The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
This is going to be good."I would argue that Santorum didn't exactly mean what you said they said he said and you (/the angry left / angry secularists / hyperventilating bloggers) are projecting excess malice where there is none."
By repeating it and saying "the quote is accurate," you take some ownership of it in my opinion.
There is enough legitimate stuff to criticize and compliment the candidates for.
Reply
0
0
I'm lumping you in with that crowd on this topic (and increasingly in the hyperventilating crowd in general). More specifically, you seem to be tilting from devil's advocate to troll. Said another way, you seem to be looking to start an argument rather than a discussion. e.g. :
Sorry, allow me to restate that:
"I would argue that Santorum didn't exactly mean what you said they said he said and you (/the angry left / angry secularists / hyperventilating bloggers) are projecting excess malice where there is none."
By repeating it and saying "the quote is accurate," you take some ownership of it in my opinion.
There is enough legitimate stuff to criticize and compliment the candidates for.
Sorry, allow me to restate that:
"I would argue that Santorum didn't exactly mean what you said they said he said and you (/the angry left / angry secularists / hyperventilating bloggers) are projecting excess malice where there is none."
By repeating it and saying "the quote is accurate," you take some ownership of it in my opinion.
There is enough legitimate stuff to criticize and compliment the candidates for.
This is not trolling. Here's a right wing article on him saying that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...ieR_story.html
Or are you telling me that the ------- WaPo is now in the leftist camp? 'Cause I've got more righty articles on it. You are the only source and/or person who has tried to argue that he said otherwise that I've met or read, anywhere. Yer argument about it being left-wing alarmism does not hold water if the right wing is also saying it.
(Ninjar edit)
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Last edited by blaen99; Feb 28, 2012 at 01:55 PM.
Reply
0
0
What every editorial or article has said was some form of he was sickened by President Kennedy's speech. Santorum specifically said the idea of only the nonreligious having access to the "public square" made him want to throw up.
What he is saying is nonsense but it is different than what you said he said.
2. I did not say anything about left-wing alarmism. I said you need to lay off the angry left websites and hyperventilating blogs. That seems to be where you are going in order to source material to bring back here for the express purpose of generating arguments rather than discussions.
Reply
0
0
1. You wrote (without attributing it to anyone, so I assume your thought), "Santorum is sickened that Kennedy said he would not impose his Catholic faith on Baptists."
What every editorial or article has said was some form of he was sickened by President Kennedy's speech. Santorum specifically said the idea of only the nonreligious having access to the "public square" made him want to throw up.
What he is saying is nonsense but it is different than what you said he said.
What every editorial or article has said was some form of he was sickened by President Kennedy's speech. Santorum specifically said the idea of only the nonreligious having access to the "public square" made him want to throw up.
What he is saying is nonsense but it is different than what you said he said.
2. I did not say anything about left-wing alarmism. I said you need to lay off the angry left websites and hyperventilating blogs. That seems to be where you are going in order to source material to bring back here for the express purpose of generating arguments rather than discussions.
My links go all over the spectrum, Scrappy. If someone posts a ridiculous article quoting a political talking point, then yes, I'm going to post an equally ridiculous article from across the spectrum to demonstrate just how ridiculous the article is. I will admit that I laughed my *** off when people tried to call me on the leftist nutjobs when the OP's source came from rightist nutjobs though.
Or, perhaps, you are referring...to the article that Gearhead posted? I'm going through my posting history in politics right now, and scratching my head. ----, I've posted stuff from Heritage before looking at it.
P.S. Yes, yes you did say something about left-wing alarmism. Or, should I say the left wing hyperventilating crowd. It's the same damn thing Scrappy, and you know it.
Last edited by blaen99; Feb 28, 2012 at 03:42 PM.
Reply
0
0
Are you admitting that Krugman can have a point Brainy? 'Cause I remember an article I posted where because it was Krugman, no matter what the data or facts said, you said quite clearly that it was Krugman, hence it was false. This logic cuts both ways bro. You don't get to play that card only when it benefits you, and then try to say it's not valid when it doesn't benefit you.
