having a job that allows you to get it. That's not true for a lot of families, as I've said.


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> If EVERYONE is paying for healthcare doesn't that lower the overall cost to everyone? I thought that was the point ppl were trying to make. Plus federal taxes fluctuate anyway and they dont tell you every little reason. You just happen to know one and wanna flip out about it.
> 
> Let's look at healthcare as a pie... Everyone has to have a piece but some are paying and some aren't. So what it sounds like is that those who are paying for healthcare NOW are paying for those that don't when/if they need some sort of medical assistance. The bill would be requiring that everyone pays so that the amount each individual pays is less.
> 
> Am I off base here?



I think its fine if the world was all unicorns and rainbows but the simple fact of the matter is PEOPLE=SHIT and this is just another policy created by an oversized government that can and will be abused by the lazy degenerates of this country and not for the the truly hard working americans that want insurance and want to be out there working who deserve it.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

I think you're getting that confused with welfare... And (to an extent) affirmative action... But I don't want to open either of those for discussion here...


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Don't want or need healthcare? Well what happens when you fall and break an arm or leg? What happens when and if you need medication? What happens when and if you start a family? ... grow old...? There are plenty of reasons to need insurance. Paying for insurance doesn't guarantee that you'll need it but it [kind of] guarantees you have it when you do (we all know how dealing with insurance companies can be).




you may have misread that or i mis stated , but i meant want or need a health insurance provided by a government funded agency when i am already insured under another provider of my choice. I agree everyone needs insurance... at some point.


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

isnt Obama care kinda like welfare in a way?


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 6, 2012)

I think I'll take something I learned from the Daily Show, and change it up a bit:

Wouldn't you rather look at a dog in sunglasses than be bombarded by the Santorum the news outlets are spewing?

SERIOUSLY don't google it.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

Nick - The problem with this whole conversation is that you're viewing this healthcare bill the same as you view welfare and what ppl have been trying to tell you is that they're not the same. If you're already paying for healthcare now you're not really going to see a difference. That's the whole reason I brought up welfare in the first place.


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 6, 2012)

NickDowe said:


> isnt Obama care kinda like welfare in a way?


No. It isn't.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 6, 2012)

NickDowe said:


> you may have misread that or i mis stated , but i meant want or need a health insurance provided by a government funded agency when i am already insured under another provider of my choice. I agree everyone needs insurance... at some point.



The points you're raising - so far - indicate that there's a pretty large disconnect between what the bill does in reality, and your interpretation of what it does.


----------



## Randy (Jan 6, 2012)

NickDowe said:


> isnt Obama care kinda like welfare in a way?



Meaning establishing a minimum standard for the government's responsibility for ensuring the well being of it's citizens? Well, yeah. 

The difference is welfare/disability is reserved for people who don't work at all and "Obamacare" is to fill the gap of people who actually _do_ work, but don't qualify for insurance from their employer and can't afford to purchase their own; which includes a majority of people these days.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jan 6, 2012)

The biggest problem with health care / obamacare / pelosicare / etc has little to do with partisan politics and mostly has to do with the corruption due to insurance companies...

The federal government doesnt regulate insurance companies --> McCarran

i.e. There is no federal agency that legally has jurisdiction over insurance companies (due to FTC law).

Therefore, they can get away with near carte-blanche corruption/robbery. This repealed or superceded the original laws that did regulate insurance companies: the Sherman Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and the FTC Act. Thus, they engaged in: general collusion, pooled loss info, fixed frices, colluded to threaten boycotts, shut down/bankrupted hospitals, refused to issue any malpractice insurance to groups of doctors (regardless of record) as a form of extortion/leverage.

They outright refused to pay lawful claims (e.g. wind damage in MS after Katrina). With all the money paid in to insurance they then refused to pay anything out. This is why the property insurance industry made a profit of $50 B (new record) in 2005 after Katrina, and nearly $70 B in 2006.

In 2007 Congress tried to repeal McCarran-Ferguson and failed miserably - Insurance lobbyists spent almost $50 M in political contributions to prevent it.

Obama and the democrats caved immediately when they sought health care reform. Instead of going after McCarran-Ferguson (which is just an anticompetitive law anyways) they decided to ensure private competition by creating the state run plan. There was a rider that would have repealed parts of McCaran and ensured fair play called the Leahy Ammendment attached to the Health Care Reform Bill (Obamacare) but it was stripped at the last minute. The bill was not going to pass and in order for Obama (really Rahm Emmanuel) to get any health care reform passed he struck a deal to remove insurance company antitrust reform from the bill. In exchange for support, also stripped from the bill was reimportation and bulk negotiating for Medicare purchase of drugs.

