TCF's Vote on the Republican Nomination

Lord Pheonix wrote:

Maeve wrote:

Lord Pheonix wrote:

Maeve wrote:

KrAzY wrote:teaching abstinance will not stop people from having sex. trying to stop people from having sex is stupid and futile, considering that the desire to have sex is as engrained into people as the desire to eat

I will agree with you on that.

So you agree its stupid to try to stop people from having sex so you think we should instead still tell them to stop having sex AND take away the things stopping them from having unwanted pregnancy and STD's?

No, I agree that people will have sex regardless what they are told.

So we should keep telling them and take away their condoms and birth control?

I see your point.

The effects of Bush's term on Sex ed can be seen on MTV's "Teen Mom" and "16 and Pregnant"

I can't say I watch those. I never cared for that crap anyway.

Its not wise to support someone over an issue that you have not taken the time to properly research or at least have an adequate sight of what the causes and effects of said issue are.

Half of today's politicians get away with their stances (idiotic or otherwise) on certain issues because people just listen to whatever they say and never double check which is frustrating beyond all hell when you think about it in the long term.

dragoon9105 wrote:Its not wise to support someone over an issue that you have not taken the time to properly research or at least have an adequate sight of what the causes and effects of said issue are.

Half of today's politicians get away with their stances (idiotic or otherwise) on certain issues because people just listen to whatever they say and never double check which is frustrating beyond all hell when you think about it in the long term.

I can agree with you. However, before I even knew who this guy was, I looked up his policies and what he believed in. I've also watched a few videos of him speaking to college students to debating and I'm impressed with him.

A choice in Voter isn't supposed to Rely on Charisma or speaking skill. If that were true we would have Elected Satan years ago. It should come from personal research and human reasoning that is what the system was built around after all. Even if the policies seem great at first in the long term is what matters. Human Logic and reasoning is what must be consulted. The moment when you run it over in your head for a minute and think about it.
That's what the system is built for. Not Flashy Propaganda, political attack ads, Mudslinging and Party Politics.

For Example: Everyone thought banning Alcohol was a great idea at the time, and then we had a massive organized crime problem rise from it. A problem we are still trying to fix 80 years later.

dragoon9105 wrote:Its not wise to support someone over an issue that you have not taken the time to properly research or at least have an adequate sight of what the causes and effects of said issue are.

Half of today's politicians get away with their stances (idiotic or otherwise) on certain issues because people just listen to whatever they say and never double check which is frustrating beyond all hell when you think about it in the long term.

Which is why I think most modern day Politicians suck.

EDIT: I ask for sources a lot. It's not that I doubt you; it's just that a lot of things are taken out of context in political campaigns.

Elabajaba wrote:He wants to ban contraception.

I see where he's coming from. Like Maeve, I would like to see people demonstrate more self control and simply abstain. From a religious standpoint, I don't see sex as just an activity like a lot of people seem to and I have my own opinions on when it is appropriate. The general consensus of society seems to more-or-less agree with me, even if most people on an individual basis do not.

However, I realize that banning contraception wont alter society's view on sex and it should be obvious to everyone that he'd never actually be able to pass that as legislation. I highly doubt that if he made office, he'd even try to pass such a law. The idea seems to me more like a demonstration of his ideals rather than a campaign promise. A source would be nice, too.

Elabajaba wrote:He wants to start a war with Iran.

He might not need to start anything with the way things are going right now. I don't think we should be actively trying to start wars, but I see nothing wrong with knocking out someone who is literally asking for it. Again, could you give me a source for this?

Besides, Ron Paul's Monroe Doctrine-esque policy just seems silly to me. With the world as globalized as it now is, we cannot let countries do whatever they want as we did in the past. In fact, that's probably the main reason why I'm not rooting for him. I suppose I haven't looked much into Romney or Gingrich's policies yet but something tells me it's going to involve a whole lot of keeping things how they are.

Elabajaba wrote:He denies that climate change is real, stating that "We (the government) shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone..."

Can you provide the source of that statement? It doesn't mean much to me without context. Also, does he deny that climate change is real or that it is caused by humanity? The climate is obviously changing - the questions are whether humans are affecting that change, how imminent the 'threat' is, and what we should (or shouldn't) do about it.