Oh wait, if you are a conservative, if you repeat something enough, it becomes truth. Can we stop with the partisan tripe when we both know better than that about the other guy already Brainy?
oh wait, if you're a liberal they are. I keep forgetting that part of the playbook.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
krugman is a keynesian; he's worse than a democrat. I understand exactly why people are democrats, mainly they are stupid, but i totally undertstand why they would be. But an economist subscribing in keynes is like you believing in god.
trorllrorlrolorltorltraotlralosafddlsllllltrollllo lololololololoaslfodsalfosalfosadlofda ls fg safdsavcxz
krugman is a keynesian; he's worse than a democrat. I understand exactly why people are democrats, mainly they are stupid, but i totally undertstand why they would be. But an economist subscribing in keynes is like you believing in god.
trorllrorlrolorltorltraotlralosafddlsllllltrollllo lololololololoaslfodsalfosalfosadlofda ls fg safdsavcxz
Reply
1
1
However, I still have yet to see anywhere in which Santorum says he is sickened by the idea that Kennedy would not "impose his Catholic faith on" anyone. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just saying I haven't seen it and -
- and realizing I really don't care enough to continue to devote time to this particular conversation about Santorum and people just making ---- up or repeating ---- someone else made up.
Reply
0
0
You are correct; I misread that.
However, I still have yet to see anywhere in which Santorum says he is sickened by the idea that Kennedy would not "impose his Catholic faith on" anyone. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just saying I haven't seen it and -
- and realizing I really don't care enough to continue to devote time to this particular conversation about Santorum and people just making ---- up or repeating ---- someone else made up.
However, I still have yet to see anywhere in which Santorum says he is sickened by the idea that Kennedy would not "impose his Catholic faith on" anyone. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just saying I haven't seen it and -
- and realizing I really don't care enough to continue to devote time to this particular conversation about Santorum and people just making ---- up or repeating ---- someone else made up.
However, if you read the WaPo article at all, you'd know he said WITH RESPECT to Kennedy's speech...
But that’s not all. On the Sunday shows he even lit into John F. Kennedy’s famous 1960 speech to Protestant ministers in Houston, in which he called for the strict separation of church and state. Santorum said the speech sickened him.
“What kind of country do we live in that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” Santorum asked George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.” “That makes me throw up.”
“What kind of country do we live in that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” Santorum asked George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.” “That makes me throw up.”
(Edit) Or are you trying to argue against the use of similes, Scrappy? Similar to "But I DIDNT SAY LEFT WING ALARMISTS", when you said left wing hyperventilators?
Reply
0
0
*le sigh*
He said the speech made him want to throw up, specifying that he interpreted the speech as somehow asserting that only the nonreligious should be in the "public square."
Santorum did not say that he was sickened by Kennedy's refusal to impose his Catholic religious views on Baptist ministers - at least not that I can see anywhere.
Santorum did not say that he was sickened by Kennedy's refusal to impose his Catholic religious views on Baptist ministers - at least not that I can see anywhere.
Reply
1
1
Scrappy, you DO understand Kennedy's speech was entirely about not imposing his faith on Baptists, right? Kennedy's speech was completely about imposing beliefs in the context of Santorum's quote.
I've already said that Santorum may not have meant it that way, but he did something he shouldn't have done and that was extremely boneheaded.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=16920600
Read Kennedy's speech. I'm not disputing that Santorum may not have meant what he said (Although what I *think* he meant to say is actually substantially worse....Much, much, much worse actually. Santorum represents the peak of religious nutjobbery that we need to GTFO of our government ASAP.), but what he said is fairly straightforward.
However, and in all seriousness, at this point I think your argument on Santorum has reached the level of the "But I didn't say leftist alarmists! I SAID LEFTIST HYPERVENTILATORS!!!!". Read JFK's speech, and you'll understand why.
I've already said that Santorum may not have meant it that way, but he did something he shouldn't have done and that was extremely boneheaded.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=16920600
Read Kennedy's speech. I'm not disputing that Santorum may not have meant what he said (Although what I *think* he meant to say is actually substantially worse....Much, much, much worse actually. Santorum represents the peak of religious nutjobbery that we need to GTFO of our government ASAP.), but what he said is fairly straightforward.
However, and in all seriousness, at this point I think your argument on Santorum has reached the level of the "But I didn't say leftist alarmists! I SAID LEFTIST HYPERVENTILATORS!!!!". Read JFK's speech, and you'll understand why.
Reply
0
0
Hell, just for you Scrappy.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/santorum-...many-colleges/
According to Santorum, higher education is a liberal indoctrination process.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/santorum-...many-colleges/
According to Santorum, higher education is a liberal indoctrination process.
Reply
0
0
/Buzz Killington
Reply
0
0
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,221
Total Cats: 296
From: Round Pond, ME
Reply
0
0
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Its funny that you bring up the higher-education indoctrination issue. My GF is at Rice in a PhD program and running as fast as she can to another college within the university because it is somewhat impossible to pass any course in the department as a capitalist.
Her previous university was more welcoming of differing opinions.
Her previous university was more welcoming of differing opinions.
Reply
0
0
