Santorum - Droopy in a Sweater Vest?

[Guest]

I used to have issues with men's sweater vests but they have been growing on me in recent days. I was at the Lands End store the other day and I found myself standing in front of a blue cashmere with little anchors. I thought, yeah, I could wear that. It also helped to see this worn by a man in Breakfast at Tiffany's.

The biggest pull for me is to achieve a look that positions me well in a debate with Mr. Stak. If I had a sweater vest on during our upcoming debate, I might stand a chance.

Honor, I'm sure you appreciate my contribution to your thread. :)

[_EAllusion]

I wear sweater vests all the time. Santorum better not mess this up for me.

[_honorentheos]

<--should have been "Honorentheos". Anyway.

The challenge posed by my statement is that when our government functions well, it is the proxy of empowerment of the people. Rather than centralizing, it is representing.

Since the will of the people is fractured and diverse, it necessarily can't represent everyone's views. "The people" aren't some hive mind. So instead of having smaller, more local competing bodies decide for narrower realms of interest it creates a central authority through which all decisions flow. This, for good or ill, is what centralization is. If all local school board authority over school curriculum was all of a sudden vested in the federal government, that would centralize the process. And it wouldn't be just as rrepresentative because the government is a representative democracy. It would mean all those specific local interests would lose their power up the chain.

There are times where this might be necessary. National defense / immigration policy comes to mind, but I'm hardpressed to see an argument for it not really being centralization.

Well, I appreciate the real demonstration of the dangers of "centralization" such as when a person empowered accidently does damage to another person's post through no malcious intent.

But...

My original question was about corporate empowerment and government regulation. What you describe above is very much why I think Santorum's statement is a red herring.

When a company shifts from an employer-employee relationship to an investor/shareholder-company relationship we see the same dilution of interest from that of the many to the few. And when those at the top stop caring about whether or not the drinking water can be lit on fire because of natural gas fracking, or condenses cancer rates among local residents to cost-benefit analysis charts I don't think Rick Santorum's points matter.

by the way - just for conversation's sake, the period in my post above wasn't my edit but the result of the accident I mentioned at the start of this post.

[_honorentheos]

I used to have issues with men's sweater vests but they have been growing on me in recent days. I was at the Lands End store the other day and I found myself standing in front of a blue cashmere with little anchors. I thought, yeah, I could wear that. It also helped to see this worn by a man in Breakfast at Tiffany's.

The biggest pull for me is to achieve a look that positions me well in a debate with Mr. Stak. If I had a sweater vest on during our upcoming debate, I might stand a chance.

Honor, I'm sure you appreciate my contribution to your thread. :)

Sweater vests are an interesting piece of clothing. It says, "I would have put sleeves on this thing if I could, but really the factory workers in the sweat shop I use had to meet quota. So what are you gonna do?"









I kid. But just trying to turn the topic back somehow.

[_honorentheos]

I recommend this. It's a great listen, and informative.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/454/mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory

[_huckelberry]

... I happen to greatly appreciate the conservative tradition in our country just as I appreciate the progressive movement. The conversation between the two is a necessity for our democracy to function and prosper ...

I was reading a post with this statement and thinking it was good to hear such words. They seem too long absent. then the post disappears???

[_honorentheos]

It's a conspiracy, I tell you! Chaps was right! ;)

[_Doctor Scratch]

I recommend this. It's a great listen, and informative.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/454/mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory

I listened to this when it aired a few weeks back. I'm confused how this relates to the topic of your thread, though, honor.

[_Brackite]

Rick Santorum’s Troubling Views on Science:

1. Santorum is an anti-evolution, “intelligent design” supporter who has written that ID “is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.” It isn’t, and it shouldn’t.

2. Santorum is an opponent of embryonic stem cell research, and in his opposition, he cites other scientific avenues like adult stem cell research as an adequate substitute–despite the fact that scientists say we need to try all approaches, rather than limiting inquiry. Or as the International Society for Stem Cell Research puts it: “Research on human embryonic stem cells, somatic cell nuclear transfer, induced pluripotent state cells (iPS cells) and ‘adult’ or tissue-specific stem cells needs to continue in parallel. All are part of a research effort that seeks to expand our knowledge of how cells function, what fails in the disease process, and how the first stages of human development occur. It is this combined knowledge that will ultimately generate safe and effective therapies.”