Basically, the Democrats wanted to pass something they could _*call*_ Health Care Reform, but that wouldnt piss off insurance/pharmaceutical industries and lose them campaign contributions. They also wanted to keep those same contributions away from the Republicans. (double win) 

And as to whether insurance company reform is really the issue with the American health care system... 31% (and growing) of all health care spending in US is administrative costs associated with insurance companies.

In summary --> 

[info/stats above reprinted from _Griftopia_ by Taibbi] 

PS - This isnt an anti-democrat rant, but the fact is they had a supermajority and public support and had a chance to actually create _*change*_... but like ALL politicians they chose lobbyist $$$ and future jobs over our welfare. (The rebublicans did their fair share of fucking us with Wall St / investment bank shit, but that's for another thread...)

tl;dr "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Jefferson


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

it just reads and smells a lot like a welfare style program, if that is because of a media slant then maybe i should go back and read through this bill again. I just feel that programs like these are better run at the state level rather then as a federal mandate. What might work in Michigan might not work in Texas you know what i mean? I just have a trigger finger response to large scale reform bills that effect the entire country. Maybe if on a state by state basis Obama care was tested we could see the results of it and judge for ourselves.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

Realistically what it's trying to be is almost the opposite of our current welfare system--at least in the way it functions. Welfare costs us more money. The goal of the healthcare bill was to save us money. Whether or not it actually did this...?

The funniest thing about this is that you said you already have healthcare through your employer. Why do you even care?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 6, 2012)

NickDowe said:


> it just reads and smells a lot like a welfare style program, if that is because of a media slant then maybe i should go back and read through this bill again. I just feel that programs like these are better run at the state level rather then as a federal mandate. What might work in Michigan might not work in Texas you know what i mean? I just have a trigger finger response to large scale reform bills that effect the entire country. Maybe if on a state by state basis Obama care was tested we could see the results of it and judge for ourselves.



The problem is that there has been a consistent state failure to address this, partially because the insurance corporations involved are national, interstate entities that can up and leave or do other things if states attempt to regulate them. 

That means that the federal government, which regulates interstate commerce and things on a national level, can and should step in to address the problem.


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

USMarine75 said:


> The biggest problem with health care / obamacare / pelosicare / etc has little to do with partisan politics and mostly has to do with the corruption due to insurance companies...
> 
> The federal government doesnt regulate insurance companies --> McCarran
> 
> ...




uhhh, yeah what he said!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

^ Not that I'm 100% qualified to speak for the man, but I don't think those points defended a single point you've made yet.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jan 6, 2012)

^ But I had a really long post in a forum, so I must be either



 

OR


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

dont hate me cause i hitched my wagon to a faster mule!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)




----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

BTW does Santorum really mean what they say it means or is that the work of a gay rights activist and his use of urban dictionary? either way fucking hysterical!


----------



## Randy (Jan 6, 2012)

USMarine75 said:


> ^ But I had a really long post in a forum, so I must be either
> 
> 
> 
> ...



or Explorer


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

@Nick - I dunno... Check Webster. He knows everything.


----------



## NickDowe (Jan 6, 2012)

alright good times had by all i think. always fun talking politics, especially with fellow musicians. have a good one guys, i am off to the doctor with my over priced health care.. i got the flu


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)




----------



## JamesM (Jan 6, 2012)

RON PAUL

BRINGIN' BACK THE GOLD STANDARD

LET'S ALL CALL OURSELVES AUSTRIAN, YEAH


----------



## USMarine75 (Jan 6, 2012)

NickDowe said:


> ... i am off to the doctor with my over priced health care.. i got the flu


 
Uh oh... could it be?

As Swine Flu Spreads, Conspiracy Theories of Laboratory Origins Abound


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

Where the hell did you find that? 

Laboratory origins? Am I crazy or do viruses mutate?


----------



## Randy (Jan 6, 2012)

I don't know but that guy sure looks a lot like Tosh.0


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

That article was roughly the literary equivalent of one of the videos featured on his show... So...?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 6, 2012)

NickDowe said:


> BTW does Santorum really mean what they say it means or is that the work of a gay rights activist and his use of urban dictionary? either way fucking hysterical!