Also, Maeve is right about China. The United State's carbon footprint is nothing compared to China's. The problem is that nobody has the balls to smack China across the face because they provide the world with cheap labor and own a significant portion of our debt - the severity of this is debatable, but everyone seems to be in agreement that we need to do something about it sooner than later. As an added problem, the US and Europe are still suffering economically and any action against China would only make things worse. I guess I've gone a bit off topic, though. Back to climate change!

And now this is turning into a debate. Should have just put it in the debate thread to start off with, Civ.

Yah, but then only a handful of people ever answer the question. It goes straight to debate and the poll may as well not exist. At least this way people can could chime in on who they liked without feeling like they have to write an essay.

CivBase wrote:Yah, but then only a handful of people ever answer the question. It goes straight to debate and the poll may as well not exist. At least this way people can could chime in on who they liked without feeling like they have to write an essay.

Its the internet, that's to be expected with any hot topic to turn into a debate.

CivBase wrote:

Elabajaba wrote:He wants to ban contraception.

I see where he's coming from. Like Maeve, I would like to see people demonstrate more self control and simply abstain. From a religious standpoint, I don't see sex as just an activity like a lot of people seem to and I have my own opinions on when it is appropriate. The general consensus of society seems to more-or-less agree with me, even if most people on an individual basis do not.

However, I realize that banning contraception wont alter society's view on sex and it should be obvious to everyone that he'd never actually be able to pass that as legislation. I highly doubt that if he made office, he'd even try to pass such a law. The idea seems to me more like a demonstration of his ideals rather than a campaign promise. A source would be nice, too.

source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/24/gop-2012-candidates/

CivBase wrote:

Elabajaba wrote:He wants to start a war with Iran.

He might not need to start anything with the way things are going right now. I don't think we should be actively trying to start wars, but I see nothing wrong with knocking out someone who is literally asking for it. Again, could you give me a source for this?

Besides, Ron Paul's Monroe Doctrine-esque policy just seems silly to me. With the world as globalized as it now is, we cannot let countries do whatever they want as we did in the past. In fact, that's probably the main reason why I'm not rooting for him. I suppose I haven't looked much into Romney or Gingrich's policies yet but something tells me it's going to involve a whole lot of keeping things how they are.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/gops-santorum-says-he-would-bomb-irans-nuclear-facilities-unless-inspectors-were-allowed-in/2012/01/01/gIQAx12GUP_story.html

CivBase wrote:

Elabajaba wrote:He denies that climate change is real, stating that "We (the government) shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone..."

Can you provide the source of that statement? It doesn't mean much to me without context. Also, does he deny that climate change is real or that it is caused by humanity? The climate is obviously changing - the questions are whether humans are affecting that change, how imminent the 'threat' is, and what we should (or shouldn't) do about it.

Also, Maeve is right about China. The United State's carbon footprint is nothing compared to China's. The problem is that nobody has the balls to smack China across the face because they provide the world with cheap labor and own a significant portion of our debt - the severity of this is debatable, but everyone seems to be in agreement that we need to do something about it sooner than later. As an added problem, the US and Europe are still suffering economically and any action against China would only make things worse. I guess I've gone a bit off topic, though. Back to climate change!

I put the wrong quote in there, but the quote I meant to put in there is in this interview. Its basically stating that he doesn't believe humans are the cause of global warming, and that "It's just an excuse for more government control of your life...". What I wanted to show with the quote I originally posted was that he was hypocritical in that he states that the government should have more control over people's lives, yet also states that climate science is an excuse for the government to have more control over people's lives.
Source for the quote I originally posted:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4784905
(It's from his book, but it is stated there)
Second quote source:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/06/08/the_rick_santorum_interview

Not being hypocritical if he's just ADMITTING that global warming is a way for the government to take control of peoples lives and he just doesn't like that method?


But he's still all for government control, just doesn't want to lie about it.

anybody that for government control is against america

KristallNacht wrote:anybody that for government control is against america

this times a thousand

Which is the reason I like Ron Paul. Every view of his I've seen stems from the idea that people should be able to make their own lives, and do their own thing, as long as it doesn't damage somebody else.

key words being 'I've seen'

The Government already controls people's lives, Legislation has been passed by the governments throughout the entire history of the world (Including the United States) that serves no purpose in protecting Natural Rights or freedoms. We do it subconsciously as we naturally are drawn to organization and order.