3. Santorum is a global warming skeptic. Witness this 2008 column in the Philadelphia Inquirer, claiming that “global temperatures have actually cooled over the last 10 years and are predicted to continue cooling over the next 10.” No they aren’t.

Link: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inter ... n-science/



Rick Santorum on Governor Jon Huntsman believing in Evolution:

If Gov. Huntsman wants to believe that he is the descendant of a monkey, then he has the right to believe that — but I disagree with him on this and the many other liberal beliefs he shares with Democrats.

Link: http://www.npr.org/2011/09/07/140071973 ... c=Facebook&cc=fp



I will Not vote for someone for President who does not believe in evolution, and who is an opponent of embryonic stem cell research. Senator John McCain believes in evolution and he is a supporter of embryonic stem cell research. I voted for Senator John McCain for President back in 2008. If Rick Santorum gets the GOP Nominee for President, I will vote for President Barack Obama over him. There is absolutely No way that I would ever vote for Rick Santorum for President.

[Guest]

Recent remarks by Rick Santorum compared Obama's values to a theology different than those found in the Bible.

Here's an entire compendium of Obama's theology. Tell me what aspects of this are biblical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM6-K1Mi ... re=related

Here is a quote he gave to explain the underlying ideas of his early comment -

"You can call it a theology, you can call it a moral code, you can call it a world view,” he said. “They want to impose [that] on everybody else while they insist and complain that somehow or another people of Judeo Christian faith are intolerant of their new moral code.”

This is actually nothing more than a consistent regurgitation of the anti-Judeo/Christian animus and distaste for clear distinctions between both wright and wrong and the state and the individual the Left has been using for 40 years in this country.

The question this raises, to me anyway, is what this moral code might actually be that Santorum is so opposed to? And more to the point, is he defining Christianity in a very narrow manner?

Part of what he's doubtless opposed to is Obama's conflation of charity with state confiscation and redistribution of wealth and the collapsing of the distinction between the individual and the state in their respective spheres. His present Kulturkampf against Christianity and the Constitution vis-a-vis his Planned Parenthood orchestrated assault on the religious protections of the 1st Amendment may also be in play.

"I accept the fact that the president’s a Christian," he said. "I just said that when you have a worldview that elevates the Earth above man, and says that, you know, we can't take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth by things that frankly are just not scientifically proven, like for example that politicization of the whole global warming debate, this is just all an attempt to centralize power, to give more power to the government."

Interesting.

As of the present, the Democratic party's de facto official religion is what most properly can be called secular humanism, its holy sacrament is convenience abortion on demand, and its plan of salvation is "sustainable development" and the "low carbon economy" grounded in its secular version of the Christian eschaton, anthropogenic global warming.

Where it leads me, as a non-Christian independent, is even further away from Santorum's political views. I would love, LOVE, to hear a conservative supporter of this type of thinking explain to me how empowering corporations and removing government oversight is less of a "centralizing of power" than the boogeyman Santorum portrays in his statement above to scare freedom-loving voters into the nets.

How is leaving human beings alone to pursue wealth creation and personal success without a boot on their neck centralizing government power? How is reducing tax rates and unshackling individuals to save, invest, and prosper the centralization of government power? What do you mean by "empowering corporations?" As corporations have no particular power over me, unlike the state, what is "empowering" them to mean? Do you mean empowering corporations like GM to help bury the economy of the united states by using taxpayer dollars to prop up the unsustainable and wages, benefits, and pensions of their rapacious unions? Do you mean the wasting of hundreds of billions of dollars on "green" energy schemes that have no economic viability but which empower corporate rent seekers?

Or do you just mean cutting corporate, dividend, and capital gains taxes and letting corporations produce, invest, and create jobs and wealth?