Does it matter? When a term is given a certain meaning, and that meaning sticks, it now "means what they say it means" 

But yes. He offended a lot of people, and so they Google bombed him.


----------



## Varcolac (Jan 6, 2012)

Campaign for "santorum" neologism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hilarity. Or more accurately, the horror. Santorum seemed to think that adultery was illegal, and comparable to incest.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 6, 2012)

Im still disturbed he only lost by like 9 votes or sometging like that....


----------



## sell2792 (Jan 6, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> I don't vote, at all. I've never seen a presidential candidate that I thought was good enough.
> 
> About the republican candidates:
> They're all a little off kilter, especially Ron Paul.
> ...



He's been consistant in his beliefs and voting record over the last 30 years as a 12(?) term congressman who's a strict constitutionalist and upholds our rights and freedoms first and foremost, more so than any other politican that I'm aware of.
Also, if you simply think his stance on drugs is to legalize them for the sake of votes, you're sadly misinformed to the highest degree. I suggest you take atleast 5 minutes to actually read up on some unbiased information about him... If you want a president who'll say anything for a vote I suggest you look elsewhere, preferably at Romney or Obama.
Then again, seeing as you don't vote, and by the gist of your (in my opinion) uneducated posts, I don't even know why you'd want to contribute in a political thread to begin with, but to each their own...


----------



## sell2792 (Jan 6, 2012)

Ron Paul on CNN John King USA 1/6/12 - YouTube


----------



## Explorer (Jan 7, 2012)

NickDowe said:


> Its not the amount of oil we have that makes us dependent on foreign oil but the Regulations and bureaucracy surrounding the oil we have that makes us dependent. We probably could not sustain a global oil market for very long but how does the world's need for oil make us the major player in the region when we have oil under our feet?



During one of the big pushes to open up the Alaska wildlife preserve to oil drilling, I maintained that we also had to push to have all the oil be kept in the US for consumption. That led to everyone having to admit that the companies who were going to do the drilling had the right to sell it anywhere, and that China would probably be the recipient. 

For me, ruining natural resources, with no recompense to the nation, in order to allow a company to sell the fruits of that ruin where it pleases, is a non-starter. 

Anyway, it's just worth noting that oil in US holdings wouldn't be bound for the US domestic market.



Randy said:


> or Explorer



Made me laugh. Had to rep.



synrgy said:


> What pisses me off more than anything is that - for the life of me - I can't even begin to imagine what the fuck is wrong with my countrymen that they don't WANT their fellow Americans to have access to health care. Seriously? Why not?



Because the important thing is to take care of the unborn, not those who are already here. Clearly a poor child is worth less than a fetus.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 7, 2012)

sell2792 said:


> He's been consistant in his beliefs and voting record over the last 30 years as a 12(?) term congressman who's a strict constitutionalist and upholds our rights and freedoms first and foremost, more so than any other politican that I'm aware of.
> Also, if you simply think his stance on drugs is to legalize them for the sake of votes, you're sadly misinformed to the highest degree. I suggest you take atleast 5 minutes to actually read up on some unbiased information about him... If you want a president who'll say anything for a vote I suggest you look elsewhere, preferably at Romney or Obama.
> Then again, seeing as you don't vote, and by the gist of your (in my opinion) uneducated posts, I don't even know why you'd want to contribute in a political thread to begin with, but to each their own...



As I've probably typed almost half a dozen times in the past week, consistency is not admirable if it is insanity. And frankly, a lot of his ideas are flat-out insane. The anti-Fed rhetoric; the gold standard hogwash; his hatred of the Civil Rights Act; his discomfort around minorities, gays, and Jews; his desire to disassemble actual functioning portions of our government (administrative agencies) that would leave more responsibility in the paralyzed portions... the list goes on.

10 Outrageous Ron Paul Quotes - The Daily Beast


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 7, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> As I've probably typed almost half a dozen times in the past week, consistency is not admirable if it is insanity. And frankly, a lot of his ideas are flat-out insane. The anti-Fed rhetoric; the gold standard hogwash; his hatred of the Civil Rights Act; his discomfort around minorities, gays, and Jews; his desire to disassemble actual functioning portions of our government (administrative agencies) that would leave more responsibility in the paralyzed portions... the list goes on.
> 
> 10 Outrageous Ron Paul Quotes - The Daily Beast



Yeah exactly, he has some great ideas but there's so much hilarious bullshit in there too. The whole hard on for the gold standard and hate for fractional reserve banking is hilarious too.