Take a group of twenty people, drop them on an earth like planet and come back several decades or so later, Chances are they would have established an organized government of some sort depending on how optimistic you are feeling when you run this concept over but they would have laws, Bans and some sort of barter system in place regardless. Absolute freedom just doesn't happen.

Looks like Stephen Colbert may be running again(kinda)

Elabajaba wrote:source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/24/gop-2012-candidates/

I kinda figured it would be something like that. The articular said he was speaking out against the dangers of contraception, not trying to outlaw it. He's right to. Even from a non-religious perspective, the ability to have sex with contraception (thus negating pregnancy) only encourages more sex and accidents happen. One in ten pregnancies is a teen pregnancy.

Elabajaba wrote:Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/gops-santorum-says-he-would-bomb-irans-nuclear-facilities-unless-inspectors-were-allowed-in/2012/01/01/gIQAx12GUP_story.html

Gratsie. I can't say I'm necessarily in disagreement with him. It's a direct solution that has potential to cause a lot of political fallback, but at least it's a solution. I haven't seen anything of the like from other candidates.

Elabajaba wrote:I put the wrong quote in there, but the quote I meant to put in there is in this interview. Its basically stating that he doesn't believe humans are the cause of global warming, and that "It's just an excuse for more government control of your life...". What I wanted to show with the quote I originally posted was that he was hypocritical in that he states that the government should have more control over people's lives, yet also states that climate science is an excuse for the government to have more control over people's lives.
Source for the quote I originally posted:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4784905
(It's from his book, but it is stated there)
Second quote source:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/06/08/the_rick_santorum_interview

It's exactly like what dragoon said a couple posts earlier. The government is ALWAYS in control of something; the question is what. Liberals tend to favor government control in the economy, conservatives tend to favor government control in morality, and libertarians tend to favor a more laze fair practice. Obviously the government has a hand in both issues to some extent, though.

CivBase wrote:One in ten pregnancies is a teen pregnancy.

but do you realize that currently the number of teen pregnancies each year is the lowest it has been in the 60 years they've been tracking that statistic? and contraceptives are at a far greater availability.

Teens are going to be having sex no matter what. They've been doing it all of recorded history.

dragoon9105 wrote:The Government already controls people's lives, Legislation has been passed by the governments throughout the entire history of the world (Including the United States) that serves no purpose in protecting Natural Rights or freedoms. We do it subconsciously as we naturally are drawn to organization and order.

Take a group of twenty people, drop them on an earth like planet and come back several decades or so later, Chances are they would have established an organized government of some sort depending on how optimistic you are feeling when you run this concept over but they would have laws, Bans and some sort of barter system in place regardless. Absolute freedom just doesn't happen.

Doesn't make it right.

"Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other “sins” are invented nonsense."

Any laws that restrict people without protecting anybody are unnecessary and shouldn't exist.

Changing the laws of a country so you can force people to live the life style you personally believe in is shit.

KristallNacht wrote:Any laws that restrict people without protecting anybody are unnecessary and shouldn't exist.

For the first time in 6 years im agreeing with NT for most of the whole thread.



Im scared.

As am I...

but yeah, basically what NT just said is like my whole philosophy.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:One in ten pregnancies is a teen pregnancy.

but do you realize that currently the number of teen pregnancies each year is the lowest it has been in the 60 years they've been tracking that statistic? and contraceptives are at a far greater availability.

Teens are going to be having sex no matter what. They've been doing it all of recorded history.

Correlation is not the same as causation. Higher education has also gained significant importance in the last 60 years. That added expense and dedication would also have a large effect on teen pregnancy rates. There are probably more underlying variables that also effect it.

Even if your idea is true, we've never really tried it the other way. Sex ed in public schools has almost always been about contraception. And like I've already said, it doesn't seem like Santorum is out to ban contraception - he was trying to demonstrate his values.

KristallNacht wrote:"Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other “sins” are invented nonsense."

Any laws that restrict people without protecting anybody are unnecessary and shouldn't exist.

Unfortunately for you, many people disagree with that sentiment - particularly religious people. Believe it or not, atheists are a very small minority.

Whats surprising though is how many still religious people have been able to determine that law shouldn't be influenced by what is a sin or isn't. Just like law should never require someone to be a good person.

The rest need to realize that subtleties in morality being turned to law will always screw people over.

and on to a second Lazarus Long quote.

"Does history record any case in which the majority was right?"