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 7, 2012)

sell2792 said:


> He's been consistant in his beliefs and voting record over the last 30 years as a 12(?) term congressman who's a strict constitutionalist and upholds our rights and freedoms first and foremost, more so than any other politican that I'm aware of.
> Also, if you simply think his stance on drugs is to legalize them for the sake of votes, you're sadly misinformed to the highest degree. I suggest you take atleast 5 minutes to actually read up on some unbiased information about him... If you want a president who'll say anything for a vote I suggest you look elsewhere, preferably at Romney or Obama.
> Then again, seeing as you don't vote, and by the gist of your (in my opinion) uneducated posts, I don't even know why you'd want to contribute in a political thread to begin with, but to each their own...


Seeing as you're a Paulbot, and by the gist of your Raging Ron hardon, I'm going to ignore everything you said here, and say that It's my constitutional right to contribute whatever I want to any debate, argument, or forum thread.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 7, 2012)

I think we all like some of what Paul has to say.
If he were elected (which he certainly won't be) his ideas/goals would just be chewed up and spit out by the gears of war that have been long since set in motion by our species' global expansion directive.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Jan 7, 2012)

Cunt said:


> &#8220;Abortion in any form is wrong,&#8221; said Santorum in 2000, three years after the tragedy. &#8220;Except for my wife. If your wife&#8217;s life was at stake and the only thing that could save her was an abortion, well, too bad. Your wife will have to die. It was different with my wife. You see, I love her. I don&#8217;t even know your wife&#8217;s name.&#8221;



What a fucking cunt.

EDIT:



Cunt said:


> On President Obama&#8217;s pro-choice stance: &#8220;I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say &#8216;now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.&#8217;&#8221;



OK, I want him taken outside and shot. Now.


----------



## Prydogga (Jan 7, 2012)

^ That Obama statement was the exact quote I stopped reading at, that's where I just couldn't bear to read any more bullshit.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 7, 2012)

BucketheadRules said:


> What a fucking cunt.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> ...



That first quote was not an actual quote of Santorum's. It was attributed to him by a blogger based on Santorum's actions, not his actual words.

The sentiment was there, but not the actual quote. He's still an utterly disgusting person, and as a two-term senator from Pennsylvania who lost reelection by a full 17%, he's not going anywhere politically.

I do think it's necessary to set the record straight on that first quote though. The second one, however, is all Ricky


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 9, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> The second one, however, is all Ricky


 
Wow...


----------



## USMarine75 (Jan 9, 2012)

The Rick Santorum that America doesn't know | Philly | 01/04/2012

"The real Rick Santorum is indeed a frothy mixture -- of self-interest, loose ethical standards, and careerism in a career that's been largely devoted not so much to the social causes about which he makes headlines as looking out for the interests of big corporations and the wealthiest 1 Percent of Americans. It's a shame that more voters don't know that yet. That is the 'Google problem' that Santorum actually deserves."


----------



## 7STRINGWARRIOR (Jan 13, 2012)

Someone mentioned gold, in a real world Gold would be trading somewhere in the ballpark of $75,000 an ounce. The federal reserve HAS HAD NO GOLD SINCE 1934, they have made this clear. We paper trade insane amounts of gold that will never be in existence, to top it off, you have large banks Goldman, JP Morgan, shorting the markets daily. The shorts are massive, greatly exceeding Comex regulations.


----------



## Animus (Jan 14, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> Not to mention him wanting to remove the Citizen ship through birth on US soil.
> 
> That's part of what the country was founded on, coming to the US and trying to live the American Dream, and you wouldn't have to worry about your children, because if they were born here, they'd be Citizens of the US.
> 
> ...




The US is one of a minority of countries on earth with birthright citizenship still. Do you think if my wife was pregnant and she gave birth while over in France (much less there illegally), that France would grant the child and ultimately the family citizenship?


----------



## Animus (Jan 14, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> The easiest way to ease the tax burden on the middle class is to raise the taxes on the upper most earners to pre-Bush tax cuts.
> 
> which is only a raise of 3-5%, right? That's not so damaging. Especially when most of the earnings are from corporate gains which are taxed at something like 15-17%.
> 
> tl;dr Bring back old Bills economic policies.



That would be old Newt's economic policies. And did you know it was Old Bill who signed in the repeal of the Glass-Seagall Act? You know where that took us.


----------

